Photographer Lisa Law writes that the counter-culture ``was an attempt to rebel against the values our parents had pushed on us. We were trying to get back to touching and living and relating.''1 America after the second World War had become a land of hyper-nationalism, paranoid about the threat of communism and promoting to a pedestal the tradition and values that had gotten it where it was. The counter-cultural generation grew up in a world that they felt to be stifling and cold. They rebelled against family values and societal norms, pushing the envelope with new, free feelings about drugs and sexuality. They were a generation that wanted to explore, and wanted the world to be wide-open to them and their beliefs. At this same time cinema was experiencing the same sort of revolution. Traditional Hollywood was in decline. The counter-cultural generation was disinterested in traditional stories and the confines of the genres that produced them. New filmmakers began to see their work as a vehicle to convey their ideas and views. They began to produce works in which they were emotionally invested, works that were personal affairs. These works broke previous conventions, and brought about new genres that reflected their values. As filmmakers began to find the platform in their works, the themes they conveyed and the genres they employed were heavily influenced by counter-cultural values.
Out of one of the stalwarts of post-classical cinema, the family melodrama, came the genre that would really define the counter-cultural generation - the road film. Post-classical cinema had been obsessed with the family and the fracturing that was taking place inside of it. But where the family melodrama had concerned itself with the struggles inside the family, the road film took the next step. The road film began at the point where the family unit had finally been shattered. For the counter-cultural generation, filled with individuals who felt burdened by the traditional family structure, this departure echoed their desires. In the road film are protagonists who have set out on their own, looking to find who they really are and to realize the potential they believe they have. The youth of the counter-culture felt tied down and oppressed, and the road film was their vehicle to explore the idea of freedom. The world of the counter-culture and the road film was one that was infatuated with drugs and sexuality. These too had been bound up tight by preceding generations and both the counter-culture and road film set out to free and explore them. Even the failures of this freedom echoed with their cultural beliefs. In the road film the protagonists are usually never fully free; some force holds them back or some oppression drags them down. The road film often ends with an ambivalent or negative tone. This exploration of the illusion of freedom resonated with a culture cynical about its lot in life. In Five Easy Pieces these values are readily apparent. Protagonist Robert Dupea is a man who's looking to find himself. He is resentful of the structure in which he grew up, and has taken to the road to blaze a new trail, one not confined by the expectations of his youth. The viewer finds him working in an oil field, part of a trashy life that surely must be a step down from his affluent roots. To a generation rebelling from the capitalistic system of their predecessors, though, this step isn't viewed as one down. Instead it is a necessary part of Dupea's journey of life. His discontent echoes that of the counter-culture, a part of society not yet ready to play by its established rules. The elimination of the family structure makes the counter-culture a generation without true roots, a generation ready to move where they feel called. Throughout the film Dupea isn't sure where he's going, or where he belongs. He can't stand the oil fields, can't stand being back home, can't stand the woman who stays by him even though he mistreats her. In every occasion when life gets too rough he packs up and moves on. He, like the counter-culture, doesn't want to be tied down. Both are chasing that mythical ideal of freedom.
Though Midnight Cowboy falls into the genre of buddy film, its counter-cultural roots contain many of the conventions espoused by the road film. Jon Voight's character, Joe Buck, is constantly on the move. He's making his way from Texas to New York City in order to pursue a dream that his family would most certainly not have shared. This family isn't present in the film. Buck is on his own, pursuing his own journey. Like Five Easy Pieces, Midnight Cowboy is also tied together by the road. Even the building Buck ends up calling home in New York isn't his, and the demolition of similarly condemned buildings nearby poignantly illustrates just how transient his existence there really is. Buck's views on sex are also heavily drawn from the counter-culture. In the film Buck sets out to New York to make a career as a straight male prostitute. Before the counter-cultural revolution this idea would have been preposterous. The very idea that a woman would pay a man for sex implies that the woman engages in sex for pleasure. Preceding generations would never have allowed this concept to see the light of day. Sex was something hidden, something private and confined. Then the counter-culture came along and flaunted their sexuality for the world to see.
Like the road film, black comedy was a genre that had roots in the family melodrama. Black comedy took the family disturbances and made them into comedy. In a way it entered cinema as a backlash to the repression of the 1950s. Instead of outright breaking taboos, black comedy would just present them as the ridiculous things they were. Unlike traditional comedy, though, black comedy made its points with a new, scornful tone. These films had something to say, and comedy was their method of doing so. Black comedy distanced the audience from the characters on screen so that they would be able to have the needed perspective to see the point that it was trying to make. A black comedy like Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was a humorous portrayal of the military complex, but at the same time had a very pointed message if the audience was looking for it. Kubrick's film is a condemnation of the ultra-patriotic stance of the 1950s, but through black comedy he is able to layer that subversive message under humor that can appeal to anyone. The character of Dr. Strangelove could well be taken entirely humorously, thanks to Peter Sellers and his remarkable acting, but to do so would be to miss what Kubrick was really trying to say. Strangelove, the former Nazi, is Kubrick's symbol of where the ultra-patriotic anti-communist road heads. He acknowledges that the government has programs and safeguards that are intended to insure that nothing could ever go wrong with the nuclear weapons program, but Kubrick paints a scenario that shows the potential for breakdown. One human failure leads to the destruction of the entire world. Where the government in the 1950s was intent to wipe out any communist threat, either perceived or real, Kubrick's film shows that someone with the opposite intention can be just as deadly. General Jack Ripper clearly views himself as patriotic. He acts as he does in order to protect the American way of life. And yet the government has no way to prevent the destructive actions that he takes. This mistrust of government and its programs is a popular counter-cultural view. While Kubrick was doing his work in Britain, he is clearly influenced by the views of the movement and echoes many of their beliefs in his film.
The counter-cultural distrust of government and authority only intensified with the events of the 1960s, including the Vietnam War and Watergate. Out of this apprehension rose the genre of the conspiracy thriller. Like Kubrick's vision of the military state, the counter-culture grew increasingly fearful of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of just a few individuals. They felt this power could lead to a totalitarian state, and the conspiracy thriller played with this fear. In the Mike Nichols film Day of the Dolphin the protagonist is an innocent scientist, Dr. Jake Terrell. He spends his days on a secluded island, tirelessly pursuing his work for its scientific potential. His aims are portrayed as entirely admirable. He doesn't want attention or fame; he's just interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Terrell's research is funded by ``the Foundation,'' a vague and faceless establishment. In the end the foundation turns out to be a government front, intent on using the dolphins for military purposes. The government is portrayed as a huge, complex structure that is operating out of any single person's control. The arm that is the foundation is intent on killing the President, while at the same time another governmental agency is snooping around the island trying to establish just what it is they're up to and eventually to stop them from succeeding in their task. This idea of the government having to sleuth out its own operations rings very true to a generation that has just seen the President of the United States take a fall for breaking into the offices of his opponents. The counter-culture didn't trust the official words that came out of Washington, and the conspiracy thriller fed into their imagined explanations for what must surely be going on.
Cinema has always been a reflection of the times, and the era of the
counter-culture was no exception. Filmmakers make the pictures that
emerge from the experiences that shape their lives, and in this era
the counter-culture was everywhere. It had an undeniable influence
on the country as a whole, but even a more concentrated influence
on the genres that were created during its time. During that period
filmmakers found their voice, and the words that came out were those
of the counter-cultural generation.