New Hollywood

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  New Hollywood was already a phrase being used by the press before the movement it would come to define had even properly begun. By 1957, Life magazine had called the previous decade "the horrible decade" for Hollywood. The studios were hemorrhaging audiences to television, their costly spectacles were failing at the box office, and the people running them had no idea how to speak to a younger, angrier generation that was coming of age. What followed, from the mid-1960s through the early 1980s, was one of the most contested, celebrated, and debated chapters in American cinema. A new wave of directors seized creative control from the studios and made films that violated nearly every rule their predecessors had followed. The questions worth asking are: how did this happen, what made those films so different, and why did it end?

• 2. A System in Collapse

  ›

  The Paramount Case broke the old studio model by ending block booking and stripping studios of their theater chains. Television arrived to take what audiences remained. Hollywood's first response was spectacle: Technicolor, CinemaScope, stereo sound, and even 3-D, all designed to offer something the small screen could not. It did not work. Audience shares kept falling, and by the mid-1960s had reached what industry observers described as alarmingly low levels.

  The studios doubled down on expensive productions in the hope that replicating earlier hits would turn things around. Doctor Dolittle, Tora! Tora! Tora!, and the Julie Andrews vehicle Star! were each attempts to replicate the success of Mary Poppins, Doctor Zhivago, and The Sound of Music. Each failed. The losses were enormous, and they left the studios desperate enough to try almost anything.

  The audience itself was transforming. By the mid-1970s, 76% of all moviegoers were under 30, and 64% of those had attended college. European and Japanese cinema was finding an audience among disaffected American youth; Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup, with its oblique narrative structure and full-frontal female nudity, was exactly the kind of film that the Hays Code had made impossible in Hollywood. The breakdown of that code came via the Freedman v. Maryland court case in 1965. A new ratings system followed in 1968. With those constraints gone, younger directors suddenly had a path forward.

• 3. Bonnie and Clyde Changes Everything

  ›

  When Jack L. Warner, then chief executive of Warner Bros., first saw a rough cut of Bonnie and Clyde in the summer of 1967, he hated it. Distribution executives agreed, and the film received a low-key premiere and a limited release. The strategy seemed correct when Bosley Crowther, film critic at The New York Times, wrote that it was "a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy" that treated the exploits of its criminals "as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cut-ups in Thoroughly Modern Millie." Reviews in Time and Newsweek were equally dismissive.

  The reversal began with critic Pauline Kael, whose positive review appeared in the New Yorker in October 1967. Kael argued that the film's power came from its portrayal of innocence: "In a sense, it is the absence of sadism -- it is the violence without sadism -- that throws the audience off balance at Bonnie and Clyde. The brutality that comes out of this innocence is far more shocking than the calculated brutalities of mean killers." According to journalist Peter Biskind, her review led Newsweek and Time to re-evaluate the film entirely.

  In December 1967, a Time magazine cover story by Stefan Kanfer declared Bonnie and Clyde "a watershed picture, the kind that signals a new style, a new trend." The film was re-released, found commercial success, and went on to win Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actress, awarded to Estelle Parsons, and Best Cinematography. Directed by Arthur Penn and produced by and starring Warren Beatty, it demonstrated that a studio film could combine graphic violence, moral ambiguity, and youthful energy and find an audience willing to pay for it.

• 4. The Movie Brats

  ›

  Some of the directors who came to define New Hollywood were mentored by Roger Corman, the low-budget filmmaker known as the "King of the Bs." Jack Nicholson, Dennis Hopper, and Peter Bogdanovich all passed through Corman's orbit. Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond worked for lesser-known B-movie directors before breaking into the movement. Hopper, who co-starred in Curtis Harrington's 1961 supernatural thriller Night Tide, distributed through Corman's American International Pictures, would go on to direct Easy Rider.

  The directors and screenwriters who formed the core of New Hollywood were often educated at USC, UCLA, NYU, and AFI. Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, and Paul Schrader were among them. The press sometimes labeled them "Movie Brats" or "Young Turks." George Lucas, Coppola, and Scorsese each cited experimental and structural filmmakers as influences, including Arthur Lipsett, Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren, Andy Warhol, and Kenneth Anger.

  New technology helped these directors work in ways the previous generation could not. The Panavision Panaflex camera arrived in 1972. The Steadicam followed in 1976. Both allowed 35mm shooting in outdoor locations without the cost of building sets, pushing New Hollywood toward a naturalism that contrasted sharply with the stylized studio productions of the 1950s. Documentary filmmakers including D.A. Pennebaker, the Maysles Brothers, and Frederick Wiseman were also cited as influences on the era's visual approach.

  The mid-1970s produced some of the movement's most celebrated work. Paper Moon, Dog Day Afternoon, Chinatown, and Taxi Driver all arrived during this period, each earning substantial critical and commercial attention.

