Book Review of Storytelling in the New Hollywood by Kristin Thompson (1999)

Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding Classical Narrative Technique. Kristin Thompson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 398 pages


By Patrick Charsky


Storytelling in the New Hollywood by Kristen Thompson will appeal to a select group of readers; screenwriters, film historians, and other people concerned with learning about how Hollywood makes films. Furthermore with her close analysis of Hollywood classics from the 1980’s she sets an example of how to understand the way movies were made in the late twentieth century. Thompson’s major argument is that the way Hollywood writes films in contemporary times is not altogether much different from how they were made in the Golden Age of Hollywood. By citing specific examples from the book I will show that Thompson has proved her argument beyond a doubt.

Kristin Thompson is a highly regarded author who has held numerous academic positions throughout her career. She has published several books besides Storytelling in the New Hollywood. One such book is called Film Art which was written with her husband David Bordwell. That book has gone on to thirteen editions.

The book begins with a long discourse about Screenwriting. Thompson talks about Syd Field and his three act structure theory. She says that for some Field’s book Screenplay has become the bible on screenwriting. She dismisses Field’s theories as all encompassing. Thompson cites many writers who don’t use the three act model to write screenplays. Her main argument is like any other art form, screenplays need a balance between beginning, middle and end. So with this in mind she writes about her way of structuring a film. She agrees that there is a setup. Next is the complicating action. Then the development. And finally the climax and epilogue.

After reading her introduction I was confounded. Which is the right way to structure a film? Is it ¼, ½, ¼? Is it some other way? Do there really need to be three acts? Why not more than three? If it's a very long film then there would have to be more parts. Thompson writes about long films needing more acts. And the only reason why the three act structure is so popular in Hollywood is that screenwriters don’t have the power to get longer films made.

Thompson knows a lot about structure and screenwriting. She writes about the growth of screenwriting manuals to explain the best or right way to write a screenplay. She even thinks that the quality of Hollywood films declined in the mid- 90’s possibly because of there being too many manuals.

The next device that has stayed with movies from the early days to contemporary times is what Thompson calls the “goal oriented protagonist.” She writes that this has become a staple of classic films and has not gone extinct. Her primary film substantiating her argument is Back to the Future directed by Robert Zemekis. Back to the Future features Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Thompson analyzes Marty’s character in detail. She shows throughout the film that Marty has goals. His goals might change or become more complicated but Marty is always working to accomplish something. This is a common character trait in Hollywood films.

Another example of the goal oriented protagonist is Ripley from Alien. Ripley is part of a group of employees on a business trip through outer space. Over time it becomes apparent that she is the protagonist. And like Marty McFly she has goals. She must kill the alien and save herself at the same time. Thompson writes that Alien was much scarier when it came out in 1979 then today’s audiences would receive it. The character of Ripley has become the norm in the giant action/adventure film genre of today’s Hollywood. Just like Humphrey Bogart in any of his films or Scarlet O’Hara in Gone With the Wind, the goal oriented protagonist is still in use by screenwriters today. Marty McFly must save his family and get back to the present. Ripley must kill the alien and save herself. Audiences crave characters that do something. Hollywood thrives on it.

Thompson makes many points about how the New Hollywood made attempts to change the system, but even Francis Ford Coppola admits that the changes, if any, were minor. The biggest constant from the Golden Age to contemporary times is the profit motive for Hollywood. Hollywood is an art and a business and has remained that way for many years. This is one of Thompson’s strongest arguments about the persistence of filmmaking methods from the early start of film to its latest releases.

Even auteurs like Martin Scorsese and Brian de Palma worry about box office receipts on a Friday night or minutes watched on Netflix. They know that if the numbers aren’t good their next passion project might be jeopardized. Thompson’s recurring question in her introduction is whether the New Hollywood really changed anything? Did they change the way films were made? Of course new technologies came along and changed film, but the way films are written have relied mostly on tried and true methods. And this is the way the studios want it. A bankable method to generate profits. It is also the way audiences like it and if a movie is missing something and veers too far into special effects the results are usually less than stellar.

Storytelling in the New Hollywood is a book for someone with a background in Film. I have read several books abou the New Hollywood including Peter Biskind’s How the Rock n Roll Generation Saved Hollywood and William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade. Both of those books deal with similar topics.

Many people see the New Hollywood as a major change in Film History. And some of those changes can’t be denied. Where Thompson makes a strong case is in pointing out that the big studios in LA are still in big business. It is those kinds of films that haven’t changed much from the Golden Age. Smaller films, Indie films have changed and continue to challenge our expectations about what film can be.

At the end of her book she divides film into two camps; the big, Hollywood film and the small Indie film. And she raises the question about what direction Hollywood will go; towards bigger productions or towards smaller more artistic creations. In today’s Hollywood it seems like the Studios are bent on finding the next franchise hit or a new Marvel movie. The New Hollywood seems like a distant memory