1975: The Year that Doc Brown, the Joker, and Grima Wormtongue Walked Into a Bar

I guess the actor who played the Penguin was there too. But why would the Joker go to a bar with the Penguin? Penguin is a classy guy and he would not hang out in the type of dive that the Joker frequents. Whereas Grima Wormtongue is from Middle Earth and thus used to seedy places, and what's the only way he could be brought into the present to hang with Joker? Via Doc Brown's DeLorean time machine. My ridiculous title makes sense now doesn't it? Yeah, I thought so. Of course it's an insane asylum and not a bar that they're in, but the other movies in this year don't give me any good title material so there you go. It was a good year though, the worst of it was still pretty good.

This first one is the worst of it, but it's still pretty good: Barry Lyndon. Coincidentally, I've had this on my instant watch of netflix for about 8 months or something crazy. I put it on because it's a Kubrick film and I didn't watch it right away because it's like 3 hours long. And not LOTR 3 hours. Not even Titanic 3 hours. More like The Patriot director's cut 3 hours but without the action, excitement, or compelling story. It's basically a period piece from the colonial era in Europe but I couldn't tell if it was kind of making fun of movies like that or if it just was one. Because it's an adaptation of a book that was written in that time period, but I find it hard to believe that Stanley Kubrick would just up and make a period piece that didn't make some sort of modern statement on society. But I'm not sure what it was, because it's tough for me to get things out of movies that I don't care about. It's a beautifully filmed movie and it's well-acted but it's just so meh. The main guy is a colonial tool who gets screwed over by other colonial tools and then ventures across Europe to marry a woman who has a son who is a tool. That son then shoots the main guy in the leg during a duel that lasts entirely too long and that's pretty much the whole movie. It wasn't boring exactly, although I'm not sure why. By all means it should have been boring. The classical music selections and picturesque visuals keep the viewer somewhat invested but there really wasn't much more to it than that. I'd say it was largely a character study, but none of the characters are particularly interesting and they don't really change much. So it's kind of a slice-of-life movie that just happens to take place in 1700s Europe. Let's just say I did a few crosswords during it.

A far more compelling film, although unfortunately not as much for me as it was for people at the time, is Dog Day Afternoon. It's a true story of a man who robbed a bank in New York City in order to get money for his lover's sex change operation. If someone had pitched that as a screenplay, it probably would've gotten shot down. Which is why it's annoying when people say, "that would never happen in real life." Because I say: if everything occurring is physically possible then I buy it. Chance meetings? I buy it. Strange or minor reasons for doing bad things? Sadly, I buy this too because I've read some crazy real stuff. Shooting people while skydiving is a bit iffy. I might not buy that. The story of this film is mostly the backdrop though. And that's just as well because placing the entire focus on the robbery/hostage situation instead makes for a compelling film. The problem with viewing it in a modern context is that basically every movie with this plotline copies the style that this film establishes. So I felt like I had watched this before on TV many times, but I tried my best to watch it objectively. And I must say: they did a pretty superb job. The choice to have a lack of makeup on the actors was a good one because you can really see the exhaustion on their faces, the sweat, and the intensity. I've seen some pretty great makeup jobs where they can make it look like someone is out of it and dirty, but there's really no substitute for actual human skin pigment. I know that sounds weird, but it all comes off as so much more realistic because Pacino doesn't look like he just exited his trailer. He looks like he has legitimately been holding hostages for 12 hours with no nourishment or rest. John Cazale plays his accomplice, in a very non-Fredo like performance. Not just because he has hair in this one. He does a solid job but Pacino easily steals the show, as he often does. There are plenty of little touches throughout the film that really add to the overall effect but are tough to put your finger on. Moments such as pieces of dialogue that are kind of rocky, with less flow than usual. This is quite realistic, especially for a high-adrenaline situation. So I really give the filmmakers credit for taking a story that can be summed up in a headline (as it was, many many times) and really pulling the viewer in and immersing them in the experience. It's largely a product of its time and doesn't make as much of an impact this far from Vietnam-era cynicism, but it's definitely a well-done movie.

