Category: Nominees – 1960s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z – 1969

OK, this is going to be a difficult review to write.  It isn’t that it was a tough movie to follow, but because it was a foreign film in a foreign language with foreign actors.  I actually liked it well enough.  The acting was good and the pace was engaging.  It was easy to follow who was who when watching the film, though not by name.  That guy is the corrupt General.  That guy is the politician who is giving a speech about nuclear disarmament.  That lady is his wife.

But it is difficult to call them by name, and when I looked up the cast list on both Wikipedia and IMDB, they give names like Yves Montand as The Deputy, Charles Denner as Manuel, and Gerard Darrieu as Barone.  Only by looking up pictures of these obscure French actors on the internet was I able to discern who some of the actors were.  For example, Gerard Darrieu was the thug who sold figs and who had beaten the politician’s aid, mistaking him for the politician.

Anyway, the film was about the real-life events that took place in Greece in 1963.  Apparently, there was an assassination of a pacifist Deputy, Grigoris Lambrakis, played by Yves Montand, the order of which came from high-ranking officials of the Greek Military Police.  My research tells me that the film followed events pretty accurately.  In fact, in the opening scene, a statement is displayed on the screen, saying, “Any similarity to real persons and events is not coincidental.  It is intentional.”  This film wasn’t just made for entertainment.  It was an accusation.

Basically, the Greek government viewed Lambrakis as a threat to their power and made arrangements to have him assassinated.  They succeeded, but there were just enough questions asked to prompt an official investigation.  Suddenly witnesses who might testify against the military started getting attacked or killed, fomenting even more questions and heightening the investigation.  Key players like journalists and prosecutors were intimidated and encouraged to drop the case.

But the Examining Magistrate, the main prosecutor, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, persevered and eventually brought four high-level military officers up on charges of murder.  Pierre Dux played The General, the main antagonist behind the assassination.  Charged with him was the Colonel, played by Julien Guiomar.  Another notable character was the Photojournalist, played by Jaques Perrin.  At first I thought he was just a sleazy reporter, but he actually turned out to be an important part of the prosecuting investigation.  Marcel Bozzuffi and Renato Salvatori played the parts of Vago, the man who actually murdered the Deputy, and Yago, the driver of the car from which the killing blow was struck.

The only name I recognized from the cast was Irene Papas, playing the part of Helen, Lambrakis’ wife.  She didn’t have much screen time, but it was nice to see a familiar face and she did a good job, bring some emotional content to an otherwise dry film.  Sure, it was a dramatization of real events, but it was told with very little emotion other than political anger and indignation.

But despite the success of the prosecuting attorneys, the film, which remained true to what actually happened, ended on a pretty depressing note.  I can sum it up best by quoting from the plot synopsis given on Wikipedia:  “Instead of the expected outcome, the prosecutor is mysteriously removed from the case, several key witnesses die under suspicious circumstances, the assassins receive (relatively) short sentences, the officers receive only administrative reprimands, the Deputy’s close associates die or are deported, and the photojournalist is sent to prison for disclosing official documents.

The heads of the government resign after public disapproval, but before elections are carried out, a Coup d’etat occurs and the military seize all the power.  They ban modern art and popular art in its many features such as popular music and avant-garde novelists, as well as modern mathematics, classic and modern philosophers, and the use of the term ‘Z’, (which was used by protesters against the former government), which referred to the Deputy and means: ‘He lives’.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Dolly! – 1969

Hello Dolly, while highly entertaining, was a ridiculous film.  The plot had the potential to be good, but fell short.  The ending was horribly written, the music was somewhat passable, most of the dancing was completely unnecessary, and the acting was, in some cases, beyond horrible.  And I’m sorry to say that I suspect that many of its failings were the fault of the director, Gene Kelly.

Kelly was an incredible dancer.  There no disputing that.  But though the film’s choreographer was Michael Kidd, there was no mistaking Kelly’s personal trademarks on the dance moves.  You can’t tell me that he had nothing to do with the film’s big dance numbers.  Much of the dancing was nothing more than synchronized acrobatics that were ridiculously gratuitous.  None of it did a single thing to advance the plot in any way.  It was dancing for the sake of dancing.

