This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Hollywood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"The studios were still being run by the moguls who had created them back when Hollywood was a baby."
This is not completly true. Warners was still run by Jack Warner until 1967. Daryl Zanuk had an on-again, off-again relationship with running Fox. Adolph Zuckor was still on Paramount's board of directors. However, Paramount's functions were run by others. Louis B. Mayer was dead. Also, he was removed as head of MGM in the early 1950s. He was the king of all the studio moguls. Harry Cohn at Columbia was also dead. Carl Lemme, the man who founded Universal, had died long ago. So, by the 1960s, there were actually very few moguls incharge of the studios.
I know Peter Biskind wrote a similar pharse to this in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." However, you must take that book with a grain of salt. He wrote this phrase to create the sort of "us vs. them" atmosphere that he likes in his books. The book is filled with inaccuracies that he came up with just for dramatic effect. Remember the part at the beginning where he states it was unusual for an actor to also produce a film (in reference with Warren Beatty on "Bonnie and Clyde"). He had forgotten what Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, John Garfield, and Ida Lupio had done. Also, at the end, when he makes it sound like this was the first time budgets had gone into the range of $30 and $40 million, he forgot to mention "Cleopatra." So, rather than just getting rid of this phrase, I would like to bring it to everyone's attention and hope to fix not only this but other aspects of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.17.128 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Jaws & Star Wars were fine on their own, great even, the problem is that for 31 years now every freakin' studio has been following that pattern. Blame the bean counters not Spielberg & Lucas. Its also unfair to charge them with starting the 'block buster mentality' since the studios had previously gone a similar route with the Epics which started out as response to TV, and those two films had the same slow gradual role out release and stayed in cinemas for weeks & months of every other film of that time, very different to the ‘thousands at once and gone in a week’ releases of today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
EDIT:
The New Hollywood did not "come crashing down" with the arrival of Jaws. The term New Hollywood encapsulates the modernisation of the industry from this point - the Blockbuster form is infact cental to the New Hollywood. Is the writer infact referring to The Hollywood Renaissance, a period between the late 60s and early 70s of smaller, character based films centred around autership - seems like it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What this article seriously misses is defining New Hollywood. It's not about time period but about attitude, although the times certainly influenced this greatly. New Hollywood films such as Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, M*A*S*H, Little Big Man, The Godfather, Nashville, Network, and Apocalypse Now were about overturning perceptions and myths that America had about itself. Sexual, political, and social issues were discussed and portrayed on-screen with a candor that had been building during the 1950s but now arrived in full bloom. Certainly, there had been social critique in Hollywood before, especially during the pre-Code days prior to 1934, and during the Depression as seen in films by Frank Capra and others, but never with the bravado or blatancy as seen in the period from the late 1960s through the 1970s. There continued to be blockbusters during the New Hollywood era, some of them New Hollywood films (Godfather and Godfather II especially) but business as usual continued in much of the town: witness the rise of the 1970s all-star cast disaster film starting with Airport, through The Poseidon Adventure and ending for the most part with The Towering Inferno. Jaws and Star Wars can never be considered part of the New Hollywood movement as they were good, old-fashioned spectaculars aimed at pure entertainment, no matter how masterfully crafted. The end of New Hollywood was not brought about by the blockbuster, but by the rise of movement conservatism and the backlash against the very myth-smashing and questioning that New Hollywood, as an outgrowth of changing attitudes arising in the 1960s, embodied. Americans tired of going to movies that were about reality, especially the negative parts of American reality, wanting instead what moviegoers had wanted from the beginning - to momentarily escape reality. This wish to escape reality had repercussions across the board, from the insipidity of most mainstream 1980s Hollywood films, which has continued in great part through today, to electing Ronald Reagan partially on a platform of embracing the mythology of America once again. Until the article reflects these socio-political realities, it cannot present an accurate account of New Hollywood. PJtP ( talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, this is pretty seriously POV:
-- Saforrest 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Peckinpah wasn't a member of the New Hollywood generation, neither by age nor by career trajectory. -- TallulahBelle 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't know why John Huston is listed here either, other than that he managed to stay relevant in the later part of his career.
