It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood! 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

oh no I agree, I just meant I could see why it might have been overlooked as part of the New Wave movement given how un-scruffy it is.

also I wouldn't accuse Star Wars of "killing" the New Wave movement either without acknowledging the countless moviegoers that embraced it as though they had been waiting for such a movie all their lives. maybe it just came at the right place at the right time.

plus there were plenty of moneymakers throughout the '67-'80 period that aren't exactly New Wave material that one could assume attracted the same audiences that would eat up Star Wars (and Jaws, Rocky, Superman, etc). like all those disaster movies and the Disney stuff and Love Story and so on. heck, The Godfather Part II made less than The Towering Inferno and Earthquake in 1974 and only slightly more than Airport 1975. even if those movies didn't end up having much shelf life, their success helped influence what did and did not get made; there were always audiences looking for an alternative to the doom and gloom.

(I don't mean to start a heated debate on what is and is not New Wave though)


Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

I actually kinda feel like Kubrick was his own genre.


Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

.

_________________
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels


Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

Gort wrote:
For me, that was the film that saved the 1970s.

It's both to me.


Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Stu wrote:
You see, Romero didn't write Ben as being a black man on paper, but rather, cast Duane Jones as him simply because he gave the best audition out of everyone who tried for the role, a refreshingly forward-thinking decision that was furthered when Jones refused to do the role as it was written (that is, as a simple, blue collar truck driver), and Romero allowed him to revise Ben's character to reflect Jones's own educational background, which included attending Sorbonne University in Paris. However, apparently no other aspect of the script was altered for either Ben or anyone else in order to acknowledge his race, resulting in a character who was not only an assertive, self-sufficient black protagonist (which was quite rare at the time, and something that's unfortunately still pretty uncommon today), and the most resourceful character in the entire movie, but who also wasn't explicitly written as being black, which was virtually unheard of at the time, during an era when Sidney Potier was at the height of his stardom with his racially-focused "issues" films (which were necessary, don't get me wrong, but it's still nice to see something from the late 60's with a black protagonist that doesn't also have to pigeonhole itself into mostly being a "black issues" movie... plus, Ben not only got to beat one of his white tormentors, but he also shot him to death as a human and a zombie, so take that, Mr. Tibbs!). Rather, the film simply lets the unspoken racial undertones of the conflict between Ben and the boorish "Mr. Cooper" serve as a more elegant commentary on the state of racial tensions in an America just coming out of the Civil Rights Movement, in the same year of the assasination of Martin Luther King, which finds accidental echoes in the film's tragic ending, where Ben is gunned down by a posse of white, gun-toting, trigger-happy rednecks, creating another defining downer climax of the movement.



Night of the Living Dead is on my Top 3 horror films of all time, and yet I didn't know this. It just makes it so much better to me, so thanks for sharing.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Jinnistan wrote:
:?

I'm not sure which sources you're using, but 2001 is almost a textbook example of seminal America New Wave film, frequently listed alongside Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, Rosmary's Baby, Midnight Cowboyand The Wild Bunch as the most important late-60s films to influence the 70s.
Maybe this is just me conflating my own personal perceptions with other people's, but to me, impossibly epic, FX-driven Science-Fiction with an almost complete de-emphasis on its characters is not the first kind of movie I typically associate with New Hollywood, especially not when it's as unique and one-of-a-kind as 2001, which feels almost completely singular and its own thing, seperate from any other work of cinema. Not saying that it didn't have any impact on Hollywood, and like I said, for the reasons I listed, I do consider it a part of the movement, but that's after a deeper reflection on the film, as, on the surface at least, I feel that it doesn't have all that much in common with the other, much more (literally) down-to-earth movies that defined the movement, which lead me to not classify it as a defining work of the movement, as great as it is otherwise.

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Stu wrote:
Maybe this is just me conflating my own personal perceptions with other people's, but to me, impossibly epic, FX-driven Science-Fiction with an almost complete de-emphasis on its characters is not the first kind of movie I typically associate with New Hollywood, especially not when it's as unique and one-of-a-kind as 2001, which feels almost completely singular and its own thing, seperate from any other work of cinema. Not saying that it didn't have any impact on Hollywood, and like I said, for the reasons I listed, I do consider it a part of the movement, but that's after a deeper reflection on the film, as, on the surface at least, I feel that it doesn't have all that much in common with the other, much more (literally) down-to-earth movies that defined the movement, which lead me to not classify it as a defining work of the movement, as great as it is otherwise.

One of my favorite aspects of New Hollywood is the diversity of avenues being explored. It's true that the movement is associated with more intimate character dramas, but in fact there was so much more, and if we're being wide-eyed honest we'd have to recognize that our best-loved "intimate dramas" tend to be highly stylized and manipulative. 2001, beyond its sci-fi influence, was more influential in its psychological effect; not just a "head" experience, but in the techniques of portraying psychological "space" - ie, The Conversation, Taxi Driver, 3 Women, Eraserhead, etc. Also, somewhat crucially, 2001 embodies some of the primary themes of New Hollywood, such as the pessimism around government conspiracy and distrust in technology and modernity.