And just to clarify:  That unmistakable Gene Kelly stamp was nowhere more evident than in the dance number before the song Hello Dolly.  The restaurant’s waiters danced with trays of food in their hands.  Of course they would, because waiters carry trays so they would be the perfect prop.  But they start doing acrobatic flips and spins that should have sent both the trays and the food they carried flying in every direction.  But, of course, not a single morsel was spilled.  Not a tray was dropped.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.  I’ll reiterate that the film was very entertaining.  The beautiful costumes and sets were wonderful.  Everything was bright and cheery.  The feeling was one of well-to-do, 1890s, New York perfection.  Everyone was attractive, everything was pristine, and there was a smile on every face.  It is hard not to respond to that.

But I had some serious problems with the script.  I understand that the film was really a fantasy, and so it didn’t exactly have to be realistic.  But then it should at least follow its own rules.  To explain that, I have to go into the plot a little.  Barbara Streisand played the part of Dolly Levi, a strong-willed matchmaker who has been hired to find a wife for Horace Vandegelder, a wealthy business owner in Yonkers, NY, played by Walter Matthau.

Horace is a grouchy old man who never has a kind word to say to anybody.  He is a tyrannical boss to his two young employees, Cornelius Hackle and Barnaby Tucker, played by Michael Crawford and Danny Lockin.  His niece, Ermengarde, played by Joyce Ames, is in love with Ambrose Kemper, played by Tommy Tune.  Being the devious match-maker she is, Dolly decides that she wants Horace for herself.  Why?  Presumably because she is in love with him, though why anybody would love such a sour old curmudgeon without a single likable quality is beyond me.

Dolly not only arranges her own match to Horace, but finds matches for Cornelius and Barnaby free of charge.  Irene Malloy and Minnie Fay, played by Marianne McAndrew and E. J. Peaker, turn out to be perfect matches for them.  They are both available, and eager to fall in love at a moment’s notice.    Dolly also arranges for Ermengarde and Ambrose to be together, despite Horace’s objections.

So right away, right from the very beginning, we know how the movie is going to end.  But after an entire film of seeing how much of a mean old man Horace is, there is no explanation as to why he suddenly changes his tune at the last instant and professes his love for Dolly.  Then, suddenly, he is Mr. Nice Guy, and there wasn’t a single indication in the entire film as to why his character would do this.

And finally I have to mention Michael Crawford’s terrible acting.  He so completely over-acted his part that he was positively buffoonish.  When faced with a pretty girl, he became a cartoon character, complete with ridiculous stuttering, clownish knuckle biting, and childish foot stomping.  Really??  But again, I suspect that Gene Kelly had to have had something to do with this.  He was, after all, the director.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid – 1969

It has been a long time since I have seen this film.  I barely remembered anything before watching it again.  Paul Newman and Robert Redford starred as the two title characters, Butch and Sundance.  The characters were based on historical figures, and from what my research told me, both they and the film’s plot were a pretty accurate depiction of the real things.

The film followed the two notorious outlaws as they robbed banks and trains, ran from the law, fled to Bolivia, and died at the hands of the Bolivian army.  The whole film was presented with an almost carefree feel, something epitomized by the film’s big hit song, Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head, by Bert Bacharach.  The loose and easy feel was also helped along by the casual and sometimes comical relationship between the two bandits.

And it was that free and easy tone that, for me, turned a great movie into just a good movie.  The film was really supposed to be a drama with some light, comedic moments sprinkled throughout.  But Bacharach’s underscoring somehow removed any real drama.  A different score could have easily raised the intensity of the film.  The problem was that Bacharach was a Vegas lounge singer.  After an exciting chase scene, I kept expecting to hear, “Be sure to tip your waitress.”

I understand, if that was the tone of the film that director George Roy Hill wanted, but surely there could have been other ways to achieve it.  The lounge act and the Old West just didn’t quite fit together.  The problem was that the music tied the film down to the 60s and prevented it from being timeless.