Contrary to what the article says, some of the figures listed DID make films outside of the studio system as well as within it, such as Scorsese, De Palma, Polanski, Schlesinger,and Altman. If one does not count American International Pictures and Avco Embassy Pictures as "major studios", then Allen, Bogdanovich, and Brooks could have been considered to have worked outside of the studio system as well as within it. Prairie Dog, 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Unquestionably a great director, Sidney Lumet cannot be categorized as a member of the "New Hollywood" generation. Aside from age and career trajectory, the kinds of films he had been making for most of his career were clearly Classic Hollywood. Furthermore, he himself distanced himself from the generation.
The confusion lies in the fact that, though Lumet was not a New Hollywood director, he did make two unquestionably "New Hollywood" classics, Network and Dog Day Afternoon. -- TallulahBelle 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's been discussion about this before—neither Cassavetes nor Van Peebles properly are New Hollywood. For one, their ages, nearly a decade older than the norm. For another, their origin: they migrated from theater to film, whereas New Hollywood came straight to Hollywood via film school. Finally, they themselves did not consider themselves a part of the Hollywood environment; Cassavetes consciously considered himself a New York filmmaker. New Hollywood filmmakers, on the other hand—even Scorcese—instinctively knew they were Hollywood people.
Furthermore, no one serious debates that Cassavetes and Van Peebles were not New Hollywood—neither the two filmmakers, nor scholars, nor other New Hollywood types. -- TallulahBelle 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps this is just a personal favorite, but I see it as somehow defining of the period's science fiction identity (between 2001 and Star Wars)- so I wonder if MGM's Academy Award-winning Logan's Run would be considered New Hollywood? - Eric 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Could this be considered a New Hollywood film? AppleJuggler 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone rather perversely removed Jaws and Star Wars from the list of notable New Hollywood pictures—ironic, since they defined the period. -- TallulahBelle 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jaws & Star Wars do not REALLY belong to the New Hollywood era. As you have perhaps observed in the paragraph called The close of the New Hollywood era those two film in fact initiated another different "era" in movie history and movie making, the "blockbuster era". Moreover, it simply is not true that they "defined the [New Hollywood] period". That's WRONG! Sure, they were both released in the 70's, which represented the climax of the New Hollywood era, but this cannot be the only argument. So, I do not agree that the removal of those two films was a "perverse" act, but a legitimate one! 83.189.18.112 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of films of the new Hollywood era was becoming bloated, rendering the list meaningless. I'm pruning it down to a manageable number.
Remember, simply because a picture was released during the period doesn't mean it was New Hollywood. -- TallulahBelle 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, so why do you still want to include "Star Wars" and "Jaws"? Please DISCUSS first!!!!!!!!
83.181.77.26 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Joe Pesci was in only one film of the New Hollywood era and that was 1980's Raging Bull (which is at the very end of the new hollywood era by the way.) He was in one other film prior to this and it was of little to no importance. 1 film at the very end of the era as a supporting character does not seem notable to me.
"produced and marketed, but also the kinds of films that were made"
Do you mean produced in the context of films "made" or in the context of films "directed"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.146.1.123 (
talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I Agree Also Is it really appropriate to include guys like James Coburn, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, and to a lesser extent Steve McQueen?
I know Newman starred in several important seventies classics like Butch Cassidy, The Sting, and Cool Hand Luke...but Marlon Brando also was prominently featured in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, and no one in their right mind would consider him anything other than a Classic Hollywood star. Can't an Actor go around reinventing himself without being immediately being labelled as part of a particular generation? I can the say the same for Steve McQueen as well, but I think it's less obvious with him, being as that Newman cut his teeth starring in popular films in the 50's like Cat On A Tin Roof and The Silver Chalice with the likes of 50's stars Elizabeth Taylor. Lemmon is also a Classic movie star along the same lines as Newman, even though both weren't nominated in AFI's list (their film debuts were not before 1950).
Also, on to the main point: James Coburn. I know he starred in several Peckinpah movies (a guy whose inclusion into this discussion is also quite questionable) but other than that did not possess the same neurosis which governed the likes of Pacino, De Niro, and Hoffman. His age and acting credits fits squarely with the same generation that came about as The TV became a popular tool (late 50's and early 60's) - namely alongside guys like Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, George Peppard and James Garner. I guess the best way to describe these guys is - not old enough to be Classical but not Young enough to be 'New Hollywood'. Coburn cut his teeth playing supporting/character roles alongside the likes of Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Anthony Quinn, and even when he became a potential leading man, his draw was already wading by 73 - in that time the 'new guys' like Pacino, Hoffman, De Niro, and Nicholson have tooken over.
