I too love “The Limey” and rate it as the best thing Soderbergh has done (I’m not a great fan).

I suspect I selected Easy Rider and The Exorcist on account of their sheer visibility, a vague contrast to the slightly alternative sensibilities of Two-Lane (which insofar as I’m able to tell have kept it on the periphery of public perception, so that to mention it to those uninterested in history through the lens [ha] of cinema is to receive the blankest of looks in return) which at the time seemed a vaguely clever tactic and seems less so now.

The Exorcist continues to work for me on some kind of very basic level, in spite of the gibberish that constitutes a large proportion of its script and that barely passes for its attempt at ‘world-building’, but the more I think about it, the more I begin to think that Easy Rider is actually a fairly off-putting selection in the context in which I intend it to be understood (nice though it was to be able to stick a reference to The Limey in there in the context of Easy Rider, a rarity considering how few the chances are wherein I get to talk about either). Blargh. I will think on this some more and perhaps author a post-mortem. There are too many holes in this damnable undergraduate’s submission, by far.

I have nothing further to add on “Two Lane Blacktop” which you’ve covered insightfully, but the choice of the other films for discussion worries me a little.

I mean is there anyone whose opinion is really worth savouring that ever thought “Easy Rider” was a great film? Influential? Yes. Zeitgeisty? Sure. Containing enough tasty iconic shots to daub many a teen boy’s bedroom wall for the next decade? No doubt. But I find it hard to believe that the commune sequences were viewed without cringing even then and the ham-fisted stereotyping would have preached to few other than the converted.

A stunning image and a great tag line sold the film, which has far less to say (and is nowhere near as enjoyable) as “The Wild Angels” from a couple of years before. I hasten to add that nothing Hopper has directed can lay a glove on Fonda’s sublime “The Hired Hand”. As “Easy Rider” begat that masterpiece I will forgive its numerous flaws.

“The Exorcist” does hold up better – its atmospherics and shock tactics still make it a decent horrorfest, but the less looked into its religious mumbo-jumbo the better. For a certain middlebrow audience of the time it no doubt worked a treat, playing as it did at many of the prestige houses of the day; venues that would never have allowed a “Last House..” to sully their projectors.

Rather than those two, how about some of the Altmans or Rafelsons of the period? Or, indeed, rather than propping up auteurs for judgement, how about the vibe of the time which allowed for “The Poseidon Adventure” and “The Love Bug” but which also saw the likes of “Cisco Pike”, “Prime Cut”, “Scarecrow”, “Electra Glide in Blue”, “Little Murders”, “The Parallax View”, “W.U.S.A” etc to be financed by the studios and be the meat and potatoes of typical slates of the day. Few of these films made money and although most were agreeably received by critics, they have not met with the discussion that many of the ‘New Hollywood’ features have endured (for better or worse).

In other words, if we are to leave the celebrated efforts of any particular period aside and also toss out the box-office champs, the vilified bombs and the experimental oddities what we are left with is, one could say, the representative sample. Using that methodology, Hollywood distributors of the late 60s – mid 70s had a most fascinating portfolio.

Now of course there have been a number of excellent films made in the decades since – some of them equal to the best that the New Hollywood era could muster. In my opinion there have been a number of particularly wretched years in the 80s – 90s but basic law of averages states that even in those years a gem or two will glisten within the sludge. Conversely, for every masterpiece of 1939 you will find a dud that is rarely revived and spoken about today.

But I think that it does say something that of the post-1980s films you’ve mentioned, a number of them are directed by filmmakers who first shone during or prior to the New Hollywood era. Somehow they have kept working whilst their contemporaries have been put out to pasture, have gone to the grave or, in the case of Coppola done jack (and “Jack”) in the last 20 years. And in terms of the notion of ‘Hollywood’, who put up the pony for “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”? In a roundabout way, Lumet went the Cassavetes route and found independent financing (2000s style). It was not that long ago he was on the true Hollywood payroll hacking his way through Melanie Griffith cop dramas.

No-one can deny that the list of recent films you presented are worthy of discussion with some, perhaps, describable as ‘great’. Let’s leave aside those for a moment, along with the various “Transformers”, “Harry Potters” and other top grossers. At the same time discount the “Pluto Nashes”, too many Kidman kapers and other disasters and the strange oddities that were somehow greenlit. What are we left with? a handful of interesting flicks no doubt, scattered amongst a slew of mediocrity.

To me, that is where the true arbiter of quality resides – in the common film.

No, Hollywood did not stop making great films after 1980. But much in the same way that I could probably find something quite tasty in the buffet at Smorgy’s, I rarely can be bothered running the risk these days.