But that being said, I still liked the movie.  I enjoyed the light-hearted feel, the comedic banter, and the larger than life characters.  I liked the pacing, the cinematography, and the action sequences.  The iconic scene in which Butch and Sundance have to jump off a cliff into a rushing river to escape their pursuers was exciting, as was the climactic gun fight at the end.  But unfortunately, 90% of the music had to go.

The only other significant role played in the film was Sundance’s lover, Etta Place, played by Katherine Ross.  She was in bed with Sundance, but in love with Butch.  Her character was easy going and familiar with her lover’s profession of choice, and even joined the boys on a few of their jobs in Bolivia.  But not wanting to see her man die, she left when things started to get too dangerous.

I actually liked both of the characters portrayed by Newman and Redford.  One of the things that most people notice about the film is the great on-screen chemistry between the two actors.  It is easily evident in the way that they interact with each other.  There is an easiness about them that seems effortlessly natural, like the actors had been friends as long as the characters they played.

Newman played Butch Cassidy, a man with a nimble mind who is set up as the brains of the duo.  His affable charm and his amusing wit were very likeable.  Despite his criminal nature, he is the kind of guy who would be fun to know, never taking anything too seriously.  He used humor to get through bad situations, even making jokes during the final scene when the two friends are gunned down.

Redford played another likeable character, but with a completely different personality.  He was a little slow but not stupid, and generally didn’t talk much.  But he was also the fastest gun in the west.  He had an incredibly quick draw and deadly accuracy with his weapons.  He had a callous and indifferent disposition when it came to killing but I liked him in spite of that.  The fact that he was very handsome with his blond hair and moustache didn’t hurt either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anne of the Thousand Days – 1969

Critics of the time didn’t give this film a very positive review.   They praised the performance of Genevieve Bujold, but that was about it.  Why, then, was Anne of the Thousand Days nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning for Best Costume Design?  Well, it was thanks to an aggressive advertising campaign, where Universal Studios provided Academy members champagne and filet mignon after screenings.

But really, I enjoyed the film without the wooing from the studio.  They called it slow, plodding, and historically inaccurate, but I disagree with the first two.  I liked the pacing and the buoyancy of the narrative.  And as for the historical accuracy or lack thereof, I’ll admit that every now and then I’ll take issue with it.  But this is not one of those times.  If I want historical accuracy, I’ll watch a documentary.  If I want a well-acted and engaging drama, I’ll watch a film.

Genevieve Bujold, in her first English-speaking film, plays the beautiful Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII, played by Richard Burton.  The troubled relationship between the two is the source of the film’s intrigue.  The movie start out with Henry debating whether or not to sign Anne’s death warrant.  The finality of the act causes him to look back on his time with her.

Then the majority of the film is told like a flashback that does not return to Henry and his pen until the narrative catches up with him.  Of course, at that point we can understand what led up to the situation, why he seems to be hesitant, and why ultimately he condemns Anne to death by beheading.

Bujold did a fantastic job as the dramatized queen.  Her youth and innocence was perfectly portrayed, and her reasons for resisting the King’s lecherous advances were understandable.  Eve when she gave in to him, I believe her.  As always, Burton also turned in a memorable performance, portraying the man with a conscience, the spoiled child, and the obsessed lover, all of which made up the infamous monarch.

Other memorable performance came from Anthony Quayle as Cardinal Woolsey, and John Colicos as Cromwell.  Each of them was well-cast and played their parts with skill.  Quayle especially caught my attention as a fine actor.  The character of Woolsey was well written, especially in his final scene where he is forced hand the keys of his home to Queen Anne and meekly step aside as his years of devoted service to the King are stepped on and thrown away like trash.

Irene Papas, as Queen Katherine, did a good job, but my problem with her was not with the actress, but with her casting.  The real Queen Catherine had a light complexion.  Papas has a dark Mediterranean look.  But she was playing a Spanish Queen, and they wanted her to look traditionally Latino, as if audiences wouldn’t be able to understand a fair-skinned Spanish woman.