By the way a bunch of Director's also don't belong there. Peckinpah, Altman, and Lumet (and maybe Kubrick) belong in that same 'TV period' as actors like Coburn, Marvin, and Eastwood. They are in the same generation as John Frankenheimer and Robert Aldrich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolascoburn ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't count Kubrick in. He is another generation of moviemakers. Accordingly 2001 I would not consider 2001 as a "New Hollywood"-piece. Not every revolutionary move of that period is new Hollywood, neither is every genious director, which made a movie in this time. Is there any reason to consider Stanley Kubrick or 2001 "New Hollywood"?
The image Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
An IP keeps adding Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) to the list of New Hollywood films. I have text searched a couple of books used as sources: The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars by Peter Kramer, and Geoff King's New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction and it isn't mentioned. These books are not conclusive, but I have never heard of this film discussed as an exponent of "New Hollywood". In most cases "New Hollywood" films are studio films, but AOP13 is an indie production. I am aware there some exceptions to this, however I am going to remove it, and I would appreciate it if this time it is not restored to the list without a source. There are too many instances of a film just being added to the list because it was made in the late 60s and 70s without being established it was part of the New Hollywood movement. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The list of movies has grown to include, well, what appears to be everyone's favourite movie from the 1970s. You people don't know what you're talking about. 'Airplane!' should not be on here. This article is hopeless. Zweifel ( talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
way too overrated
|
---|
New Hollywood's success is due to the invention of the rating system, making way for violence, nudity and profanity in the cinema. After the novelty had worn out the new wave declined, similar to Blaxploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.69.40 ( talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
Collapsed text, talk section not a general forum. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose that we add in the names of directors in the list of notable films. This would help the reader to connect films with directors. This is particularly pertinent for New Hollywood, because the directors took on a more major role in the filmmaking process. I would like to canvass the WP editors for a yea or a nay on this proposal. I know one editor disagrees, but I would like to get more input. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article's headline "possibly contains original research" is an understatement. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to remind editors that the film section is not a "free for all". Not every film made in the 70s is regarded as being a key film in the New Hollywood movement. It is largely subjective since beyond a few key features there is no definitive list, so each new addition should have an inline citation that explicitly credits the film as a "New Hollywood film", or credits it to a source that is about New Hollywood and discusses the significance of the film within that era. Ideally NO film on this list should be unsourced, although inevitably some are; however, most of the films that are unsourced are key films of the era that few people would dispute so we can let those slide temporarily, but not indefinitely. However, NO MORE films should be added without an appropriate source, especially if they are genre, independent or foreign films i.e. types of film of the era which commonly fall outside of the New Hollywood sphere. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been added to the list several times now by Austinmovies. There are several important reasons why I dispute its inclusion:
The New Hollywood movement was principally a movement centering on the Hollywood studio system in which it appropriated independent sensibilities. As I point out in the section above, all films included on the list really should be sourced, but films which fall outside of this sphere such as is the case with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should definitely not be added to the list without an accompanying source. Neither The New Hollywood (by Peter Krämer) nor New Hollywood Cinema (by Geoff King) which are both used as sources for this article list The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as an example of New Hollywood. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence states: "New Hollywood, sometimes referred to as the "American New Wave", refers to a period in American film history from the mid-to-late 1960s" and one of the sentences in the introduction states: ""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 article seems to be based on the opinion that "New Hollywood" is a movement, excludng all exploatation and commercial titles from the period, as well as those having more in common with classical Hollywood. In my opinion, there should be clear distinction of "New Hollywood" as a period and "New Hollywood" as a movement, and the article doesn't seem to be clear on that one. StjepanHR ( talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
