What do you think about "New Hollywood" and their overall impact and legacy?

[norseamd]

New Hollywood, sometimes referred to as the "American New Wave", refers to a periodization in American film history from the mid 1960s (Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate) to the early 1980s (Heaven's Gate, One from the Heart) when a new generation of young filmmakers came to prominence in United States, influencing the types of films produced, their production and marketing, and the way major studios approached film-making. In New Hollywood films, the film director, rather than the studio, took on a key authorial role. "New Hollywood" usually refers to a period of film-making rather than a style of film-making, though it can be referred to as a movement. The films made in this era are stylistically characterized in that their narrative often strongly deviated from classical norms.

After the demise of the studio system and the rise of television, the artistic quality of films and their commercial success was diminished. The "New Hollywood" period, spanning the mid-60s and early 80s, was a period of artistic and commercial revival. Though they largely continued to follow classical norms, the films made in this period are characterized in that their narrative logic and subject matter were often unconventional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hollywood

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think some of the movies were fresh and original but eventually New Hollywood directors climbed up their own asses (kinda like old Hollywood did with Film Noir in the 1950s) and stopped making movies that were actually entertaining. That limited the long term impact of the movement, and quite frankly really dated some of those movies in time. I think the biggest impact that period on today can be seen in serialized television drama, or just the fact that many directors/actors who are still held up as the best examples of the craft got their start in that period.

Personally I am glad Star Wars and Jaws pushed us towards a blockbuster model and killed that age of movies. People want experiences they can share with their families and there is a real craft to making something that can connect to many age groups simultaneously, or be a conversation piece of our culture at large. To me a Pixar movie like Toy Story that can fill a child with delight but also make their parents laugh is a bigger accomplishment than producing a work so dense with symbolism it takes a freaking English professor to unwind it.

Sure today maybe the blockbuster model has gone too far, and the superhero boom plus CGI has lowered the quality of Hollywood to a point where I almost hope a "New New Hollywood" would come around soon via sources like Netflix and Amazon. But with that said without the death of "New Hollywood" we wouldn't have gotten those awesome blockbusters of the 80's and 90's, and quite frankly I would rather have Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park 1 in my life more than any movie New Hollywood produced.

 

[norseamd]

blockbuster model

So I searched for blockbuster model and found something even far more unsettling, albeit sadly all too normal for Western society.

http://tbmdb.blogspot.com/2008/12/blockbuster-business-model.html

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockbuster-drug.asp

 

[poofyhairguy]

So I searched for blockbuster model and found something even far more unsettling, albeit sadly all too normal for Western society.

http://tbmdb.blogspot.com/2008/12/blockbuster-business-model.html

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockbuster-drug.asp

That is a little different. Here is a better idea of the movie type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)

After the success of Jaws, many Hollywood producers attempted to create similar "event films" with wide commercial appeal. Film companies began green lighting increasingly high budgeted films and relying extensively on massive advertising blitzes leading up to their theatrical release....Eventually, the focus on creating blockbusters grew so intense that a backlash occurred, with critics and some film-makers decrying the prevalence of a "blockbuster mentality" and lamenting the death of the author-driven, "more artistic" small-scale films of the New Hollywood era.

The problem with blockbusters is threefold:

1. The need large budgets to work, which then increases the risk for the studio if it doesn't work out

2. Because of #1, studios will target blockbusters at the lowest common denominator to reach a mass audience (Transformer movies, Batman vs Superman, etc.)

3. Because of #1 and #2 it is hard to know exactly what new franchises will be blockbusters (or which ones will dip too far into idiocy and fail) so Hollywood produces a lot of sequels that are low risk because their audience was established with the first successful movie

The inverse of that is during the 90s-early-00s it was the blockbusters and sequels that allowed the studios to be able to take risks, they subsidized everything else. Eventually costs rose to the point where even that wasn't sustainable, so now we have to look to unconventional sources like television and streaming services to find high quality dramas.

 

[norseamd]

Oh I had a general idea of what you were talking about and was just reading about it. I was just pointing out just how much Western society has degenerated into debasement and corruption.

Here are some of the articles I was just reading.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25409796

http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/why-hollywood-is-caught-in-the-blockbuster-trap.html

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5748577/are-we-witnessing-the-death-spiral-of-the-hollywood-blockbuster

 

[norseamd]

The problem with blockbusters is threefold:

1. The need large budgets to work, which then increases the risk for the studio if it doesn't work out

2. Because of #1, studios will target blockbusters at the lowest common denominator to reach a mass audience (Transformer movies, Batman vs Superman, etc.)

3. Because of #1 and #2 it is hard to know exactly what new franchises will be blockbusters (or which ones will dip too far into idiocy and fail) so Hollywood produces a lot of sequels that are low risk because their audience was established with the first successful movie

The inverse of that is during the 90s-early-00s it was the blockbusters and sequels that allowed the studios to be able to take risks, they subsidized everything else. Eventually costs rose to the point where even that wasn't sustainable, so now we have to look to unconventional sources like television and streaming services to find high quality dramas.

Last time I went to the movies was 2011, and that is because I was with someone else getting high. And I hadnt been in a movie theater at that time since like 2006 or 2007. The movies I saw were The Thing and The Big Year. The Thing wasnt terrible, and had a decently well interpretation of Norwegians, but it was kinda meh. Surprisingly I actually thought The Big Year was a great movie, despite kind of being a quaint type of movie, mostly because it actually decided to be a movie.

For the most part I dont even bother with Hollywood anymore, and I think the last time Hollywood was actually making any decent movies of notable numbers was the early 2000s, and they had already been going downhill for a few years by then. But The Big Year still shows that good movies do come out of Hollywood, they are just going to be the low key movies that are kind of treated by Hollywood as side peasantry, and are not going to get a lot of attention and marketing.

