>It is intuitive, but also somewhat correct. One can argue that there's >been far more continuity in Hollywood style than not, but some changes >did occur in a noticable way. For a starting point see the conclusion of >the last chapter of THE CLASSICAL HOLLYWOOD CINEMA by Bordwell, Thompson >and Staiger. They point out that industry-watchers noticed a change >setting in around 1960 because Hollywood had reached a certain "maturity" >of institutions and because of outside influences such as the art cinema >coming from Japan, Europe and so forth. We could also point to the collapse >of the studio "stable" of actors, directors, etc. and the concurrent >impending >collapse of the Production Code. > >I suppose 1963 is resonant just because for many of us it seemed to be the >Year When the World Changed (JFK's death, Beatles and Dylan's first hits, >etc. etc.), but it is as arbitrary a point as any other. > >--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN > Thank god I'm not completely alone :-) Starting to feel a little paranoid there for a moment. Thanks to Don for helping me see a little clearer. James