I loved this book and did not want it to end. It is a detailed look at Hollywood during the transition from Old Hollywood to New Hollywood, during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It details the making of iconic films of that period and contains revealing portraits of the filmmakers: Warren Beaty, Martin Scorsese, George Lucus, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and others. If you are interested in filmmaking and Hollywood, you'll find this book a delicious and informative read.

If there ever was a Renaissance in film, the 1970's would be among the first to claim it. In its ten-year span, the decade would produce some of the finest motion pictures ever made. As chronicled in Peter Biskind's 1998 tome "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," the road to these classic movies was paved by sex, drugs, lies, deceit, arrogance, hubris, insanity, infidelity, manipulation, compromise, and yes...rock and roll.

Actor-director-producer-Warren Beatty, producer Bert Schneider, producer-director Bob Rafelson, Actor-director Dennis Hopper, screenwriter-director Robert Towne, director Hal Ashby, director Peter Bogdanovich, writer-director Paul Schrader, director Brian DePalma, director Robert Altman, director William Friedkin, director Francis Ford Coppola, director Martin Scorsese, Warner Bros. Execs John Calley and Frank Wells, Universal exec Ned Tannen, Paramount executive-producer Robert Evans, Paramount executive-producer Don Simpson, director George Lucas, and director Steven Spielberg. These are (most of) the major players who made 70's cinema what it was, and thus were the focus of "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls."

The stories are fascinating, with Warren Beatty as arguably the nexus of it all. The author proclaims the 70s movies wave began in 1967, with the release of BONNIE AND CLYDE as the first maverick film out of the gate...a film that defied the old Hollywood guard with its nod to the 60's counterculture, sex, and violence. And it was Warren Beatty who made it all happen.

Despite having only one hit film to his name, as an actor, Warren Beatty took on the role of ambitious producer and used every skill he had as Hollywood player and tenacious hustler and willed BONNIE AND CLYDE into existence. Better still, Beatty's no-holds-barred persistence not only got the film made, he also made it a hit, with himself reaping an enormous profit. After BONNIE AND CLYDE, Warren Beatty remained a fixture of 70's cinema. From MCCABE & MRS. MILLER to SHAMPOO and THE FORTUNE through HEAVEN CAN WAIT and 1981's REDS.

The other heart of "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is producer Bert Schneider. A tall, handsome wealthy son of Columbia Pictures President Abraham Schneider, Bert partnered with Bob Rafelson in the 1960's in making the hit TV series "The Monkees," and would later form BBS. At BBS, Schneider would produce EASY RIDER as well as 70's classics like FIVE EASY PIECES, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, THE KING OF MARVIN GARDENS, and DAYS OF HEAVEN.

Peter Biskind devotes a fair amount of the book to Schneider, his hard-partying ways, his girlfriends, his marriages, his infidelities, his triumphs and his failures. Drugs played a giant part of Schneider's life, as did an unchecked passion. He won an Oscar for a documentary he produced, then shocked the Motion Picture Academy by reading a note from a North Vietnamese leader.

Then there is legendary producer Robert Evans. As head of Paramount production, Evans was part of the making of such classics as ROSEMARY'S BABY, LOVE STORY, and THE GODFATHER. As a producer at Paramount, Evans made CHINATOWN, MARATHON MAN and POPEYE. Yet Evans too was mired in drug problems that took the wind out of his sails and gave his life nothing but trouble.

Yet (arguably) the point of "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is that the Hollywood of the 1970's was ruled not by the producer, or agent or studio head, but by the maestro who gave the films life: the director. Unlike any other decade, the 1970s was the decade when directors ruled for better or worse.

Throughout the book, the author takes great care at chronicling the careers of the story makers. Robert Altman with the highs of MASH, and NASHVILLE, and the low of POPEYE. William Friedkin with the highs of THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, and the lows of SORCERER, and everything after. Peter Bogdanovich's highs of THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, WHAT'S UP DOC?, and PAPER MOON, and the lows DAISY MILLER, and AT LONG LAST LOVE. Martin Scorsese's high with MEAN STREETS, ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE and TAXI DRIVER, and his low of NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are more or less thrown under the bus by the author as the "men who ruined Hollywood." Both directors were men who made populist, highly commercial blockbusters that flew in the opposite direction of the commercialized "art" made by their peers Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Bogdanovich, Freidkin, etc...Lucas's AMERICAN GRAFFITI and Spielberg's JAWS were both gigantic hits, and Spielberg's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND was another home run for the director. Yet the nail in the coffin for the "great 70's cinema"...the cinema of the auteur, the European-stylized films with rich characters and downbeat endings...was STAR WARS. Once STAR WARS became the massive worldwide phenomenon as it was, nothing in Hollywood was ever the same.