I see Kubrick as a singular figure, sure, but still very much a part of his generation of filmmakers who are most important in forging the new cinema, like Altman, Peckinpah, Nichols, Lumet, Penn, etc. These directors tend to be a little older than the "movie brats" that we tend to associate with the 70s, but they are all among the definitive American filmmakers of that time.


Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Jinnistan wrote:
One of my favorite aspects of New Hollywood is the diversity of avenues being explored. It's true that the movement is associated with more intimate character dramas, but in fact there was so much more, and if we're being wide-eyed honest we'd have to recognize that our best-loved "intimate dramas" tend to be highly stylized and manipulative. 2001, beyond its sci-fi influence, was more influential in its psychological effect; not just a "head" experience, but in the techniques of portraying psychological "space" - ie, The Conversation, Taxi Driver, 3 Women, Eraserhead, etc. Also, somewhat crucially, 2001 embodies some of the primary themes of New Hollywood, such as the pessimism around government conspiracy and distrust in technology and modernity.

I see Kubrick as a singular figure, sure, but still very much a part of his generation of filmmakers who are most important in forging the new cinema, like Altman, Peckinpah, Nichols, Lumet, Penn, etc. These directors tend to be a little older than the "movie brats" that we tend to associate with the 70s, but they are all among the definitive American filmmakers of that time.
Those are all excellent points Jinn, and I don't have to add to them besides saying that I appreciate any and all discussion/challenges to my own perspectives in this thread. Anyway, I'm mostly just posting this reply to announce to everyone that, though it's taking me longer than I would've hoped (though these delays may turn out to be the norm for this thread, unfortunately; quality takes time, people!), I am now hard at work at my entry for '69 (obligatory "teehee"), and that it's well on its way to being posted, so stay tuned!

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Stu wrote:
Maybe this is just me conflating my own personal perceptions with other people's, but to me, impossibly epic, FX-driven Science-Fiction with an almost complete de-emphasis on its characters is not the first kind of movie I typically associate with New Hollywood, especially not when it's as unique and one-of-a-kind as 2001, which feels almost completely singular and its own thing, seperate from any other work of cinema. Not saying that it didn't have any impact on Hollywood, and like I said, for the reasons I listed, I do consider it a part of the movement, but that's after a deeper reflection on the film, as, on the surface at least, I feel that it doesn't have all that much in common with the other, much more (literally) down-to-earth movies that defined the movement, which lead me to not classify it as a defining work of the movement, as great as it is otherwise.


I've always seen the American New Wave as more of a director-driven movement replacing the producer/studio-driven machinery, regardless of the subject.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:21 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

.

_________________
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels


Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1968: Night Of The Living Dead (Romero, rewatch)

Stu wrote:
Those are all excellent points Jinn, and I don't have to add to them besides saying that I appreciate any and all discussion/challenges to my own perspectives in this thread.

Sure, and I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking just to find flaws in your posts. I like to add tangents when I find the opportunities. Any posts I make in any thread is basically the equivalent of saying "subscribed" anyway.


Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:26 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Gort wrote:
even though much of what they did doesn't hold up today, you must understand that it didn't hold up in the 1970s either.

You have an unfortunate way of saying this as if it's some kind of fact.


Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post 1969: Easy Rider (Hopper, rewatch)

Image

They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Personal Thoughts:


It had been a long time since I last watched Easy Rider, but rewatching it now for this thread, my feelings on it are more or less the same as they were the first couple times I saw it; it's definitely too scattered and aimless in its overall narrative, and often too pointlessly "experimental" in its style to be a great film, but taken as just a snapshot of America at the tail end of the 60's (albeit, a somewhat exaggerated one), it is good in that regard, with its tale of two drug-dealing, pot-smoking hippie bikers just tooling around the U.S., picking up random, zonked-out hitchhikers along the way, and running into various hasslings courtesy of The Man and the physically & spiritually ugly rednecks of the "silent majority" of Nixon's America along the way (which makes sense, since Spiro Agnew himself criticized the film as an example of the "permissiveness" of late '60s popular culture), and the violent deaths of the film's protagonists at the end might as well represent the end of the old-school "peace and love" movement that gripped the youth of America at the time. Admittedly, the film tends to work better when it's just trying to be a rockin' travelogue of the appeal of the open road rather than a traditional "film" (though even the famous music-video style riding montages become somewhat tiresome and formuliac at a certain point), but that is part of Rider's overall appeal, and it shouldn't be hard to understand exactly why it became the most iconic American film of the year by a long shot.

Significance To The Movement/Cinema As A Whole:

Despite '69 being a pretty jam-packed time for the films of New Hollywood (more on that below), it's no surprise that I went with Easy Rider for the year, as, beyond its basic subject matter and pro-counterculture point of view, and its featuring of early, breakthrough roles for such figures of the movement like Karen Black AND Jack fuckin' Nicholson (who earned his first Oscar nom for his admittedly stoned performance), its avant-garde, grabbag style definitely embodies the free-wheeling tinkering of New Hollywood at the time, with its extremely experimental editing techniques, a couple of particularly stylish sequences including a very disturbing scene dealing with a bad acid trip in a New Orleans cemetary, and its mostly improvised narrative, as, supposedly, the film never had a full script (ironic, since it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay), as Peter Fonda and director Dennis Hopper improvised most of the dialogue up on the spot (while smoking tons of actual weed on camera), and didn't initially hire a professional crew, but instead, picked up hippies at communes across the country, used friends and passers-by to hold their cameras, and mostly shot outside on-location, with completely all-natural lighting.