 

[BoomerD]

Once again...the wikipedia warrior strikes!

 

[norseamd]

Once again...the wikipedia warrior strikes!

I find it funny that you responded, since I was going to ask about the question of both New Hollywood and Baby Boomers being very similar, and both having mixed legacies. I suppose this might be no coincidence, since Baby Boomers were the root of what made up New Hollywood.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Once again...the wikipedia warrior strikes!

Sometimes wikipedia can suck, but it is amazing for the history of the film industry. Recently I have really gotten into both silent movies and classic animation and wikipedia has been an invaluable resource.

 

[norseamd]

Sometimes wikipedia can suck, but it is amazing for the history of the film industry. Recently I have really gotten into both silent movies and classic animation and wikipedia has been an invaluable resource.

Is Kathleen Kennedy considered part of the New Hollywood phenomena?

 

[SP33Demon]

I think some of the movies were fresh and original but eventually New Hollywood directors climbed up their own asses (kinda like old Hollywood did with Film Noir in the 1950s) and stopped making movies that were actually entertaining. That limited the long term impact of the movement, and quite frankly really dated some of those movies in time. I think the biggest impact that period on today can be seen in serialized television drama, or just the fact that many directors/actors who are still held up as the best examples of the craft got their start in that period.

Personally I am glad Star Wars and Jaws pushed us towards a blockbuster model and killed that age of movies. People want experiences they can share with their families and there is a real craft to making something that can connect to many age groups simultaneously, or be a conversation piece of our culture at large. To me a Pixar movie like Toy Story that can fill a child with delight but also make their parents laugh is a bigger accomplishment than producing a work so dense with symbolism it takes a freaking English professor to unwind it.

Sure today maybe the blockbuster model has gone too far, and the superhero boom plus CGI has lowered the quality of Hollywood to a point where I almost hope a "New New Hollywood" would come around soon via sources like Netflix and Amazon. But with that said without the death of "New Hollywood" we wouldn't have gotten those awesome blockbusters of the 80's and 90's, and quite frankly I would rather have Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park 1 in my life more than any movie New Hollywood produced.

You could argue that Netflix is already a New New Hollywood, at least with their series. Didn't they also produce the African movie that got a lot of acclaim as well? You may be onto something here.

 

[norseamd]

Didn't they also produce the African movie that got a lot of acclaim as well?

Beasts of No Nation? Yeah that seems like it is an amazing film. I hope to watch that film sometime eventually when I can.

 

[norseamd]

I think that the movie format is ultimately gone as the true creative format of expression, and they are too short, and the mini-series format is much more powerful and accommodating to artists wanting to tell a story or expression.

 

[motsm]

Love the era, easily my favorite period of films. Just a bunch of young ass holes with no one to answer to, filming whatever the fuck they want, it's great.

Not a fan of the current trend, of giant soulless blockbusters. Movies have largely become products created by committee, rather than anyone's personal artistic vision. Not to say those kind of films don't exist at all anymore, just not in the same prevalent way as they did back then.

 

[PlanetJosh]

How much influence does the director have over editing? Maybe a lot, I don't know. If it's not a great amount then maybe the editor should have some noticeable credit for the New Hollywood.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Is Kathleen Kennedy considered part of the New Hollywood phenomena?

I don't think so.

I think that the movie format is ultimately gone as the true creative format of expression, and they are too short, and the mini-series format is much more powerful and accommodating to artists wanting to tell a story or expression.

I wouldn't go that far, movies still have a lot of life left as a format. The Oscar is still the most prized award in Hollywood, and actors still choose roles based on their chances to win one. Hell Amazon and Netflix have no reason to even make "movies" given how flexible their distribution is, but they do because they want to win an Oscar eventually.

I do believe that a combination of high production values and hands off producing has undone the old stigma for movie actors/directors that TV is the way to kill their career. In fact quite the opposite, we see popular shows like Game of Thrones putting many new actors/actresses out there that transition to movies thanks to the popularity of the show. In the past only the main character in a popular show had that option (like Family Ties and Michael J Fox), but we are seeing all these minor characters in Game of Thrones or Downton Abbey shift over to movie careers. That is a major change to how the business works.

 

[poofyhairguy]

You could argue that Netflix is already a New New Hollywood, at least with their series. Didn't they also produce the African movie that got a lot of acclaim as well? You may be onto something here.

Yeah Beasts of No Nation was a very New Hollywood type of movie.

One thing I think most people don't realize is that technology money is SOOO much larger than Hollywood money. In Hollywood the biggest budgets are measuring in hundreds of millions, and the biggest movies at best make over a billion. A billion bucks of value is "a startup to take seriously" in Silicon Valley. The scale is crazy different.

Jeff Bezos really wants to win an Oscar and he wants to make Amazon relevant as a distribution platform for the best talent. To get there he is willing to spend money that will never be directly recouped on the projects, because that is chump change to a technology company. This creates a new economic bubble for really creative talent, and I am excited to see what comes of it.

How much influence does the director have over editing? Maybe a lot, I don't know. If it's not a great amount then maybe the editor should have some noticeable credit for the New Hollywood.

Part of the whole "magic" of that period is that these directors (without much experience) were given final cut of their movies in many cases. We moved away from that in the Blockbuster model.

In the Blockbuster model a focus group would watch your movie, and if they got board something is being cut even if it ruins the movie.

 

[JEDI]

google image "cute actress" brings up ONLY indian (dot, not feather) actresses and not cute?! wtf?

new Hollywood indeed