An interesting element to observe is the trends of the popular films of each decade. For example, the 2010s were dominated by franchises, reboots, and sequels far more than in the past. The following decade, in the 2020s, has seen similar results, but a downturn due to multiple factors and a rise of smaller-scale films becoming more relevant. For my money, no period is more fascinating to observe than the mid 60s to the end of the 70s, which has been referred to as the New Hollywood era. This represented arguably the most compelling period regarding what films became popular and culturally relevant. Normally, films tend to either reflect a trend in the business or broad appeal entertainment. The 70s offered a different and arguably more interpersonal period where films were far more on the pulse of wider culture and had an aggressive streak as well.
The decades prior had seen the collapse of the old Hollywood. The decline in popularity of movies due to TV and the deregulation of the monopolistic control of the old system had led to many shifts by the mid-60s. The big extravagant films of the studio era had been paying off far less, and the new generation of filmmakers wanted to do something different. They were more interested in smaller-scale films with a more grounded sensibility and adopting techniques from foreign cinema, both in storytelling and filmmaking. Not only that, but these would be movies about their generation and the culture they inhabited. Films like Easy Rider and The Graduate started out the decade by focusing less on broader concepts, but were deliberately about the sensibilities of the youth at the time. The youth of the 60s and 70s were driven by a rebellious spirit and opposed the status quo of the past rather than continuing the tropes and styles of their predecessors.
If there is any tendency that fascinates me the most, however, it’s that this era of filmmaking was very much defined by an aggressive approach to its storytelling and a dour, almost cynical perspective. Take films like Chinatown, The French Connection, or The Godfather, for example. They presented elements that were once more common tropes in the past. Gangsters and crime, with a focus on someone within the conflict. However, unlike the past, which showed a binary good and evil conflict, there was a desire to push further within a realistic lens of how these types of stories would play out in real life. Chinatown is about how individual desires for justice and decency tend to be stomped out by the status quo. The French Connection observes what aggressive lengths a cop takes to take criminals down and asks if all the destruction and violence amounts to anything by the end, and if said cop is doing this for noble reasons. The Godfather is about a decent man becoming consumed and transformed by criminal duties thrust upon him. These movies were focused on the realistic endings of these sorts of stories, where corruption overtakes innocence and ends in a dour but thought-provoking way. In fact, a lot of films in this decade either had a grimmer approach in presenting the world or didn’t always have the happiest of endings. In the past, films would try to present a basic ending that would reaffirm values, and more transgressive elements were scrubbed out. Here, the realities of the world were presented warts and all. Heroes wouldn’t always win, and life would end up playing in favor of the worst tendencies of society. It was honest about what these stories and types of characters were really about.
As for why this was a dominant element, well, I can sum it up by looking at the cultural osmosis of the time. By the 60s, a combination of multiple events had whittled down the optimism and uniformity of the 50s. The Vietnam War, McCarthy hearings, and multiple assassinations of figures like JFK and MLK had brought a sense of cynicism and distrust with the institutions that had been upheld in decades prior. Shifts like the Civil Rights movement and the Watergate scandal also exposed the corruption and hypocrisy of the nation into the limelight. The overall attitudes of counterculture and aggression were what seeped into the films of the period. This made the glamorous and overproduced films of the past incompatible with the current generation of audience members. Most of the average Americans would get their entertainment from TV, which gave the generic entertainment that movies used to offer. With fewer audiences to appeal to, studios started to take more risks on filmmakers who had more experimental ideas and appealed to the youth in ways films of the past simply didn’t. Films like Bonnie and Clyde or The Last Picture Show spoke more to the frustrations of the youth and the conflict between generations. The cynicism that came alongside the youthful perspective was born out of a desire for honesty and distrust of the institutions that had shown their worst sides.
Another engaging element of this period was the fact that directorial talent had become far more of an appeal than before. While there were some distinct artists in the past, most directors in the Hollywood system used to be more or less hired hands who were viewed as replaceable. With the change to more expressive films focused on the new generation, it stands to reason that said generation would also define themselves far more than their prior peers and distinctive artists. From Spielberg, to Lucas, to Scorsese, to De Palma, to Coppola, most of the greatest directorial talent of our lifetime hit big during this time. It resulted in the rise of the auteur film, where the director’s vision was what mattered the most, and certain styles and expectations rose in relation to certain filmmakers. They would be trusted with bigger projects and would continue to grow and experiment as the decade went on. The rapid shift to new talent that was defined by constant change and new ideas is why this era is referred to as the New Hollywood era. It was arguably the period with the most freedom given to filmmakers, and the results created some of the greatest and most compelling works in film history.