This stream-of-consciousness production is evident in the loose "structure" of the final product, which holds it back as a film, but it probably would have been worse if Hopper hadn't been reigned in, as his rough cut of the film was possibly as long as 5 hours according to certain reports, until Henry Jaglom managed to step into the editing room and mercifully cut the film into its current state. Anyway, as it is in its final form, it definitely struck a chord with the audiences of the time, as, despite being an independent, non-studio produced project, Columbia Pictures latched onto the zeitgiest when it agreed to distribute the film, leading it to become the 3rd highest-grossing movie of the year on a shooting budget of less than half a million dollars, although that figure tripled after factoring in the licensing fees for the film's groundbreaking soundtrack of contemporary rock, including such musical icons as The Band, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and of course, Steppenwolf themselves. At any rate, the extra expense paid off in spades, as it's one of the first classic examples of its kind of "pop mixtape" soundtracks in American film, setting the stage for the retro, Tarantino-style soundtracks of the future, and no one can hear "Born To Be Wild" anymore without instantly conjuring up visions of Billy & Wyatt, heading out on the highways of America, following the open road wherever it will take them

Other significant New Hollywood films from '69:

Besides the sort of modern Western stylings of Easy Rider, this year also saw a significant resurgence of actual Westerns (or at least, Western-themed releases), including George Roy Hill's charming, massively crowd-pleasing Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, Sam Peckinpah's grimy, impossibly violent shoot-em-up The Wild Bunch, and John Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy, a harrowing portrayal of urban isolation, poverty, and extreme desperation in the filthy streets of late 60's New York City, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar for the year despite being rated "X" for its depiction of male prostitution and Stonewall-era repressed homosexuality, showing the strength of the demand for such challenging films in the mainstream, despite its undeniably taboo subject matter.

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

That's another one I haven't seen :(

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

I watched Easy Rider recently for the first time, and I didn't really like it. But can I recommend The Rain People (1969)? Francis Ford Coppola's debut film, with a very young James Caan and Robert Duvall. It is a wonderful movie about a middle-class housewife who escapes her domestic life and takes a road trip in search of freedom and individuality. (Saying more would be a spoiler, it's best to go in cold, like I did)

Ebert called it "the mirror image of "Easy Rider.".


Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:10 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

.

_________________
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels


Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1969: Easy Rider (Hopper, rewatch)

Stu wrote:
the film never had a full script (ironic, since it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay), as Peter Fonda and director Dennis Hopper improvised most of the dialogue up on the spot (while smoking tons of actual weed on camera)

This film has been the source of a lot of myths and rumors, no doubt to the, um, psychic inconsistencies of the participants. The contribution of screenwriter Terry Southern (Dr. Strangelove, The Magic Christian) is a good example of this. Southern, already a well-known countercultural writer, was brought in by Fonda and Hopper to shape their ideas. Southern wrote the original script based on hours of discussion. Almost immediately, Fonda and, especially, Hopper were intent on denigrating Southern's contribution, at one point offering him $10,000 to remove his name from the credits. (Southern, ironically, had been instrumental in coaxing the Writers Guild into allowing non-union Fonda and Hopper's name to the writing credits.)

Southern seemed content to allow sleeping dogs lie, and never made much fuss while Hopper continued to insist that "Terry never wrote a fucking word" of the script. However, maybe not irony but serendipity, when Dennis Hopper was sued by Rip Torn over Hopper's allegation that Torn (originally cast as George Hanson until this incident) had attacked him with a knife in a resturaunt (Torn claimed that it was Hopper who produced the blade in anger - and stories of Hopper pulling knives on various people at the time seem to corroborate this), the court ended up subpoenaing Southern's original papers during his work on the film, and clearing the air over just how much of the film had been his creation. In the end, the story of the script is about as accurate an example of the absolute insanity of the entire project.

Stu wrote:
Henry Jaglom managed to step into the editing room and mercifully cut the film into its current state.

This is also an area of a lot of dispute. Not Jaglom, as most people see him as saving the film. But Nicholson has claimed to have edited the New Orleans cemetary scene himself (original editor Donn Cambern has called Nicholson the "ex-officio producer" of the film for his behind-the-scenes and largely uncredited work to finish the film). And Hopper, probably obviously, originally declared "his film" butchered upon first viewing the final Jaglom cut.


Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Gort wrote:
Perhaps you're misinterpreting an expressed opinion as being presented as though it were fact.

I'm aware of your expressed disdain for the decade, but the sentence, as written, seem to be imploring Stu that he "must understand" your opinion as something with more sociohistorical significance than is evident in the more consensually appreciative extant critical commentary. That "much" of the films of the celebrated era neither stand up today or at the time is certainly your opinion, but you express it with an authority as something needing to be understood more broadly.

Just watch Godfather already, will ya.


Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Easy Rider is one of those movies I was dreading revisiting as all the talk of its roughness and importance in its time (rather than actual quality) made me fear it wasn't as good as I'd initially remembered, but it actually went up with a rewatch for me. It's hard for me to put a finger on it exactly, but the way it shapes its pieces of Americana and biker and road movie elements into a cohesive, almost lyrical whole seems undervalued. There are lots of movies "about America", but few in my mind match its distinct yet almost intangible sense of poetry.