And finally, I have to mention how much I really liked the ending.  Because Anne could not give Henry a make heir, he had to find a way to get rid of her.  However, doing so was messy and complicated, especially considering everything he had done to win her.  So, at Cromwell’s suggestion, he falsely accused her of adultery and incest, stacked the judges against her, and signed her death warrant.  But her parting words to Henry left me with a sense of satisfaction, and the bear repeating here.  “Elizabeth is yours. Watch her as she grows; she’s yours. She’s a Tudor! Get yourself a son off of that sweet, pale girl if you can – and hope that he will live! But Elizabeth shall reign after you! Yes, Elizabeth – child of Anne the Whore and Henry the Blood-Stained Lecher – shall be Queen! And remember this: Elizabeth shall be a greater queen than any king of yours! She shall rule a greater England than you could ever have built! Yes – MY Elizabeth SHALL BE QUEEN! And my blood will have been well spent!”

 

 

 

Romeo and Juliet – 1968

I’ll start off by saying that this was, bar-none, a vastly improved telling of Shakespeare’s play about the star-crossed lovers than the previous version that was nominated for Best Picture in 1936.  The acting was better.  The casting was better.  The costumes and sets were better.  The directing choices were better.  The adherence to the source material, while not perfect, was better.  The movie was so much more enjoyable to watch.

Romeo and Juliet has to be one of The Bard’s most popular plays, second only to Hamlet.  The tragic tale of the two young lovers is passionate and engaging.  The dialogue is poetic and romantic.  Everyone always thinks of it as such a great romance story, and I have to disagree.  A true romance is one that takes time.  The story of Romeo and Juliet takes place over the course of a few days, a week at most.  This is a story of teenage lust.

However, the original play has, as is generally the case with films of Shakespeare plays, been hacked, slashed, and rearranged to quicken the pace and remove anything that might be confusing for modern audiences.  An unabridged telling of the entire play would probably make for a 3 or 4 hour movie, and audiences might struggle to make sense of it all.  In this version, many of the great nuances of the play have disappeared, and as far as I’m concerned, several of the wrong things were cut.

I’ll name three things, to be specific.  First, in the beginning, the movie never explains why, or over whom, Romeo is so afflicted with melancholy.  And thus, it is never explained why Romeo, as depressed as he supposedly is, agrees to crash the Capulet’s party.  In the play he is pining over a girl named Rosaline, and he sees her name on the party’s guest list.  He goes to the party to moon over her.

Another thing the film omitted is the plague that causes Friar Lawrence’s letter to go astray.  But they get around that important plot point by introducing a new character from out of the blue who sees Juliet’s false funeral and runs to tell Romeo.  Unfortunately, he finds Romeo before he receives the letter.  Romeo immediately speeds away to Juliet’s grave, sees her supposedly dead, and pulls out the vial of poison.  Huh?  The scene with the apothecary was cut!  When did he get the poison?  Are we to assume he always carries a bottle of poison with him, just in case he might need it?

All that being said, they got so many things right.  The casting was especially good.  The actors all did a great job delivering the Shakespearean dialogue in a way that was, for the most part, understandable.  And the director made the wonderful decision to cast age appropriate actors, especially the two leads.  Olivia Hussy who played Juliet was, 15 years old, playing the 13 year old Capulet girl.  The 16 or 17 year old Romeo was played by a 17 year old Leonard Whiting.

Other notable actors were John McEnery as Mercutio, Michael York as Tybalt, Milo O’Shea as Friar Lawrence, and Paul Hardwick and Natasha Parry as Lord and Lady Capulet.  Pat Heywood also turned in a fantastic performance as The Nurse.  She had just that perfect mixture of foolish busy-body and doting nanny that the character requires.

Franco Zeffirelli was nominated for Best Director for his work on the film, though he did not win.  However, the film did win much-deserved Academy awards for Cinematography and Costume design.  I especially loved the realistic looking costume design.  For anyone who loves Shakespeare, I would recommend this movie for the wonderfully realistic visuals alone.

And lastly, I have to mention the incredibly well-choreographed fighting sequences.  Whiting, York, and McEnery each had to have been coached in fencing to make the fighting scenes exciting to watch and believably executed.  Either way, well done, everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rachel, Rachel – 1968

Rachel is a psychologically damaged girl, and this movie is about how she goes through some hard and potentially harmful experiences, and overcomes them to become a saner and more self-assured woman.  She starts off under the heel of her overbearing mother and by the end, she is her own person.  The film goes into her past, into her head, and into her psyche, and does its best not to shy away from the darker aspects of her mental illness.  The only problem I had with that is that it only touched on those darknesses without really exploring them.