For the directors, the author lays the heart of the 70s in the hands of two men: Hal Ashby and Francis Ford Coppola. Ashby cut his teeth as an editor before became a hot director with HAROLD & MAUDE, THE LAST DETAIL, SHAMPOO, BOUND FOR GLORY, COMING HOME and BEING THERE. Yet Ashby' life and career was spoiled by excessive drug use, and mismanagement by studios and stars alike, leading to a troublesome 80's film career and his untimely death.

Francis Ford Coppola had an incredible track record in the 1970s. He won a screenplay Oscar for 1970's PATTON, directed THE GODFATHER, THE CONVERSATION, THE GODFATHER PART II, and APOCALYPSE NOW. Yet his brilliance came at a cost. Coppola was a spendthrift megalomaniac with big ideals and a big personality to match. He was a great showman and salesman, yet he also was prone to infidelity, drug use, excess, hypocrisy and outright lunacy. Coppola gambled big, and lost big. He was a genius, but also a tyrant.

If everything in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is indeed true, then every movie director (especially the great directors) is a walking nightmare...a true tyrannical despot of some form or another. Peter Biskind lets no one off the hook in his book. Scorsese's drug use and anxiety runs rampant through the pages, as does the unpleasant everything that is Paul Schrader. Bob Rafelson was difficult person to work with, and burned bridges along the way. Altman was defiant beyond his own good, and sometimes cruel. Bogdanovich was full of himself, and was more into pretending to be a director than actually directing. William Friedkin comes off as one of the worst human beings who ever lived, a petulant jerk prone to screaming fits of rage who manage to insult every hand that fed him.

Needless to say, there is much to discuss about Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." Yes, the book overstays welcome, as it continues the story into far less interesting 1980's. The accounts written about are debatable at times, especially with some parties denying them completely. However, most of the book is excellent and well-researched. It's an engaging and entertaining read no doubt, especially for anyone who loves those great 1970's films.

Gossip to burn, compulsive to read. I believe like 64% of it, but that's a good percentage. The moment I never forget that I visualized was Scorsese running after one of his ladies leaving him stark naked in the middle of the night. And, of course, he was the best out of all of them.

My thoughts on Easy Riders, Raging Bulls can be summarized by two comparisons:

1. Game Change: Both books let gossip get in the way of solid storytelling. Game Change would give paragraphs of great accounts of political strategy (which is right in my wheelhouse) then get sidetracked with anecdotes of how Elizabeth Edwards is a bitch, John Edwards is a dandy, and what Hilary Clinton wore at a particular campaign event. Not all of it was completely useless, and some of it was quite fun, but it cheapened the value of the work in my mind.

Biskind's use of gossip is a bit more justifiable. One of the main themes of the book is the hubristic rise and fall of a generation of filmakers that rose to prominence in the '70s. Tales of personal degradation fit into this. And after all, it is Hollywood. And if you want to read a tabloid-like account of Tinsel Town in the '70s, I can recommend this. But I was expecting, and Biskind tries to deliver, something different. Which brings us to the second comparison....

2. Pictures at a Revolution: This comparison is unfair, Pictures is one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read, but the comparison begs to be made. The two books cover many of the same themes and feature many of the same figures and films. And Pictures at a Revolution is better in every single way. Pictures isn't just about how movies changed, its about how very root understandings of American culture changed and the effect the two revolutions had on each other. It's a great story and a hella good read.

Mark Harris gives well-known celebrities like Warren Beatty, Sidney Poitier, Mike Nichols and Rex Harrison into complex, and (sometimes) sympathetic characters. In contrast, Biskind's portraits resemble stereotypical caricatures. Beatty likes to fuck alot. Gee, that Altman guy sure is surely. Wow, Francis Ford Coppola is a prima donna. Who would've thought George Lucas was so antisocial?

Like Game Change this information can be intriguing and often fun.But it gets in the way of the movies. Biskind doesn't do a great job of providing film analysis. I think good writing about film should be like a great commentary track on DVDs. Yeah, I like amusing anecdotes, but I want to hear about the film. Harris writes about the movies, Biskind writes about people who makes the movies and the fucked up shit they do.

But this is supposed to be a review of Easy Rider, Raging Bull, so back on topic. Two things in it's defense in light of the comparison: (1) Biskind doesn't share identical goals with Mark Harris; and (2) and Easy Rider, Ring Bull's scope is (kinda) broader than Pictures.' Biskind succeeds at certain levels. He tells an entertaining story about a group of young, extremely creative people whoe were given the power to create and how they eventually self-imploded. But he doesn't saying much of any significance about the films of the '70s, which is why I picked up the book in the first place.

I’m a messy bitch who LIVES for drama and movies. This book delivers on all fronts.

