In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

104 6 Jaws Williams’s Neo­ clas­ si­ cism Floats Up to the Sur­ face John ­ Williams ­ reached star­ dom in the mid-1970s, a pe­ riod in which Hol­ ly- ­ wood cin­ ema was re­ cov­ er­ ing from the pre­ vi­ ous ­ decade’s de­ ba­ cles. In those years, a new gen­ er­ a­ tion of film­ mak­ ers and screen­ writ­ ers—among them­ George Lucas and Ste­ ven Spiel­ berg—was build­ ing their rep­ u­ ta­ tion, launch­ ing the ­ so-called New Hol­ ly­ wood. It has been ­ claimed that “music, and spe­ cif­i­ cally the or­ ches­ tral ­ scores of John ­ Williams, has be­ come an im­ por­ tant part of the New Hol­ ly­ wood.”1 So, ­ Williams is said to be the New Hol­ ly­ wood com­ poser par ex­ cel­ lence. To fully under­ stand the mean­ ing of this, it is nec­ es­ sary to under­ stand first what is meant by New Hol­ ly­ wood. The New Hol­ ly­ wood Cin­ ema The term “New Hol­ ly­ wood” is some­ what equiv­ ocal. It is often ap­ plied to films that are very dif­ fer­ ent from each other: on the one hand, Bon­ nie and Clyde (Ar­ thur Penn, 1967) and Easy Rider (Den­ nis Hop­ per, 1969); on the other hand, Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977) and Super­ man: The Movie (Rich­ ard Don­ ner, 1978).2 The pe­ riod ­ between ap­ prox­ i­ mately 1967 and 1975, often ­ called “Hol­ ly­ wood Re­ nais­ sance” or “American New Wave” and in­ clud­ ing the first two films, is gen­ er­ ally con­ fused or at least fused with the sub­ se­ quent pe­ riod, in which the Hol­ ly­ wood film in­ dus­ try re­ gained its inter­ na­ tional pre­ dom­ i­ nance. In this book “New Williams’s Neoclassicism Floats Up to the Surface • 105 Hol­ ly­ wood” re­ fers only to this sec­ ond pe­ riod, to in­ di­ cate ­ Hollywood’s re­ or­ ga­ n­ iza­ tion ­ around new dis­ tri­ bu­ tion prac­ tices and hor­ i­ zon­ tal in­ te­ gra­ tion. Film com­ pa­ nies be­ came ­ merely a por­ tion—often of minor im­ por­ tance—of the net­ work of busi­ ness of ­ larger cor­ po­ ra­ tions op­ er­ at­ ing in the multi­ me­ dia mar­ ket, and Hol­ ly­ wood stu­ dios were at this point taken over by multi­ na­ tional en­ ter­ tain­ ment com­ pa­ nies. Al­ though there seems to be a gen­ eral con­ sen­ sus on using the term “New Hol­ ly­ wood” in this sense,3 when it comes to de­ fin­ ing the pe­ riod in terms of aes­ thet­ ics and form, ­ things get more con­ tro­ ver­ sial. Some ­ contrast the New Hol­ ly­ wood style with the clas­ si­ cal one and ­ equate New Hol­ ly­ wood ei­ ther with “post­ clas­ si­ cal”4 or with “post­ mod­ ern cin­ ema.”5 Ac­ cord­ ing to these po­ si­ tions, con­ tem­ po­ rary Hol­ ly­ wood cin­ ema, com­ pared to clas­ si­ cal cin­ ema, has a very dif­ fer­ ent form and style, char­ ac­ ter­ ized by frag­ mented and super­ fi­ cial nar­ ra­ tives, and an em­ phatic style that ­ largely dis­ plays bom­ bas­ tic vis­ ual and sound ef­ fects to in­ duce vis­ ceral sen­ sa­ tions and in­ tense emo­ tions. Ac­ cord­ ing to the post­ clas­ si­ cal theo­ rists, this style is the di­ rect con­ se­ quence of the New ­ Hollywood’s mar­ ket frag­ men­ ta­ tion and the re­ duc­ tion of films to mere com­ mod­ ities to an un­ prec­ e­ dented ex­ tent.6 Ac­ cord­ ing to post­ mod­ ern theo­ rists, style mir­ rors the very frag­ mented and super­ fi­ cial iden­ tity of con­ tem­ po­ rary man and the so­ ci­ ety in which he lives.7 Other schol­ ars argue ­ against this sharp break­ between the clas­ si­ cal pe­ riod and the ­ so-called post­ clas­ si­ cal pe­ riod claim­ ing that re­ gard­ less of mar­ ket frag­ men­ ta­ tion and per­ va­ sive com­ mer­ cial prac­ tices, the form and style in most films are not that dif­ fer­ ent from those of the clas­ si­ cal cin...


Additional Information

Print ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.