In terms of Hopper's other directing work, I like Out of the Blue and Colors quite a bit. I haven't seen it, but The Last Movie recently got a restoration so hopefully that makes it easier to get a hold of soon.

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!


Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Jinnistan wrote:
I'm aware of your expressed disdain for the decade, but the sentence, as written, seem to be imploring Stu that he "must understand" your opinion as something with more sociohistorical significance than is evident in the more consensually appreciative extant critical commentary. That "much" of the films of the celebrated era neither stand up today or at the time is certainly your opinion, but you express it with an authority as something needing to be understood more broadly.
.

_________________
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels


Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:56 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Rock wrote:
The Last Movie recently got a restoration so hopefully that makes it easier to get a hold of soon.

Good news!

Also, I'll throw some love for Hopper's sweaty Southern neo-noir The Hot Spot.


Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

I love Easy Rider.
I've loved it since I was a teenager (30 years ago) and I love it now.
Also, there's a good reason that book is titled Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.


Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Gort wrote:
Few people I know even like the films of the 1970s. But some do.

Sucks.

Gort wrote:
But I can provide something that you can't: an eyewitness account. That's all. (That pic of me in the Gort avatar was taken in 1973.) If that eyewitness point of view is not worth anything to you, so be it.

As in court testimony, an eyewitness account can be highly overrated and flawed. There are, no doubt, a number of biases involved for the eyewitness which need to be interrogated.

Gort wrote:
I was exposed directly to the marketing and hype that surrounded mediocre films and treated them as if they would be cinematic museum pieces...immediately. Life-changers. World-movers.

They weren't.

Since I don't know which films you're referring to, I'll nod along.

Gort wrote:
These films were not seen as any new kind of cinematic school when they were coming out. They were not yet components of an "era".

Not exactly true. As I pointed out upthread, I have a hardback from 1975 called The New Hollywood. There were a number of contemporary critics who recognized the significance of the era as it was happening, who saw it as the American extension of the preceding New Wave movements of Europe, which also had contemporary critics who recognized their greatness in real time as well.

Gort wrote:
Would you have an extremely high opinion of the corpus of films available for you to see today, Jinnistan? By that I ask, are they all worthy of tribute? Or do we have some rotters and such like being shown at theaters in the 21st century? Well, of course we do.

1) No. But there are a number of factors for why this is, namely the degradation of the theater experience to something akin to an FX amusment park ride, where it is increasingly difficult to find a variety of genres available in theaters. Surely, there's no dearth of actual talent, and many interesting, innovative films continue to be made every year, but access to these films has now gone to streaming sites or other platforms. People no longer go to theaters to watch intelligent or challenging material, and this trickles down into studio production priorities. Basically, mainstream American films are getting dumber, by commercial design.

2) "All"? Are you seriously asking me if I think "all" films from the American '70s are "worthy of tribute"?

Setting aside the "all/nothing" inanity, I'll return to the issue of bias. There's nostalgia, of course. But there's a parallel bias.

In my early 20s, roughly equivalent to you in the 70s, there was a glut of particularly weak mainstream blockbuster films in the mid-late 90s. Recognizing this had very little effect on my appreciation of the flowering independent film movement of the time, and it also gave me the time to study up on the vast catalogue of past cinema. Despite my aversion to this blockbuster glut, I wouldn't think to try to write off "all" of 90s cinema any more than I would use my eyewitness account of the era to suffice as a valid criticism.

Gort wrote:
And we had 'em back in the 1970s as well.

When people mention "New American Cinema", I don't think they're referring to Airport '75.

Gort wrote:
My point is that that era's output of films was just like the ones we have today. They were good and bad, and sort of in between (Easy Rider, for example).

This is an extremely glib reading of history. I guess "good/bad/between" is one dimension better than just "good/bad", but it's still a pretty flat estimate of quality. This ignores the context of the times, both then and now, and the easily identifiable variables that make the cultural and commercial expectations very difficult to compare over a 40 year period.

Gort wrote:
If I loved them then, I usually love them now. That was my statement.

This was your statement: "There is a group of people whose age is between the WWII folks and the Boomers, and these are like the Gen X of the mid-century. They were (are) the ones who tried something new in Hollywood, and even though much of what they did doesn't hold up today, you must understand that it didn't hold up in the 1970s either."

Without examples of which directors and films that you're referring to, this comes off as dogma.

Gort wrote:
Other more esteemed voices have different opinions about some of those films. And a few of them have given the era a name.

But, clearly, what they write about the films is their opinions, and not "facts."

I pretty much always reject these populist attempts to pretend that all opinions are equally valid. There are shitty critics, obviously, and there are sublime critics. There are informed and insightful critics, and there are those who use banal and lazy contrasts.

Gort wrote:
And someday people will look back on the 2010s and write glowing treatises about whatever name they call this era of cinema in those days. And as an old person you will read it and immediately know that what they write is incomplete.

It's almost as if "writing" is something that can only be judged when one reads it.

Jinnistan wrote:
Why? I've lived this long without watching the movie.

Sure. And you could have lived this long being completely illiterate, but would that be a good idea?