Ao fim de cinquenta sôfregas páginas de uma mixórdia de factos misturados com fofoquices dignas de documentário do Biography Channel sobre famosos (onde vão buscar o filho da prima do enteado de fulano tal para falar mal dele), e apesar do tema central do livro (a Nova Hollywood) me interessar muitíssimo, tive de pôr de lado este livro por agora. Quem sabe se um dia, com mais força de vontade e mais paciência para aturar o paleio (por vezes digno de uma alcoviteira) do autor, voltarei a atacar este livro de fio a pavio. Senão, farei o que costumo fazer com muitas biografias e livros de não-ficcção: ir directamente para as partes que me interessam, saltitando de um lado para o outro da obra.

This is part of something important.
Didn't want to read othe books
Family histay of on family
Crazy fucking hell


The problem was ... directors taking coke and expensive Films

Не знам колко от историите в тази книга са истина, но няма спор, че са страшно забавни. 70-те са били луди години, а за Холивуд са крайъгълен камък във всяко едно отношение. Общо взето всичко изглежда като един щур купон на истерясали тинейджъри ... и така и приключва - със сълзи и изпочупени къщи.

Вярвам, че "Волни ездачи, разярени бикове" ще е много интересна за феновете на киното. За останалите - едва ли ще им е особено приятно да четат за продуценти, бюджети, снимачни дни и прочее.

читав цю книжку майже півтора року. хотілося б сказати, що смакував, але все просто просто просто навпаки. кожен розділ — ніби окрема серія Джеррі Спрінгера, або, я не знаю, потяганий примірник Каравану історій: казковий буллщіт та жовтуха таблоїдного штибу. але книга погана не тому, що маячня (бо я читав “Tokyo Vice” і це прекрасний текст, хоч по факту є збіркою прохолодних історій), а тому, що тут немає нічого, крім срачів, скандалів, наркотріпів, розлучень, бійок та п’янок. бо на думку автора ніщо не може бути більш бунтарським, ніж обсажений Денніс Гоппер з пляшкою бурбона в руці, або Фей Данавей, котра жбурляє стаканчики з власною сечею в обличчя Поланські. й проблема не в типі контенту, бо митці епохи Нового Голлівуду, ті самі auteurs, були переважно пихатими гандонами, це не новина. той самий Коппола ніколи не був зібраним режисером та приємною людиною, а ідентичні проблеми “Мегалополіса” через 50 років після “Апокаліпсису сьогодні” тому підтвердження. проблема в тому як цей самий контент поданий: зі смакуванням кожної перверзії, з насолодою від вилитого бруду, з неприхованим schadenfreude, коли мова заходить про черговий near death experience умовного пана Скорсезе часів титульного “Скаженого бика.” й стосовно буллщіту: безліч разів у тексті буде наводитись чиясь “цитата” або якийсь гротескний “факт”, після якого буде написано “***** has no recollection of this exchange.” мені здається, це доволі точно підсумовує всю книгу.

очікував щось типу серіалу “The Offer”, але про всі мої улюблені фільми, а отримав якийсь шакалячий TMZ на стероїдах. meh.

Warning: this was read for a God-awful assignment so bear that in mind

Peter Biskind’s cultural history of New Hollywood definitely stands out from the crowd. His effort comprises of 14 chapters bursting with outrageous anecdotes and gossip that weave in and out throughout the book, creating a literary tapestry of the era.

My issue is that this isn’t an easy book to pick up and continue. Amidst other assignments and trying to touch grass on my year abroad, I’ve often had to resort to a small chunk at a time which makes the subject of each chapter seem so niche and inconsequential.

My best experience was reading four chapters on the bounce because that’s when I actually felt like I was understanding the phenomenon of New Hollywood: daring, tectonic-breaking filmmaking which eventually overdosed on its own freedom.

There are some bits of writing which are just laughably bad on a basic grammatical level, but I can’t deny the occasional flashes of brilliance where Biskind hones in on a seeming insignificant moment and turns it into a bigger picture.

It felt like a bit of a fight to read at times, but Biskind does capture hamartia really well, showing how almost every key player went downhill. I like that he ended it with Hal Ashby.

One of the most enjoyable books I have ever read (I managed to read a bunch of this on a treadmill, because I did not want to put it down). Its about how Hollywood movie making ushered in a new kind of Director / visionary / business model in the 70s. And it all came crashing down in the 80s. Lots of incredible stories of behind the scenes on these films. Great book if you are interested in reading about the movie business in the 70s and the personalities behind these films and their foibles, peccadillos, hubris and egos.

This book should be titled "The Encyclopedia of Jerks". It also has the distinction of being the first nonfiction book I have read since 2008. I mostly got through it by pretending it was a juicy gossip blog transported 40 years forward in time.

If you have someone in your life who you really hate, and you love talking about what an awful person they are and how they have wronged you, read this book! Surely you will be able to find their parallel in a famous veteran of the 1970s film industry. You and Peter Biskind can commiserate about how much they totally suck, and how much you hate that tiny part of yourself who likes them despite it all.