And it is again "period vs. movement" thing. If the so-called "New Hollywood" was described only as a movement, I wouldn't write any of these objections. However, even some of the sources claim (King (2002), for example) that there is no clear definition of the term and that several positions exist and some (Schatz (1993)) even disagree with the years this article includes for the period. Considering Wikipedia articles, for example: Czechoslovak New Wave is described as a "movement" (and I surely wouldn't propose adding films by the likes of the great Otakar Vávra to the list, since he obviously wasn't a part of the movement), French New Wave is described as a "blanket term coined by critics for a group of French filmmakers of the late 1950s and 1960s" (as the "group" is clearly defined, nobody would add somebody like Henri-Georges Clouzot or even Jean Renoir or Robert Bresson, who are from the previous generation, despite being active in the late 1950s and 1960s), "Iranian New Wave refers to a new movement...", "British New Wave is the name given to a trend in filmmaking among directors in Britain in the late 1950s through the late 1960s", "Cinema Novo is a genre and movement of film...", "Hong Kong New Wave was a movement...", "Parallel Cinema is a film movement in Indian cinema...", "Japanese New Wave is a blanket term used to describe a group of loosely connected Japanese filmmakers during the late 1950s and into the 1970s", etc. Only the "New German Cinema" (itself refering only to West German cinema) has the same problem as "New Hollywood" as it refers to a "period", while it was clearly a "movement", and the directors belonging to it were only a minor part of the larger German cinema of the time, even if we only look at the West German cinema. StjepanHR ( talk) 12:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Just as a note, one source not listed here is "The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s", which describes many films not listed here as a part of the New Hollywood, and also refers to the New Hollywood as a complex movement consisting of several smaller movements. StjepanHR ( talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what is the origin of this claim, but huge majority of the directors listed never attended (and even less of them finished) any kind of film school. I would just like to leave this open for discussion before deleting it. StjepanHR ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My last edit was a removal of the following statement: "According to Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, one aspect of New Hollywood was a de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles; the movement's occasional emphasis on recreating a reality which audiences could relate to resulted in actors with "everyman" looks, such as Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, getting cast in lead roles that would have been unavailable to their physical type under the studio system." The source listed ("Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", page 16) doesn't even state that, but something different. On the other hand, I don't see the point of listing it since "attractiveness" is very subjective term and even if we go with what majority would consider attractive, I don't see that most of the Classical Hollywood actors would be considered conventionally attractive (although I am a straight male and not the best judge, I admit). Just take a look at some of the Academy Award for Best Actor winners of the Golden Age (just the first dozen years): Emil Jannings, George Arliss, Wallace Beery, Charles Laughton, Victor McLaglen, Paul Muni, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, etc. I think it is not fair to assume that any of them was popular because of his attractive look and not because of acting (or physical presence in case of McLaglen). On the other hand, while 70's Hollywood had its share of unattractive actors, it also had Redford, Beatty, Reeve, Reynolds, H. Ford, etc. I don't doubt their acting talent, but much of their popularity among female audience was based on their looks. StjepanHR ( talk) 09:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point of listing a person under only one category in this section. For example, Allen and Eastwood fit perfectly in both "actors" and "directors" sections and there is no reason for them not to be listed under the both. StjepanHR ( talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Now people have gone and added "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Empire Strikes Back", etc., onto this list. These are not "New Hollywood" movies. These are "Blockbuster" movies. They are the antithesis of New Hollywood -- big concept, highly marketed and advertised movies that make all their money on their opening weekend. These are the movies that killed New Hollywood. Go watch the documentary, "The Monster That Ate Hollywood". Enough already. Zweifel ( talk) 06:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have just undertaken a verification check on the list of films. I am not prejudiced either way about the films. I have listed them here so a record of what was removed can be easily identified, and if sources can be found for them then by all means add them back in. I will attempting to locate sources my self over the next few days. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently added "better source needed" tag for Patton (1970). The film stands somewhere between Old and New Hollywood in style and the source listed mentions it only two times, once as a film that Rod Steiger regreted turning down and once as a financially successful 20th Century Fox film. In both pages, it is not listed as a New Hollwood picture. It is not even listed in the Index at the end of the book. StjepanHR ( talk) 05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like putting the poster for Bonnie and Clyde (1967) in the lead section because I feel like it would educate readers and let them see what the movement looked like, especially considering there's no image in this article. But I want you to decide, should I do it or not? CaptainRex2008 ( talk) 15:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If these two movies and others appearing in the full list are indeed part of new hollywood they should appear in last paragraph of the introduction given that they are more relevant. 2800:40:41:558:F1A6:4FA9:6C4E:957F ( talk) 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Hollywood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"The studios were still being run by the moguls who had created them back when Hollywood was a baby."