Joanne Woodward played the title character Rachel Cameron, a grade-school teacher in a small New England town.  Right from the start, she is shown as chronically depressed and even close to suicidal.  She hates her job, she hates her home, and she hates her life.  She is a spinster who has never been with a man and feels guilty at the prospect of sex.  It is even shown that she has to rationalize masturbation.

Her mother, May, played by Kate Harrington, is never mean to her except when she consistently compares Rachel to her sister who married a successful man and has children of her own.  Her best friend, Calla Mackie, played by Estelle Parsons, is a fellow teacher.  Calla is more of a free spirit who has found religion in a serious way.  And finally, there is James Olson, playing the part of Nick Kazlik, a sleazy old school-mate with whom she loses her virginity.

The film’s pacing is pretty slow, and to be honest, not much happens.  The only thing that keeps things interesting is the little looks inside Rachel’s mind that show us what she is thinking.  Every now and then, ethereal dream music would start playing, the screen would shift to soft-focus, and Rachel would be shown doing things like accepting the lecherous advances of her groping boss, or violently shoving an overdose of sleeping pills down her mother’s throat.

These little peeks into Rachel’s mind did a pretty good job of portraying the depths of her depression and her longing to have love and freedom in her life.  I suppose that Woodward did a good job with the role, but I would have liked to have been drawn into her character even more, somehow.

At one point in the movie, the character of Calla does something that really surprised me.  She convinces Rachel to go with her to a revivalist church service.  When Rachel has a bad experience and is overwhelmed with emotion and unwanted human contact, she faints.  After the experience, Rachel is in tears and Calla is trying to comfort her.  The comfort moves from talking, to touching, to hugging, to touching cheeks, to a passionate kiss!  Rachel flees in horror!

Funny, but Wikipedia describes the character, saying, “Is Calla a lesbian, or did she merely react to the emotion of the moment?  The film does not answer this question.”  In fact, yes, it does.  There are two more scenes in the film with the two women which, in my mind, made it very clear.  Especially when Rachel says to her, “Calla, sometimes I wish I could have been different for you.”  What else could that mean?

Then there was Rachel’s first sexual experience, her pregnancy scare, and her ultimate disappointment when she learned that she was not really with child.  And it was not lost on me that when she thought she was pregnant, she was shown smoking and drinking heavily.  Is that a result of the era in which the movie was made, or was it a plot point to show how messed up the character was?

Either way, it was some pretty bold subject matter for 1968, made even more surprising by the fact that this film was the actor Paul Newman’s first attempt at directing.  I will give the film credit for being pretty gutsy in trying to get into the inner thoughts and feelings of the character, like you can do when you are reading a book, something most movies don’t even attempt because it really slows the pace of the film.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lion in Winter – 1968

This was a period piece that was packed full of heavy drama and complex characters.  It was on par with other dramatic period pieces like A Man for All Seasons and Becket.  In fact, Peter O’Toole played the exact same character that he played in Becket, but at a much older age.  That being said, The Lion in Winter was in no way a sequel to Becket.  The plays upon which the two films were based were penned by different authors, Jean Anouilh for Becket, and James Goldman for The Lion in Winter.

O’Toole played King Henry II of England.  His wife, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, was played by Katherine Hepburn.  Their three sons, Richard the Lionheart, Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, and King John of England, were played by Anthony Hopkins, John Castle, and Nigel Terry.  Timothy Dalton played King Philip II of France.  And lastly, to round off the cast, Jane Merrow played Alys, Countess of Vexin, Henry’s beloved mistress.

The film’s drama was very well done.  It was inherent in the plot.  Henry keeps Eleanor locked in a prison most of the time, but brings her out for special occasions like religious holidays and state events.  The two share a love-hate relationship, and even at the end of film, it is unclear whether they love each other or not.  The film’s conflict arise out of this contentious marriage, and the event of Christmas, for which Henry calls on Eleanor to attend him.

