This may be a bit of a pointless film-grammar question, but hear me out.
For a long time, the rule in most films was that if one scene happened at a later time than the previous one, the passage of time needed to be indicated by a dissolve. Particularly long time gaps (like the passage of a day) would be indicated by fade-outs. Cutting directly from one scene to another was only used as a gimmick, like the smash cut from "Merry Christmas" to "And a happy new year" in Citizen Kane, or the direct cuts to various nightclubs in The Girl Can't Help It as Tom Ewell takes Jayne Mansfield around the city.
In the '50s, some directors started cutting out the dissolves, feeling that it slowed down the pace (and also produced some ugly-looking color combinations with the newer, cheaper color processes of the era). Robert Wise did it in the movie Odds Against Tomorrow. And straight cuts between scenes had long been familiar in other countries, like Japan; look at Tokyo Story. But the people who really popularized direct cuts were the French New Wave directors, many of whom simply used that type of cut because they didn't have any money to pay the lab costs for process shots. But directors soon realized that audiences didn't need a dissolve to tell them that time had elapsed, and that direct cuts speeded up the storytelling while also being cheaper to do.
For an example of the change, look at The Birds and Marnie, by the same director and editor, made within a year of each other. The Birds uses a few straight cuts for dramatic effect, like the direct cut to Melanie driving to Bodega Bay with the birds in her car. But it mostly uses dissolves to denote the passage of time. Marnie looks the same in almost every way, but it uses straight cuts for all the short time gaps (with fade-outs for longer gaps).
Directors all around the world embraced the straight cut; television drama did as well. By 1968, the same year studios stopped making black-and-white movies, straight cuts became the editing tool of choice; the dissolve was now a special effect, just as the straight cut had once been.
However, there were some movies that continued to use the old-fashioned dissolve technique, and I'm not talking about something like Star Wars, which used wipes as a deliberate nostalgic nod to old serials. The Wild Bunch uses dissolves throughout, one of several strangely old-school techniques Peckinpah uses in the film. (He also used dissolves in his next movie with producer Phil Feldman, The Ballad of Cable Hogue.) And some directors and producers just seemed to prefer the dissolve over the direct cut. It seemed particularly pronounced in Westerns, maybe because they were thought to be aimed at an older audience (though that wouldn't explain The Wild Bunch.). Howard Hawks's last and worst Western, Rio Lobo uses dissolves; I doubt if he ever used a straight cut in his life.
Another movie that dissolves between scenes is The Man Who Would Be King; I haven't seen enough of Huston's '70s work to know if this was something he decided on specifically for this project (which was supposed to have kind of an old-fashioned feel to it, particularly since he had been trying to make it since the '40s) or if it was something he did often. Since Huston reportedly wasn't always around during post-production on Man Who Would Be King, it might have been someone else's decision, but then again it might have been his; I don't know. (Similarly, the fact that The Wild Bunch and Cable Hogue use dissolves might have been Phil Feldman's preference, rather than Peckinpah's; he didn't use dissolves in Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid, which Feldman didn't produce.)
Anyway, if you've gotten this far, my question is this: what are some other movies made after 1968 that use dissolves between scenes, not just as an occasional effect, but as the standard between-scenes transition throughout the film? One other example I can give is Top Secret!, where the ZAZ team decided to use big, slow dissolves at the end of most scenes.