This is not completly true. Warners was still run by Jack Warner until 1967. Daryl Zanuk had an on-again, off-again relationship with running Fox. Adolph Zuckor was still on Paramount's board of directors. However, Paramount's functions were run by others. Louis B. Mayer was dead. Also, he was removed as head of MGM in the early 1950s. He was the king of all the studio moguls. Harry Cohn at Columbia was also dead. Carl Lemme, the man who founded Universal, had died long ago. So, by the 1960s, there were actually very few moguls incharge of the studios.
I know Peter Biskind wrote a similar pharse to this in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." However, you must take that book with a grain of salt. He wrote this phrase to create the sort of "us vs. them" atmosphere that he likes in his books. The book is filled with inaccuracies that he came up with just for dramatic effect. Remember the part at the beginning where he states it was unusual for an actor to also produce a film (in reference with Warren Beatty on "Bonnie and Clyde"). He had forgotten what Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, John Garfield, and Ida Lupio had done. Also, at the end, when he makes it sound like this was the first time budgets had gone into the range of $30 and $40 million, he forgot to mention "Cleopatra." So, rather than just getting rid of this phrase, I would like to bring it to everyone's attention and hope to fix not only this but other aspects of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.17.128 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Jaws & Star Wars were fine on their own, great even, the problem is that for 31 years now every freakin' studio has been following that pattern. Blame the bean counters not Spielberg & Lucas. Its also unfair to charge them with starting the 'block buster mentality' since the studios had previously gone a similar route with the Epics which started out as response to TV, and those two films had the same slow gradual role out release and stayed in cinemas for weeks & months of every other film of that time, very different to the ‘thousands at once and gone in a week’ releases of today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
EDIT:
The New Hollywood did not "come crashing down" with the arrival of Jaws. The term New Hollywood encapsulates the modernisation of the industry from this point - the Blockbuster form is infact cental to the New Hollywood. Is the writer infact referring to The Hollywood Renaissance, a period between the late 60s and early 70s of smaller, character based films centred around autership - seems like it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What this article seriously misses is defining New Hollywood. It's not about time period but about attitude, although the times certainly influenced this greatly. New Hollywood films such as Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, M*A*S*H, Little Big Man, The Godfather, Nashville, Network, and Apocalypse Now were about overturning perceptions and myths that America had about itself. Sexual, political, and social issues were discussed and portrayed on-screen with a candor that had been building during the 1950s but now arrived in full bloom. Certainly, there had been social critique in Hollywood before, especially during the pre-Code days prior to 1934, and during the Depression as seen in films by Frank Capra and others, but never with the bravado or blatancy as seen in the period from the late 1960s through the 1970s. There continued to be blockbusters during the New Hollywood era, some of them New Hollywood films (Godfather and Godfather II especially) but business as usual continued in much of the town: witness the rise of the 1970s all-star cast disaster film starting with Airport, through The Poseidon Adventure and ending for the most part with The Towering Inferno. Jaws and Star Wars can never be considered part of the New Hollywood movement as they were good, old-fashioned spectaculars aimed at pure entertainment, no matter how masterfully crafted. The end of New Hollywood was not brought about by the blockbuster, but by the rise of movement conservatism and the backlash against the very myth-smashing and questioning that New Hollywood, as an outgrowth of changing attitudes arising in the 1960s, embodied. Americans tired of going to movies that were about reality, especially the negative parts of American reality, wanting instead what moviegoers had wanted from the beginning - to momentarily escape reality. This wish to escape reality had repercussions across the board, from the insipidity of most mainstream 1980s Hollywood films, which has continued in great part through today, to electing Ronald Reagan partially on a platform of embracing the mythology of America once again. Until the article reflects these socio-political realities, it cannot present an accurate account of New Hollywood. PJtP ( talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, this is pretty seriously POV:
-- Saforrest 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Peckinpah wasn't a member of the New Hollywood generation, neither by age nor by career trajectory. -- TallulahBelle 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't know why John Huston is listed here either, other than that he managed to stay relevant in the later part of his career.