Gort wrote:
And I know I would not like The Godfather. I'm not a contrarian for the sake of being contrary. I grew up on a steady diet of TV shows and old films shown on TV that were mob movies. There is nothing in The Godfather that I haven't seen before, more than once. I know this because I have watched clips from it over the years. :) Coppola and Puzo undoubtedly saw the same films and TV shows that I did. I read Puzo's novel, by the way. But I don't remember anything specific about it, because it was all stuff that I had seen on TV already when I read the book. Those two might have seen many of the films in first run that I saw on afternoon and weekend TV. Their film is a paean to all those that went before. It's no doubt an excellent film. And I no doubt have no business watching it.

OK. Obviously, no one is interested in forcing you to watch or appreciate any film that you've already decided through force of will to neither watch nor enjoy. It would be asinine for me to tell you how wrong you are about a film you refuse to watch. That you think you know how worthy any film is before watching, especially when it flies in the face of overwhelming critical and popular consensus, well, I'll simply concede that this says all that needs to be said about the situation.


Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

The Wild Bunch is actually 1969. I know because it was released a year before I was born,


Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

I'm probably going to have to rewatch this one. another movie where I felt I was watching a historical artifact rather than really feeling it deep in my pores. but that's nothing I hold against the movie itself mind you. I know I haven't been getting outdoors much as of late.

but as the American movie of 1969, yeah I'd say it's a good choice. one other significant New Wave movie from '69 I'd like to add is They Shoot Horses Don't They. now there's a movie that laid me out flat.


Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:05 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

In the scene where Jack Nicholson and the others get stoned they smoked real pot. Just a bit of trivia but I'm sure most of you are probably aware of that.


Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:22 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Time to catch up on some older responses here...
Thief wrote:

I've always seen the American New Wave as more of a director-driven movement replacing the producer/studio-driven machinery, regardless of the subject.
Yeah, of course the New Hollywood was a movement and not an actual genre, so you get all types of movies being included in it, and if the late 20's through the 40's were really the golden age of the old studio system, then the New Hollywood era was the golden age of the artist, or at least, the best time in the history of Hollywood to be an "auteur", especially now with superhero blockbusters and Disney franchises dominating everything.
Slentert wrote:
I watched Easy Rider recently for the first time, and I didn't really like it. But can I recommend The Rain People (1969)? Francis Ford Coppola's debut film, with a very young James Caan and Robert Duvall. It is a wonderful movie about a middle-class housewife who escapes her domestic life and takes a road trip in search of freedom and individuality. (Saying more would be a spoiler, it's best to go in cold, like I did)

Ebert called it "the mirror image of "Easy Rider.".
Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
but as the American movie of 1969, yeah I'd say it's a good choice. one other significant New Wave movie from '69 I'd like to add is They Shoot Horses Don't They. now there's a movie that laid me out flat.
I saw Rain People & Horses listed on Wikipedia's list of New Hollywood releases, but I've never seen or heard much about either one, which is why I didn't bother mentioning them for the year, but if you guys say that they're really great movies, I might just have to check them out someday.
Jinnistan wrote:
This film has been the source of a lot of myths and rumors, no doubt to the, um, psychic inconsistencies of the participants. The contribution of screenwriter Terry Southern (Dr. Strangelove, The Magic Christian) is a good example of this. Southern, already a well-known countercultural writer, was brought in by Fonda and Hopper to shape their ideas. Southern wrote the original script based on hours of discussion. Almost immediately, Fonda and, especially, Hopper were intent on denigrating Southern's contribution, at one point offering him $10,000 to remove his name from the credits. (Southern, ironically, had been instrumental in coaxing the Writers Guild into allowing non-union Fonda and Hopper's name to the writing credits.)

Southern seemed content to allow sleeping dogs lie, and never made much fuss while Hopper continued to insist that "Terry never wrote a fucking word" of the script. However, maybe not irony but serendipity, when Dennis Hopper was sued by Rip Torn over Hopper's allegation that Torn (originally cast as George Hanson until this incident) had attacked him with a knife in a resturaunt (Torn claimed that it was Hopper who produced the blade in anger - and stories of Hopper pulling knives on various people at the time seem to corroborate this), the court ended up subpoenaing Southern's original papers during his work on the film, and clearing the air over just how much of the film had been his creation. In the end, the story of the script is about as accurate an example of the absolute insanity of the entire project.

This is also an area of a lot of dispute. Not Jaglom, as most people see him as saving the film. But Nicholson has claimed to have edited the New Orleans cemetary scene himself (original editor Donn Cambern has called Nicholson the "ex-officio producer" of the film for his behind-the-scenes and largely uncredited work to finish the film). And Hopper, probably obviously, originally declared "his film" butchered upon first viewing the final Jaglom cut.
Thanks for the additional info, Jinn; I almost always have to go by Wiki/IMDB for my movie tidbits here, and I know they're not always the most reliable sources, but they're easier and faster to get info from than reading full articles from outside sites, and with all the stuff going on in my work schedule/personal life at the moment, they're all I have the time to go through and still be able to get those posts out in a semi-timely matter, I'm afraid. Again, thanks!

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Midnight Cowboy is the only x-rated movie to ever win the Best Picture award. I mean something like that would never happen these days.


Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

ski petrol wrote:
Midnight Cowboy is the only x-rated movie to ever win the Best Picture award. I mean something like that would never happen these days.
Well yeah, because the "X" MPAA rating doesn't exist anymore.

:D

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

x


Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:37 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Since I've pissed off Gort, I'd like to briefly salvage what I think are sincere and reasonable contentions, distilled from my admittedly 80-proof approach above. This is more for clarity than charity.

I want to note that I did not once claim that Gort was wrong in his opinion concerning American 70s cinema, and certainly never challenged his right to it. I only corrected a couple of factual inaccuracies, like that the assessment of the significance of the era was contemporary to that era rather than being applied by later critics, for example.

It isn't controversial to view the New Amercian era as significant and worthy of praise and study, but that doesn't mean that it should not have its critics as well, of which Gort apparently consists. One could complain of the films' cynicism, their disillusioned malaise, their pedestrian pace, that their politics and humor are outdated, etc. Let's say there's a similar situation, that of someone who, say, feels similarly disaffected by German Expressionism or Italian Neorealism or French Nouvelle Vague, or any of the movements which are generally regarded as sacrosanct among cineastes. It shouldn't be surprising that this position will raise eyebrows. It doesn't mean that this someone could not establish their theory for what they find to be erroneous overestimation. It only means that no one is obligated to take this position seriously, and despite Gort's "take it or leave it" attitude, he's clearly upset that I chose to leave it by pointing out the lack of substance in his given rationale (at least 'given' to me, since I'm unfamiliar with most of his posting history).

These rhetorical irritations may have made my response a little more bitter than needed to be. I admit that I have specific pet peeves involving the false equivalence of "everyone has an opinion", as if this is supposed to convince me that his unorthodox view of an entire crop of cinema is automatically as respectable as the volume of critical and scholarly work on the subject. As above, this doesn't mean that he has no valid points regarding his aversion to these films. All it means is that simply being his opinion is not, ex nihilo, a valid point. Neither is "I was there". So were many of the critics who established the canon of the times. I would maybe wonder which person to believe, except that I doubt that "being there", in and of itself, qualifies as compelling. One Boomer is literally one in 76 million.

And finally, yes, I also do not respect the value judgments of films by those who have not only not seen said films but refuse to see them. I frankly think it would be perverse to expect me to. And yet, this was the reason offered to me ("why should I?") and for some reason, I managed to offend by completely rejecting this disingenuous response. There are, of course, a number of films which not only have I not seen but am in no hurry to see and will die completely satisfied without having seen them. I think most people feel this way. What I have not done is to go into a thread and practically brag about not seeing, say, Ready Player One while claiming to already understand its value to its fans. Not watching RPO is not a point of pride for me.

So my response was irritable, and I'm sure that Gort's response was a reaction to this irritated tone. I'm not going to pretend that his cueing the orchestra isn't also irritating. All I can do is to point out how, at least in this exchange, he never got around to saying much about the films themselves.


Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1969: Easy Rider (Hopper, rewatch)

Jinnistan wrote:
Hopper were intent on denigrating Southern's contribution,


Quote:
Southern seemed content to allow sleeping dogs lie, and never made much fuss while Hopper continued to insist that "Terry never wrote a fucking word" of the script. However, maybe not irony but serendipity, when Dennis Hopper was sued by Rip Torn over Hopper's allegation that Torn (originally cast as George Hanson until this incident) had attacked him with a knife in a resturaunt (Torn claimed that it was Hopper who produced the blade in anger - and stories of Hopper pulling knives on various people at the time seem to corroborate this),


Quote:
And Hopper, probably obviously, originally declared "his film" butchered upon first viewing the final Jaglom cut.


Goddamn, what a king.

The Last Movie is what happens when people aren't there to tell Hopper "no". It's definitely a strange brew with something of a growing cult following. The rerelease later this year is actually getting a book about the film published as well which I'm totally going to buy.

But Out of the Blue is still the hidden gem of his stuff.

_________________
yours truly,
kayden kross.


Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:42 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Quick lil' update on the status of my entry for 1970: since I hadn't really seen any films from the year that feel like true icons of the Movement to me, I did rent one particularly famous one, and I had gotten through the better part of it, but it was getting late and I needed to get to sleep, my digital rental expired in the meantime, and most importantly, I wasn't much feeling the film as a whole, so I'm taking a little break from working on the thread until my next day off work, on Friday, when hopefully, I can watch the entirety of my back-up choice for the year (which I've also never seen before), and hopefully finish an entry for it soon afterward, so stay tuned!

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Stu wrote:
Quick lil' update on the status of my entry for 1970: since I hadn't really seen any films from the year that feel like true icons of the Movement to me, I did rent one particularly famous one, and I had gotten through the better part of it, but it was getting late and I needed to get to sleep, my digital rental expired in the meantime, and most importantly, I wasn't much feeling the film as a whole, so I'm taking a little break from working on the thread until my next day off work, on Friday, when hopefully, I can watch the entirety of my back-up choice for the year (which I've also never seen before), and hopefully finish an entry for it soon afterward, so stay tuned!

What movie did you (try to) watch?

I have barely seen anything from 1970, but I remember really liking Five Easy Pieces. Probably the best Nicholson performance.