• 5. Narrative Rebellion

  ›

  Film scholar Todd Berliner identified five narrative principles that governed the Hollywood films of the 1970s, and none of them were reassuring by traditional standards. The films integrated story elements that actively worked against the films' primary purposes. They occupied a deliberate middle ground between classical Hollywood and European and Asian art cinema. They generated uncertainty and discomfort in audiences rather than pleasure. They favored irresolution at their climaxes, the moment when conventional films tied up loose ends. And they deliberately slowed narrative momentum, undermining suspense.

  Thomas Schatz identified a shift in how character and plot related to each other. In classical Hollywood films, including some early New Hollywood titles like The Godfather, plot emerged from what characters wanted and why. Starting in the mid-1970s, Schatz observed a reversal: characters became functions of plot rather than its engine.

  The films of the era also engaged directly with the political and social fractures of their moment. The Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon, second-wave feminism, and a deep suspicion of authoritative institutions all found their way onto screen. The pessimism was intentional. Quentin Tarantino, writing in his 2022 book Cinema Speculation, described the audience eventually tiring of it: "regular moviegoers were becoming weary of modern American movies. The darkness, the drug use, the embrace of sensation -- the violence, the sex, and the sexual violence. But even more than that, they became weary of the anti-everything cynicism." Film historian Robert P. Kolker, examining New Hollywood directors in his 1980 book A Cinema of Loneliness, observed that their films spoke to "a continual impotence in the world, an inability to change and to create change."

• 6. The End and Its Causes

  ›

  Peter Biskind's 1998 book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls argued that the movement began in earnest with Easy Rider and reversed course when the commercial success of Jaws and Star Wars showed studios the value of blockbusters and tight production control. The success of The Godfather was cited as a precursor to the blockbuster phenomenon even before those films arrived. Once studios understood what blockbusters could do for them, the era of director-driven risk-taking was functionally over.

  The excesses of the movement contributed to its end from within as well. Turner Classic Movies personality John Malahy, writing in his book Rewinding the '80s, pointed to directors spending millions on elaborate cinematic visions that audiences did not share. Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate nearly bankrupted United Artists in 1980. John Belton noted that by the mid-1970s, 50% of moviegoers were between 12 and 20 years old and growing more conservative. Thomas Schatz placed the peak of the art cinema movement at 1974-75, with Nashville and Chinatown representing its high-water mark.

  The era was also marked by genuine tragedy. Spielberg co-directed and co-produced Twilight Zone: The Movie alongside John Landis. A helicopter accident on Landis's portion of the production killed actor Vic Morrow and two Vietnamese children. Spielberg publicly called for the end of New Hollywood and ended his friendship with Landis. Addressing the press, he stated: "No movie is worth dying for. I think people are standing up much more now, than ever before, to producers and directors who ask too much. If something isn't safe, it's the right and responsibility of every actor or crew member to yell, 'Cut!'" Brian De Palma and William Friedkin shared similar feelings about the accident.

• 7. Legacy and Revision

  ›

  New Hollywood's influence on later filmmakers is traceable through specific works. Todd Phillips's 2019 film Joker drew directly from Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. Alexander Payne's 2023 film The Holdovers drew from the work of Hal Ashby. Quentin Tarantino's 2019 Oscar-winning Once Upon a Time in Hollywood mourned the end of the era it depicted. Three sequels to New Hollywood classics, The Godfather Part III, Texasville, and The Two Jakes, all arrived in 1990, directed respectively by Coppola, Bogdanovich, and Jack Nicholson, who had starred in Roman Polanski's 1974 neo-noir Chinatown and reprised his role in the sequel.

  The movement spread beyond American borders. It influenced the Poliziotteschi genre and discoploitation films in Italy. A decade later, it helped shape the Cinema du look movement in France. The narrative of 1983's British shot-on-video film Suffer Little Children drew partly from Brian De Palma's Carrie and John Carpenter's Halloween.

  The received history of the era has itself come under scrutiny. In their 2022 book We Are The Mutants, authors Kelly Roberts, Michael Grasso, and Richard McKenna argued that the dominant myth of outlaws seizing Hollywood was largely constructed by film critics who canonized the auteurs while overlooking independent films of the same period that addressed the same cultural anxieties. Manohla Dargis, writing in the Los Angeles Times, called the era the "halcyon age" of 1970s filmmaking but described it as "less revolution than business as usual, with rebel hype." Film critic David Thomson called it "the decade when movies mattered," while author Charles Taylor named it the third -- and, to date, last -- great period in American movies. Paul Fischer's 2026 book Last Kings of Hollywood offered harsher verdicts on its central figures, depicting Lucas as a sellout and describing Coppola as someone who treated "the creative life as if it's an experiment."