Contrary to what the article says, some of the figures listed DID make films outside of the studio system as well as within it, such as Scorsese, De Palma, Polanski, Schlesinger,and Altman. If one does not count American International Pictures and Avco Embassy Pictures as "major studios", then Allen, Bogdanovich, and Brooks could have been considered to have worked outside of the studio system as well as within it. Prairie Dog, 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Unquestionably a great director, Sidney Lumet cannot be categorized as a member of the "New Hollywood" generation. Aside from age and career trajectory, the kinds of films he had been making for most of his career were clearly Classic Hollywood. Furthermore, he himself distanced himself from the generation.
The confusion lies in the fact that, though Lumet was not a New Hollywood director, he did make two unquestionably "New Hollywood" classics, Network and Dog Day Afternoon. -- TallulahBelle 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's been discussion about this before—neither Cassavetes nor Van Peebles properly are New Hollywood. For one, their ages, nearly a decade older than the norm. For another, their origin: they migrated from theater to film, whereas New Hollywood came straight to Hollywood via film school. Finally, they themselves did not consider themselves a part of the Hollywood environment; Cassavetes consciously considered himself a New York filmmaker. New Hollywood filmmakers, on the other hand—even Scorcese—instinctively knew they were Hollywood people.
Furthermore, no one serious debates that Cassavetes and Van Peebles were not New Hollywood—neither the two filmmakers, nor scholars, nor other New Hollywood types. -- TallulahBelle 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps this is just a personal favorite, but I see it as somehow defining of the period's science fiction identity (between 2001 and Star Wars)- so I wonder if MGM's Academy Award-winning Logan's Run would be considered New Hollywood? - Eric 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Could this be considered a New Hollywood film? AppleJuggler 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone rather perversely removed Jaws and Star Wars from the list of notable New Hollywood pictures—ironic, since they defined the period. -- TallulahBelle 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jaws & Star Wars do not REALLY belong to the New Hollywood era. As you have perhaps observed in the paragraph called The close of the New Hollywood era those two film in fact initiated another different "era" in movie history and movie making, the "blockbuster era". Moreover, it simply is not true that they "defined the [New Hollywood] period". That's WRONG! Sure, they were both released in the 70's, which represented the climax of the New Hollywood era, but this cannot be the only argument. So, I do not agree that the removal of those two films was a "perverse" act, but a legitimate one! 83.189.18.112 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of films of the new Hollywood era was becoming bloated, rendering the list meaningless. I'm pruning it down to a manageable number.
Remember, simply because a picture was released during the period doesn't mean it was New Hollywood. -- TallulahBelle 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, so why do you still want to include "Star Wars" and "Jaws"? Please DISCUSS first!!!!!!!!
83.181.77.26 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Joe Pesci was in only one film of the New Hollywood era and that was 1980's Raging Bull (which is at the very end of the new hollywood era by the way.) He was in one other film prior to this and it was of little to no importance. 1 film at the very end of the era as a supporting character does not seem notable to me.
"produced and marketed, but also the kinds of films that were made"
Do you mean produced in the context of films "made" or in the context of films "directed"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.146.1.123 (
talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I Agree Also Is it really appropriate to include guys like James Coburn, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, and to a lesser extent Steve McQueen?
I know Newman starred in several important seventies classics like Butch Cassidy, The Sting, and Cool Hand Luke...but Marlon Brando also was prominently featured in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, and no one in their right mind would consider him anything other than a Classic Hollywood star. Can't an Actor go around reinventing himself without being immediately being labelled as part of a particular generation? I can the say the same for Steve McQueen as well, but I think it's less obvious with him, being as that Newman cut his teeth starring in popular films in the 50's like Cat On A Tin Roof and The Silver Chalice with the likes of 50's stars Elizabeth Taylor. Lemmon is also a Classic movie star along the same lines as Newman, even though both weren't nominated in AFI's list (their film debuts were not before 1950).
Also, on to the main point: James Coburn. I know he starred in several Peckinpah movies (a guy whose inclusion into this discussion is also quite questionable) but other than that did not possess the same neurosis which governed the likes of Pacino, De Niro, and Hoffman. His age and acting credits fits squarely with the same generation that came about as The TV became a popular tool (late 50's and early 60's) - namely alongside guys like Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, George Peppard and James Garner. I guess the best way to describe these guys is - not old enough to be Classical but not Young enough to be 'New Hollywood'. Coburn cut his teeth playing supporting/character roles alongside the likes of Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Anthony Quinn, and even when he became a potential leading man, his draw was already wading by 73 - in that time the 'new guys' like Pacino, Hoffman, De Niro, and Nicholson have tooken over.