Also, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying this thread so far. Great work. :)


Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:30 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

M*A*S*H


Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:24 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

if it isn't Zabriskie Point or Beyond the Valley of the Dolls then why the fuck are you even doing this thread, Stu?

STU?!!?!?!!?!??!?!?!1!?!!


Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Stu wrote:
Quick lil' update on the status of my entry for 1970: since I hadn't really seen any films from the year that feel like true icons of the Movement to me, I did rent one particularly famous one, and I had gotten through the better part of it, but it was getting late and I needed to get to sleep, my digital rental expired in the meantime, and most importantly, I wasn't much feeling the film as a whole, so I'm taking a little break from working on the thread until my next day off work, on Friday, when hopefully, I can watch the entirety of my back-up choice for the year (which I've also never seen before), and hopefully finish an entry for it soon afterward, so stay tuned!

No, Stu! More blood! Now!

Also, my favourite (American) movie of 1970 would be Patton, but that doesn't really feel New Hollywood to me for whatever reason.

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!


Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
also: I'm fond of J. Hoberman's The Dream Life which analyzes how the movies of the 60's and 70's mirrored the social/political movements of the time. it doesn't sync up exactly with '67-'80, iirc it begins in the early 60's and ends in the mid-70's i.e. Kennedy to Ford. and a lot of the movies he highlights are outside of the established canon.


speaking of which, I guess he agrees with your pick (Stu) for the movie of '68.

(although I'm not sure why he refers to Ebert's review of the movie as an "all-out attack")


Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Stu wrote:
Friday, when hopefully, I can watch the entirety of my back-up choice for the year (which I've also never seen before), and hopefully finish an entry for it soon afterward, so stay tuned!


Dear Stu,

I am tuned

I expect a new post this weekend

k thnx,
wig


Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post 1970: M*A*S*H (Altman, first viewing)

Image

This isn't a hospital, it's an insane asylum!

Personal Thoughts:


Yes, Robert Altman's M*A*S*H is the first film I've discussed in this thread without having already seen it before, and not only that, but it's also the first Robert Altman film I've ever seen, period. And, while I'm a bit embarrassed to admit all of that, and a bit nervous to talk about a movie I've just now viewed for the first time, part of the point of this thread all along was to give me an excuse to dive at least a little bit deeper into the movement, so this sort of situation was inevitable anyway. At any rate, as for M*A*S*H, based off of my first impressions of the film, while I felt its plot was somewhat too episodic on the whole, with each new wacky incident at the unit feeling more or less like a completely stand-alone vignette, and the playing of constant sexual harassment of "Hot Lips" for cruel laughs (only for her to end up literally cheerleading her tormentors towards the end) is an aspect of the film that's aged very poorly, but, despite those issues, it was still a fairly enjoyable, entertaining film anyway, with a very subversive, almost pitch-black sense of humor at times, and an unapologetically satirical take on the rigid nature of military culture at a particularly sensitive time in American history (but, more on that below). So, while M*A*S*H isn't quite the Dr. Strangelove of the Korean War (if such a movie even exists), I still liked it on the whole, and hopefully it can serve as my launching point for checking out more of its director's legendary output, from both inside the 70's and elsewhere.

Significance To The Movement/Cinema As A Whole:

I initially hesitated from making this my first choice for my 1970 entry, due to my awareness of Altman's legendary status within the movement and the cinephile community in general, which, combined with my ignorance of the rest of his body of work, created a lack of familiarity and context that would me it tougher for me to discuss its overall impact, but, my first choice for the year fell through (but more on that below), so I'll do my best here. First off, I already knew that this is considered Altman's breakthrough movie after decades of directing a number of industrial films and documentaries, a bunch of episodes for various 60's TV series, and a few early, failed film projects. And, besides that, I was already aware that his films were generally well-known for taking satirical points of view, having busy, overlapping, heavily improvised, naturalistic dialogue from his large ensemble casts, and de-emphasizing plot in favor of exploring, as one biographer put it, "exploration of pure human behavior", all aspects that M*A*S*H has in spades, apparently making it the style-setter for Altman's later films.

Besides that, M*A*S*H is notable as a satire for the various sacred cows it slaughters, in particular both religion and the military, as the figureheads of the former are portrayed as being either joyless, emotionally abusive assholes (as in the case of Robert Duvall's Major Burns), or feckless, mostly useless bystanders (like Army chaplain Father Mulcahy), and the superiors of the latter institituion all seem to be either lazy, pompously incompotent, or shrill, obnoxious sticks in the mud (such as Nurse "Hot Lips", which, in context, is admittedly not an entirely fair characterization by a long shot), and the constant, stammering, mistake-laden announcements that are piped through the camp's public address system throughout the film punctuate the percieved absurdity of military structure here. In contrast, the film definitely always stays on the side of the motley crew of lower-ranked "doctors" lead by the constantly rule-flouting Hawkeye, a man who just so happened to be drafted into the Army against his will (a potent commentary on a certain contemporary conflict, considering that the draft was still active in 1970, cleverly sneaking in some anti-Vietnam sentiment through the vehicle of a Korean War film). Through all of this and more, it's clear to me that M*A*S*H easily captured the rebellious, anti-authority spirit of the time, which was one of the major recurring elements from the movies of the movement, and the best argument for why it is one of THE defining films of 1970.