By the 80s, though, all of this suddenly stopped, and films abruptly shifted in approach and tone. As for why, well, I think it can really be summed up with the combination of three things: the rise of the blockbuster, cultural burnout over these types of films, and the shift in how directors were handled. With Jaws and especially Star Wars, escapism with a focus on relatable heroes and triumphant victories in conflict became the template for what audiences were looking for. Not only that, but these types of movies made far, far more money than what came before them. It fundamentally shifted the business model to value broad appeal as well as marketing and merchandise. This was the birth of the blockbuster, which still defines the film business to this day. While films with more gritty and dour tendencies were still being made by the turn of the decade, it was apparent that they were more on the side compared to more crowd-pleasing affairs. That’s not to say that no passion or expression could be put into a blockbuster, but they also couldn’t stretch as far as the films of the past decade could have to appeal to a wider audience both domestically and globally, meaning that aggressive experimentation or more dour perspectives were phased out.
As for the messages, sure, at the time, reaffirmation of the flaws and corruption in society was accepted and a welcome reprieve from both the chaos of the real world and the bland platitudes of prior films. However, at some point, constantly watching stuff that shows how horrible and dire things are can get exhausting. I think the turning point wasn’t just the rise of the blockbuster, but Rocky. A film where the protagonist, while not fully victorious, does get catharsis by the end, felt like something far more appealing to the general public compared to what had been offered. It won Best Picture over films like All the President’s Men, Network, and Taxi Driver, which all represented the more cynical and dour mindset that embodied the decade and indicated a gradual shift away from that. The 78 Superman can also be a shift as well since it was the first of many films based on superheroes, which would snowball gradually throughout the decades. The result was a shift back to the basic hero and villain conflicts of the past that didn’t dig deeper into topics to reaffirm a positive perspective on the world. By the end of the 70s, there was a reasonable desire to go back to a less cynical approach simply because the film culture had been engulfed in it for so long.
There was also the fact that the auteur era was self-destructing as well. By the end of the decade, many flops resulted in the studios shifting their perspective. Francis Ford Coppola bet his entire career on creating his own independent studio, Zoetrope Films. It was made to realize the dream of an artist-run studio, and those who worked there embraced it and loved it. Sadly, the first big picture made there, One from the Heart, was such a disaster at the box office that not only did it kill Zoetrope’s production studio, but it left Coppola in a position of having to do paycheck films for most of the remainder of his career since he put most of his own money into this venture. This was accompanied by other similar flops like William Friedkin’s Sorcerer and Martin Scorcesse’s New York, New York, which hurt the standings of director-driven films within the studio system. The deathnell was Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate. A three-hour epic that went over budget and became a media circus ended the public and studio trust in the director as the main driver of a film and signaled the start of producer-driven films.
The 80s signified the end of the youthful, cynical, and auteur-driven films that dominated the past decade. While films like these have still been made in the decades since, none have been as ubiquitous with the surrounding broad culture or as consistently made compared to this period. I tend to go back to watch films from this period more than most, simply out of fascination with the era. There is a real bite and sense of rawness to many films that didn’t care about conventionality and instead focused on what would be the most compelling way to present an idea. It also helps that the filmmaking was driven by experimentation and a sense of love for the craft, due to directorial talent having more freedom in how films could be made. At the end of the day, it will always be one of the most compelling eras in film history. In a way, I do think we might be going back to this mindset as well. The big, studio-driven blockbusters and IP franchises of the past decade are underperforming while smaller-scale and more director-driven films are getting more traction. While I don’t think we will see another period of director control due to how overbearing the studios are now and how movie theaters are on a sort of decline, there is a comfort in knowing that the spirit that defined the past is very much still alive. Film is entertainment, but it is also a canvas for many different perspectives and ideas, and as long as someone can pick up a camera, that mentality will persist.