A somewhat groundbreaking picture that I find to be somewhat overrated, and this may shock you, is Jaws. Of course, this is always going to happen when you hear too much about a big movie before you see it. I watched it for the first time about five years ago, maybe a little less, but for as far back as I can remember I have been hearing about this film. I even went on the ride at Universal Studios. Although it was more of a waiting line than a ride, along the lines of the classic "want some salad with that dressing?" situation. 3 hours of line = 5 minutes of riding in the water with a fake shark. But stuff blew up and the shark got all bloody so that was pretty cool. The film itself feels kind of the same though: almost a whole movie of looking for a shark and then the shark gets blown up at the end. This is all delivered really well, mostly because of John Williams' iconic score. Though this wasn't the first American film to feature a prominent and iconic music score, it was probably the first time that people could recognize the music anywhere and instantly remember what it meant. The music itself became as much a part of pop culture as the movie itself did, if not more so. But aside from the music, which is fantastic, a lot of the movie is filler. I think it was so refreshing when it came out to have a "horror" movie, or more accurately a "suspense" movie, that wasn't filled with cliché characters and gore. There's no question that the movie effectively builds suspense without really showing the shark, and that the characters are fleshed out really well by 3 great actors: Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, and Richard Dreyfuss. The problem is that when the movie goes on for as long as it does (just over 2 hours) a lot of the suspense dies down. And whereas it's initially compelling to watch three characters who "aren't really chasing the shark, they're chasing their own insecurities," by the time you're halfway through the film you feel like they're just in therapy and they should be paying you for your time. Not to say that any of the scenes were poorly written or poorly delivered, it just gets kind of old after a while. Once the drama between the characters heats up it's better, and of course the initial beach attack and finale are pretty great, but it would seem to me that such an iconic and famous film should hold that standing for more than "it was pretty scary." Granted, if I had watched it with friends as a child then I would probably feel differently because I'd have memories of jumping around and screaming with my buddies. That's what I like to call the "Ghostbusters effect." Because I only just saw that movie this year and I thought it was stupid. Had I seen it as a kid: it would be nostalgic. As it stands to me today it wasn't that funny. But anyway, this movie certainly earned its win for original music score and I give it credit for breaking some established barriers of film. But if you haven't seen it then you should keep your expectations fairly low and you'll probably enjoy yourself.

Conversely, a movie that's tough to enjoy at all is Nashville. Literally the only reason is that it's too long. The film is supposed to satirize the absurdity of many aspects of country music, and so for the first half of the film I was enjoying the statements they were making. But when a movie is 3 hours long it ceases to be satire and becomes what it's satirizing. Especially when it's about a bunch of ridiculous people who take themselves too seriously. Because then when you're spending 3 hours on trying to make your audience become invested in the characters, then you're legitimizing caricatures. That just doesn't work. It'd be like if a Marx brothers movie went on for several hours and Harpo ended up dying for some reason. Also: a large part of the movie (seriously about an hour or something crazy) is actual country music. Original songs written and performed by the actors. Which is pretty impressive. But once again: you're trying to give the viewer as authentic a Nashville experience as possible while still telling them that Nashville is melodramatic. That just doesn't work. On a positive note: it does kind of pave the way for the mockumentary. And while it would be others who would perfect the genre, I give them credit for creating it. If I find out they did not, in fact, create it then it will have little to no redeeming value. I liked many of the points that it made about the superficiality of the business but it all gets lost in the endless solos and twang-y accents.

Easily the best of the nominees and well-deserving of the win for 1975 is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It won for picture, director, actor, actress, and screenplay. Only one movie had done this previously (in 1934, a year I'll get to in a long long time. If I'm still unemployed when I get there, come kill me) and only one movie has done it since. I'd tell you which but I already wrote about it. Use this as an opportunity to reread all of my blog entries, it's a nice way to spend several afternoons and a lunch break. This movie centers around a criminal (Nicholson in easily his finest performance, because he's not playing himself quite as much as usual) who is pretending to be crazy so that he can avoid hard time in prison and instead spend some leisurely time in an institution. So right off the bat this movie is brilliant. You've got a criminal exploiting the system (social commentary), the inevitable "plan blowing up in his face" (Greek tragedy when done well), and a sense of existential dystopianism (two words I like to put together). The hitch in the plan is of course the infamous Nurse Ratched, played by Louise Fletcher, the matriarch of the mental asylum. She plays her role so coldly and so subdued that the viewer becomes as frustrated as Nicholson's character, in an effective way. All you want is for the woman to show some genuine frustration, some weakness that would imply a lack of invincibility. But these moments are rare, and when they happen she usually just strikes back and makes things worse than they were before. Outstanding. In addition to the main two players, this film has a ton of future stars that flesh out the incredible supporting cast. Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, and Brad Dourif (from LOTR) among them. The film is bleak, meaningful, and almost completely lacking in redemption. That's the kind of movie I love, because it makes its point powerfully in such a way that you don't need to rewatch it. You should probably avoiding rewatching it too much anyway, lest you end up in the same situation as the characters. But the movie shows human nature as it truly is at its worst: ugly and self-serving. It's also an important film because it's bleak without venturing into the realm of film noir. The reason that's so significant is that you expect film noir to end badly. That's the genre. But this is just a drama, so it tells audiences that just because there's no hard-boiled detective or smoking hot femme fatale doesn't mean that things won't turn sour in the end. Much more shocking, unless of course some blogger ruins it for you. In my experience so far, this is one of the best movies I've watched on Netflix Instant Watch so you should check it out if you have that service (I highly recommend it. Can they pay me for all of these endorsements please?).

Not a bad year by any means, and I could be wrong but I think it's taking me significantly less time to get through the 70s than the 80s. AND the obscene amount of TV shows that I watch are all on now so you'd think I wouldn't be watching as much. Pretty great stuff. I'm not quite done with 1974 yet but I'm close. It's a year I've been looking forward to for years, some of you might know why. Just as a hint, more of a huge giveaway, the year will include neo-noir, post-modern b&w, and some fancy term for: the sequel to the greatest movie of all time.