During this Holiday visit, the matter of the successor to the throne of England is to be decided.  Henry wants John to be the heir to the throne.  Eleanor wants Richard to be the next King.  None of the three boys have any love for their parents, as none of them were ever shown any love from them.  The plotting and scheming that goes on, which involves the visiting King of France, and Henry’s mistress, is engaging and even intense, at times.  And just in case you are wondering, the issue of Henry’s heir is never resolved.  If you want to know which son became the next King of England, you’ll have to look it up on your own.

Katherine Hepburn turned in a spectacular performance.  As a matter of fact, she won the Academy Award for Best Actress for the roll, and I thought it was well-deserved.  The way she delivered her lines, her body language, and her air of haughty nobility was fascinating to watch.  O’Toole also did a wonderful job as the childish Henry.  He acted out his wild emotions and made decisions without considering the consequences.  O’Toole was perfect for the part.

I also have to give special notice to the three sons.  They each had their own distinct personality and Hopkins, Castle, and Terry each created memorable and well-developed characters.  Richard was bold and aggressive.  Geoffrey was scheming and ambitious.  John was childish and hateful (and bordering on moronic).  The three characters, while not entirely likable, were very well-written and perfectly cast.

The sets and costumes were also spot-on, though for the most part, there were very few costume changes in the film.  The movie was filmed at various locations in Ireland and France, showing of some incredibly beautiful countryside next to some wonderful medieval castles.  The scenes where Eleanor was arriving and departing by boat were particularly lovely.  This was a thoroughly enjoyable film.  The language, as one might expect from a British historical drama, was, at times a bit verbose, but it was incredibly well written.  Some of it was almost poetic, despite the intense and dramatic nature of the dialogue.

Just as an interesting note, I have to mention that of the three sons, I was most impressed with Anthony Hopkins’ performance, in which there was some incredibly homo-erotic tension between Richard and King Phillip.  But what was even more impressive was the fact that this was his big-screen debut.  It just goes to show you how impressive an actor Hopkins is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny Girl – 1968

Funny Girl was Barbara Streisand’s first film, which makes her performance pretty impressive, even though she may have been slightly miscast.  I mean, she was 95% perfect for the role, but that extra 5% didn’t work for me.  What I mean by that is that one of the major plot points of the film concerned her character’s self-image.  She thought of herself as an unattractive woman.  The problem is that Streisand was not unattractive, especially not in her younger years.  Sure, she was no Marilyn Monroe, but how many people were?

Aside from that, they couldn’t have cast anyone better than Barbara.  She played the character of Fanny Brice in a musical, loosely based on both the famous Zigfield girl’s career and her personal life.  Early on, before she becomes a huge star, she meets Nick Arnstein, played by Omar Sharif.  Their love affair and marriage was rocky, which gave us most of the film’s drama.  Walter Pidgeon played Florenz Ziegfeld, and that pretty much covers the major cast.

You see, the show was really all about Barbara… I mean Fanny… No, I mean Barbara.  In fact, Barbara had played the role on Broadway, and when it was decided that a film would be made, Streisand was producer Ray Stark’s first and only choice to play the part.  Columbia Pictures executives suggested that veteran actress Shirley MacLaine should play Fanny, but when William Wyler agreed to direct the film, he was quoted as saying of Streisand that, “I wouldn’t have done the picture without her.”  Columbia pictures gave in and they made the right choice.  Barbara was fantastic in the role and won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance.  Funny Girl was also nominated for 7 other Oscars including Best Picture.

Now, I have to mention something that, in my opinion, could have been better.  Sharif should never have been allowed to sing.  He was passible, but he was put opposite Barbara Streisand.  For that reason alone, he sounded worse than he really was.  I noticed that they kept his singing to a minimum, but he stood out in a bad way whenever he did.  But aside from that, his acting, as always, was just fine.  He did a good job as the depressed but loving husband who couldn’t keep up with his wife’s successful career.

I’d also like to mention the costumes.  I was surprised that the film was not nominated for Best Costume Design.  Irene Sharaff was the designer, and she really did a fantastic job.  The colors were bright and cheerful, but not obnoxious.  Streisand’s costumes, in particular were lovely and exuberant.  And I’ve no doubt that Sharaff had a field day designing for the Ziegfeld Follies sequence.