By the way a bunch of Director's also don't belong there. Peckinpah, Altman, and Lumet (and maybe Kubrick) belong in that same 'TV period' as actors like Coburn, Marvin, and Eastwood. They are in the same generation as John Frankenheimer and Robert Aldrich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolascoburn ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't count Kubrick in. He is another generation of moviemakers. Accordingly 2001 I would not consider 2001 as a "New Hollywood"-piece. Not every revolutionary move of that period is new Hollywood, neither is every genious director, which made a movie in this time. Is there any reason to consider Stanley Kubrick or 2001 "New Hollywood"?
The image Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
An IP keeps adding Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) to the list of New Hollywood films. I have text searched a couple of books used as sources: The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars by Peter Kramer, and Geoff King's New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction and it isn't mentioned. These books are not conclusive, but I have never heard of this film discussed as an exponent of "New Hollywood". In most cases "New Hollywood" films are studio films, but AOP13 is an indie production. I am aware there some exceptions to this, however I am going to remove it, and I would appreciate it if this time it is not restored to the list without a source. There are too many instances of a film just being added to the list because it was made in the late 60s and 70s without being established it was part of the New Hollywood movement. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The list of movies has grown to include, well, what appears to be everyone's favourite movie from the 1970s. You people don't know what you're talking about. 'Airplane!' should not be on here. This article is hopeless. Zweifel ( talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
way too overrated
|
---|
New Hollywood's success is due to the invention of the rating system, making way for violence, nudity and profanity in the cinema. After the novelty had worn out the new wave declined, similar to Blaxploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.69.40 ( talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
Collapsed text, talk section not a general forum. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose that we add in the names of directors in the list of notable films. This would help the reader to connect films with directors. This is particularly pertinent for New Hollywood, because the directors took on a more major role in the filmmaking process. I would like to canvass the WP editors for a yea or a nay on this proposal. I know one editor disagrees, but I would like to get more input. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article's headline "possibly contains original research" is an understatement. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to remind editors that the film section is not a "free for all". Not every film made in the 70s is regarded as being a key film in the New Hollywood movement. It is largely subjective since beyond a few key features there is no definitive list, so each new addition should have an inline citation that explicitly credits the film as a "New Hollywood film", or credits it to a source that is about New Hollywood and discusses the significance of the film within that era. Ideally NO film on this list should be unsourced, although inevitably some are; however, most of the films that are unsourced are key films of the era that few people would dispute so we can let those slide temporarily, but not indefinitely. However, NO MORE films should be added without an appropriate source, especially if they are genre, independent or foreign films i.e. types of film of the era which commonly fall outside of the New Hollywood sphere. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been added to the list several times now by Austinmovies. There are several important reasons why I dispute its inclusion:
The New Hollywood movement was principally a movement centering on the Hollywood studio system in which it appropriated independent sensibilities. As I point out in the section above, all films included on the list really should be sourced, but films which fall outside of this sphere such as is the case with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should definitely not be added to the list without an accompanying source. Neither The New Hollywood (by Peter Krämer) nor New Hollywood Cinema (by Geoff King) which are both used as sources for this article list The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as an example of New Hollywood. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence states: "New Hollywood, sometimes referred to as the "American New Wave", refers to a period in American film history from the mid-to-late 1960s" and one of the sentences in the introduction states: ""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 article seems to be based on the opinion that "New Hollywood" is a movement, excludng all exploatation and commercial titles from the period, as well as those having more in common with classical Hollywood. In my opinion, there should be clear distinction of "New Hollywood" as a period and "New Hollywood" as a movement, and the article doesn't seem to be clear on that one. StjepanHR ( talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