Other significant New Hollywood films from '70:

Like I said earlier, there where no real standout New Hollywood films from this year that I'd already seen, which made this entry a little tough to write; my actual favorite movie from 1970 would be Franklin J. Schaffner's classic, epic Patton, a biopic of the American general of the same name and that year's Best Picture Winner at the Oscars (alongside a Best Screenplay win for a pre-breakthrough Francis Ford!), but my memory of the film doesn't recall it being comparably experimental or boundary-pushing in terms of style and content when placed next to its contemporaries, and its vibe is probably a bit too "Classical Hollywood" on the whole to qualify as being part of the movement, despite its unvarnished, warts-and-all depiction of its titular subject. Besides that, '70 was also the year that William Friedkin directed The Boys In The Band, one of the first truely gay-themed films to come out of Hollywood, while Altman also made the mostly-forgotten Brewster McCloud this year (which, of course, I haven't seen), at the same time that Mike Nichols was simultaneously trying his hand at a competing black comedy/war film with his adaptation of Joseph Heller's Catch-22, with much less financial success than M*A*S*H, but his film has still managed to attain somewhat of a cult following to this day.

Anyway, like I said beforehand in this thread, I initially tried to watch and discuss another film from 1970, Bob Rafelson's Five Easy Pieces, which was probably most notable for featuring an early starring role from the one and only Jack Nicholson, but also because, despite the considerable success of M*A*S*H at the time, I was afraid that "M*A*S*H" the show had eclipsed it in the public consciousness (to the point where my sister was recently suprised to learn that there was a M*A*S*H movie in the first place). Unfortunately, my digital rental of Pieces expired before I could finish it, but more importantly, while it had a couple of memorable moments throughout, I found it to be a mostly an unfocused, unengaging experience, which is why I decided not to finish it and discuss it for this entry. Maybe it's like Night Of The Living Dead, though, in that its final half hour picks up somewhat, and I still want to finish it some other day, so hopefully that reality will come to pass eventually.

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:45 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

A favorite of mine since I was maybe 14.
Altman's style takes some getting used to but I really like it.
I also liked that this movie was basically like a year in the life, rather than having a traditional arc. The characters arrive, time passes, things happen, and they eventually move on. Simple as that. It's a weird viewing experience but so rare that I actually really dug it over 30 years ago and have ever since.


Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:06 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Slentert wrote:
I have barely seen anything from 1970, but I remember really liking Five Easy Pieces. Probably the best Nicholson performance.

Also, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying this thread so far. Great work. :)
Aw, thanks :oops:

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1970: M*A*S*H (Altman, first viewing)

Stu wrote:
Besides that, Altman also made the mostly-forgotten Brewster McCloud this year (which, of course, I haven't seen)

I'd recommend it, but it may be a bit more off-putting. In its way, it's even more anarchic than MASH (although a bit more forgiving on Sally Kellerman), and the humor veers from very silly to disturbingly weird. It's also outdated in may ways, but I think it's a special film. (And a great double feature with Harold & Maude if you're still considering a 1971 entry.)

Stu wrote:
I initially tried to watch and discuss another film from 1970, Bob Rafelson's Five Easy Pieces, which was probably most notable for featuring an early starring role from the one and only Jack Nicholson

It's really much more than that though. It's been said that Easy Rider proved that Jack Nicholson was a star, but Five Easy Pieces proved he was a great actor. Pretty much everything Jack did between 1970-1975 is worthwhile, but 5EP is on the shortlist of his personal best.

Stu wrote:
I was afraid that "M*A*S*H" the show had eclipsed it in the public consciousness (to the point where my sister was recently suprised to learn that there was a M*A*S*H movie in the first place)

Growing up with MASH being a staple of the TV week, to the point where the theme music is immediately relatable (like Taxi, Barney Miller, Kotter, Rockford Files), it was quite a revelation once we found out what the lyrics were about.


Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:55 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

as a reward for being honest with your lack of exposure to Altman, I am now going to bully you mercilessly.

I do agree with M*A*S*H as the movie of 1970 though in tandem with Patton, the movie of choice for the other half of the country. remember a time when real men were allowed to fight the good fight without letting themselves be handcuffed by a bunch of bleeding hearts and moral relativists? (heck, it was apparently Nixon's favorite movie according to Woodward and Bernstein)


Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:01 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Another one I haven't seen. Dang it. However, just wanted to chime in that I'm really enjoying this thread so far.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

You better be talking about Skidoo, I won't tolerate your friendship if you don't


Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Joss Whedon wrote:
You better be talking about Skidoo, I won't tolerate your friendship if you don't


you're two years too late, we're already in the 70's. I've already had to forgive Stu for skipping over Casino Royale.


Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:

you're two years too late, we're already in the 70's. I've already had to forgive Stu for skipping over Casino Royale.

Oh god, no! I think maybe he needs to be exiled to Elba.


Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:43 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

for real though, I hope you at least find time for official Corrierino zeitgeist film Nashville. though I don't know if I would pick it as The Film of 1975 when we are more living in a post-Jaws Hollywood than a post-Nashville one.


Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:42 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Easy Rider is one of the best films I've ever seen. I think it's a great films BECAUSE it is scattered and aimless.


Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Macrology and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.