And while I’m on the subject, I have to mention how much I loved that whole scene.  Fanny was told to sing a bridal song called His Love Makes Me Beautiful.  Well, Fanny almost refused to sing it, which would have ended her career before it had begun.  So she agrees to sing the song, but turns it into a hilarious comedy number by stuffing a pillow under her wedding gown, making herself look very pregnant.  The stunt nearly gets her fired anyway, but the audiences loved it so much that Ziegfeld reluctantly ordered her to perform the number the exact same way until the song could be changed.

Streisand did a wonderful job, and I enjoyed watching the film.  Several wonderful songs like People, Second Hand Rose, Don’t Rain On My Parade, and My Man were memorable and there’s no doubt that Barbara knew how to sell a song.  She was mesmerizing.  In fact, I knew some of those songs before watching Funny Girl, and it was great to see them in the context of the show.

Funny Girl had a sequel called Funny Lady that was made in 1975.  Despite the fact that Streisand reprised her role, the film, from what I have read, wasn’t nearly as good and was not anywhere near as successful as its predecessor.  So, I think I’ll be skipping that one.  Sorry Barbara.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? – 1967

I liked this movie.  Sure, it was predictable, but it had a really good message.  The acting was all pretty amazing, and the script was well-written.  The movie’s big stars were Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.  Newcomer Kathrine Houghton filled out the main cast, but I have to make special mention of three other actors who each stood out to me as very good actors.  Roy E. Glenn, Beah Richards, and Isabel Sanford proved that they were every bit as good as the Hollywood superstars.

The movie was primarily about racism and it did a wonderful job of examining the issue from a few unique angles.  The movie was about a rich white family in San Francisco who are most definitely not racists.  Spencer Tracy plays the father, Matt Drayton, and Katherine Hepburn plays his wife, Christina.  Their 23 year old daughter Joanna comes home from a vacation in Hawaii, engaged to John Prentice, played by Poitier.   The main drama of the piece is centered around how the parents deal with the interracial relationship between Joanna and John.  Being a non-racist is all very well and good, but it is a different matter when it hits home in such a big way.

Sure, John seemed to be perfect husband material.  He was a prominent and wildly successful doctor.  He was kind, thoughtful, polite, respectful, conscientious, and clearly in love with Joanna.  The problem that Matt had with him was the color of his skin, and that’s OK because that was the social issue the film was trying to tackle.  But my problem would have been the fact that the girl wanted to marry a man she had only known for 10 days.  Forget skin color!  After only 10 days, you have no idea who this man is!

The film also looks at the situation from the perspective of the family’s black maid, Tilly, played by Sanford.  She showed a certain amount of anger at John because it was like he was trying to rise above his station, as if a black man had no business trying to marry a white woman.  Then there was the film’s surprising view of interracial relationships from the perspective of the church.  Monsignor Mike Ryan, played by Cecil Kellaway, was in full support of the marriage without reservations.

But for me, the stand out member of the cast was really Hepburn.  She had a couple of scenes that were priceless, the best of which is one in which she fires her employee for being a horribly racist woman.  Her little monologue was so perfect that it bears repeating here.  “Now I have some instructions for you. I want you to go straight back to the gallery – Start your motor – When you get to the gallery tell Jennifer that she will be looking after things temporarily, she’s to give me a ring if there’s anything she can’t deal with herself. Then go into the office, and make out a check, for “cash,” for the sum of $5,000. Then carefully, but carefully Hilary, remove absolutely everything that might subsequently remind me that you had ever been there, including that yellow thing with the blue bulbs which you have such an affection for. Then take the check, for $5,000, which I feel you deserve, and get – permanently – lost. It’s not that I don’t want to know you, Hilary – although I don’t – it’s just that I’m afraid we’re not really the sort of people that you can afford to be associated with.  Don’t speak, Hilary, just… go.”  A properly chagrined Hilary drives away without a word.  I loved it!  Then after that the film was pretty bold in its use of language when Joanna calls Hillary a “bitch!”  Quite surprising… but appropriate.