And it is again "period vs. movement" thing. If the so-called "New Hollywood" was described only as a movement, I wouldn't write any of these objections. However, even some of the sources claim (King (2002), for example) that there is no clear definition of the term and that several positions exist and some (Schatz (1993)) even disagree with the years this article includes for the period. Considering Wikipedia articles, for example: Czechoslovak New Wave is described as a "movement" (and I surely wouldn't propose adding films by the likes of the great Otakar Vávra to the list, since he obviously wasn't a part of the movement), French New Wave is described as a "blanket term coined by critics for a group of French filmmakers of the late 1950s and 1960s" (as the "group" is clearly defined, nobody would add somebody like Henri-Georges Clouzot or even Jean Renoir or Robert Bresson, who are from the previous generation, despite being active in the late 1950s and 1960s), "Iranian New Wave refers to a new movement...", "British New Wave is the name given to a trend in filmmaking among directors in Britain in the late 1950s through the late 1960s", "Cinema Novo is a genre and movement of film...", "Hong Kong New Wave was a movement...", "Parallel Cinema is a film movement in Indian cinema...", "Japanese New Wave is a blanket term used to describe a group of loosely connected Japanese filmmakers during the late 1950s and into the 1970s", etc. Only the "New German Cinema" (itself refering only to West German cinema) has the same problem as "New Hollywood" as it refers to a "period", while it was clearly a "movement", and the directors belonging to it were only a minor part of the larger German cinema of the time, even if we only look at the West German cinema. StjepanHR ( talk) 12:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Just as a note, one source not listed here is "The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s", which describes many films not listed here as a part of the New Hollywood, and also refers to the New Hollywood as a complex movement consisting of several smaller movements. StjepanHR ( talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what is the origin of this claim, but huge majority of the directors listed never attended (and even less of them finished) any kind of film school. I would just like to leave this open for discussion before deleting it. StjepanHR ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My last edit was a removal of the following statement: "According to Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, one aspect of New Hollywood was a de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles; the movement's occasional emphasis on recreating a reality which audiences could relate to resulted in actors with "everyman" looks, such as Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, getting cast in lead roles that would have been unavailable to their physical type under the studio system." The source listed ("Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", page 16) doesn't even state that, but something different. On the other hand, I don't see the point of listing it since "attractiveness" is very subjective term and even if we go with what majority would consider attractive, I don't see that most of the Classical Hollywood actors would be considered conventionally attractive (although I am a straight male and not the best judge, I admit). Just take a look at some of the Academy Award for Best Actor winners of the Golden Age (just the first dozen years): Emil Jannings, George Arliss, Wallace Beery, Charles Laughton, Victor McLaglen, Paul Muni, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, etc. I think it is not fair to assume that any of them was popular because of his attractive look and not because of acting (or physical presence in case of McLaglen). On the other hand, while 70's Hollywood had its share of unattractive actors, it also had Redford, Beatty, Reeve, Reynolds, H. Ford, etc. I don't doubt their acting talent, but much of their popularity among female audience was based on their looks. StjepanHR ( talk) 09:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point of listing a person under only one category in this section. For example, Allen and Eastwood fit perfectly in both "actors" and "directors" sections and there is no reason for them not to be listed under the both. StjepanHR ( talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Now people have gone and added "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Empire Strikes Back", etc., onto this list. These are not "New Hollywood" movies. These are "Blockbuster" movies. They are the antithesis of New Hollywood -- big concept, highly marketed and advertised movies that make all their money on their opening weekend. These are the movies that killed New Hollywood. Go watch the documentary, "The Monster That Ate Hollywood". Enough already. Zweifel ( talk) 06:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have just undertaken a verification check on the list of films. I am not prejudiced either way about the films. I have listed them here so a record of what was removed can be easily identified, and if sources can be found for them then by all means add them back in. I will attempting to locate sources my self over the next few days. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently added "better source needed" tag for Patton (1970). The film stands somewhere between Old and New Hollywood in style and the source listed mentions it only two times, once as a film that Rod Steiger regreted turning down and once as a financially successful 20th Century Fox film. In both pages, it is not listed as a New Hollwood picture. It is not even listed in the Index at the end of the book. StjepanHR ( talk) 05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like putting the poster for Bonnie and Clyde (1967) in the lead section because I feel like it would educate readers and let them see what the movement looked like, especially considering there's no image in this article. But I want you to decide, should I do it or not? CaptainRex2008 ( talk) 15:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If these two movies and others appearing in the full list are indeed part of new hollywood they should appear in last paragraph of the introduction given that they are more relevant. 2800:40:41:558:F1A6:4FA9:6C4E:957F ( talk) 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)