I also have to mention the incredible acting of John’s parents John Prentice Sr. and Mary, played by Glenn and Richards.  They were both great, but Beah Richards stood out to me as wonderful.  She doled out some of the film’s most profound wisdom, and she was pivotal in the film’s climax in which Matt changes his mind and decides to give his blessing on the marriage.  The film was a wonderful proponent of racial tolerance, released at a point in history when the issue was the hot topic.  But I think that it was the character of John who said it best when he said to his disapproving father, “You think of yourself as a colored man.  I think of myself as a man.”  How very true.   OK, maybe Poitier rivaled Hepburn in performance power.  Of course, Tracy’s speech at the end was supposed to be the film’s main emotional climax, but while it was good, his style of subtle and understated emotion just didn’t pack the same punch as the other actors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Graduate – 1967

I’ll be honest, I’m having a difficult time liking this movie, and I’m not sure exactly why.  The plot was interesting enough and the acting was pretty spot-on.  The look and feel of the film definitely portrayed a 60s vibe, and even the confused and adolescent attitude of the era was appropriate.

But I think there were a number of things that didn’t quite work for me.  First, believe it or not, I didn’t like the music, but I’ll get to that in a moment.  Second, I didn’t like most of the characters.  Third, I thought the pacing was unnecessarily slow.  And fourth, I thought that some of the directing choices were a bit off.

Dustin Hoffman played the lead character, college graduate, Benjamin Braddock, a whiney and neurotic 21 year old.  The film begins as he arrives home after graduation to a house full of family friends that he doesn’t particularly like.  The uncertainty of his future frightens him and he just wants to be left alone.  But his controlling parents, played by William Daniels and Elizabeth Wilson, are so self-involved that they have a habit of hearing him without listening to him, and are thus incapable of understanding him.

One of the party guests, Mrs. Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft, who is an alcoholic, gets Ben to drive her home, manipulates him into going into her house with her, and does her best to seduce him into having sex with her, even going so far as to present herself to him as naked as a jay-bird.  He refuses her advances, but later asks her to meet him at a hotel for a forbidden rendezvous.  Well, to make a long story short, they have an ongoing affair until he goes out with Mrs. Robinson’s beautiful daughter Elaine, played by Katharine Ross, and falls head-over-heels in love with her.  See?  It has the makings of a great plot, right?  So why am I having trouble liking this movie?

OK, so as I mentioned earlier, one of the biggest disconnects for me was the music.  The film’s music was written and performed by the sensational folk/rock duo, Simon and Garfunkel.  Four songs, in particular, were used in the movie: Scarborough Fair/Canticle, The Sound of Silence, April Come She Will, and of course, Mrs. Robinson, the last one being the only one that premiered in the film.  Don’t get me wrong.  I love the music.  All of it.  But it didn’t seem to fit the movie.  The lyrics didn’t have anything to do with the action taking place on the screen.  The music fostered a certain feel and determined the movie’s pacing, but it all seemed way too slow.  I think the music was too gentle and the story didn’t feel at all gentle.

And then there were director Mike Nichols’ attempts to make the movie more edgy and experimental than it needed to be.  It was as if he was trying to use unique camera angles and odd blocking choices that sometimes kept certain characters separated from each other, and at other times, kept them strangely together.

Sometimes his edgy camerawork succeeded, like in the scene where Mrs. Robinson first throws herself at Ben.  The camera is focused on him while quick flashes of her bare breasts violently force their way onto the screen, effectively portraying Ben’s horror at his situation.  But at other times, Nichols was trying to be too clever and it just translated as awkward.  For example, the scene in which Ben is forced to embarrass himself in front of his parent’s friends by parading around in full scuba gear and jump in the pool.  The scene was filmed from Ben’s perspective, through the scuba mask, even after he is in the water.  I know it was supposed to be funny, but the scene felt contrived, like it was trying too hard to be humorous.  And then the slow and melancholy music would start playing, immediately sucking anything that resembled comedy right out of the scene.

Anne Bancroft was the best part of the film.  Her character, while not exactly likable, was well-played.  Mrs. Robinson was probably the most complex, and therefore the most realistic of the main characters, and I think that had just as much to do with the script as with Bancroft’s good performance.