1968: The Year that Spent Almost as Much Time in Intermission as It Did Singing

Seriously though. I could see a 3+ hour movie having an intermission but 2 hours and 18 minutes? That's when you know the source material is exhausting, but we'll get to that later. And a 2 1/2 hour movie with an intermission is pushing it too. There were literally 4 intermissions in this year. The reason I point this out is because I'm wondering if that was a thing in the 60s or if this particular year was just a fluke. When you've put up as many blog entries on this subject as I have, these are the types of inane things you start to wonder. This year had 1 good, 1 great, 1 bleh, 1 rant, and 1 mixed-meh. I'm thinking by the time I reach the end of my escapade those brief descriptions are all I'll feel like recording. Oh and on that subject, prepare for my blog entry next week on this current year's nominees! I'm waiting for the results to write it (I got caught up on all 10 weeks ago) so I can decide how pissed off to be. Anyway, get your head out of 2010 and put it in 1968.

Or I guess put it just around World War I for Funny Girl. This movie is about a million times better than Hello Dolly! and there's no superfluous exclamation point (that's a big plus). This is the other type of musical: the kind I do like. The singing is neither over-the-top nor extraneous. Nobody is singing about the sun being up or oxygen being in the air. It tells an actual story and is aided by singing flawlessly. Nothing against Gene Kelly, director of HD!, because I'm a fan of his. But his type of movie is meant for a normal film's running time (not a sword and sandals running time). The director of this movie is William Wyler, well known for directing 3 (count them: 3!) Best Picture winners and for being nominated for Best Director a record-setting 12 times. So like I said: nothing against Gene Kelly but it would seem that there was only one William Wyler. Not to say that this movie is one of his best efforts because it's not. That's not really an insult though, considering the competition. It's a charming film with some great musical numbers and (gasp!) a performance I quite enjoyed by Barbra Streisand. As I mentioned before: I dislike her. She is a prima donna like almost no other and that's usually only backed up by her outstanding voice and not her acting talent. But I give credit to those who deserve it and she certainly does for this movie. You can tell that she recognized with real-life funny girl Fanny Brice and was thus able to portray her in such a realistic way. She exemplifies the all-too-common story of the small town performer who hits the big time with questionable results. On one hand, becoming famous and making money is pretty great. It's actually really great. It's actually my life's goal. But if you keep that small town mentality then people can take advantage of you and you can forget that "all glory is fleeting." Only Patton reference in a Funny Girl review ever? I think so. Streisand keeps that wide-eyed, smoke-in-your-eyes...smoke-in-your-wide-eyes look on her face throughout most of the film. Which is pretty impressive since her ego wiped that look off of her real-life face years beforehand. You truly feel like she's having the time of her life through every bit of her career, to a point of course. I'm not sure how long the real-life Fanny Brice's career lasted, but the film ends at a point where her small town optimism is gone. And so the future of her career was really kind of irrelevant. Made that pretty depressing didn't I? Don't listen to me, it's an enjoyable movie and it's on Instant Watch so go check it out.

Something that should be depressing is The Lion in Winter, but it's really not. It is, however, fantastic. When that happens I translate "depressing" or "intense" into "powerful." It's filled to the brim with excellent actors, including premiere performances from Anthony Hopkins (who was great even at the beginning of his career) and Timothy Dalton (the most overlooked Bond of them all). Can you imagine if your first big acting gig was having to get up in Peter O'Toole's face and match his level of intensity? I'd need to be heavily medicated, perhaps not legally. But even in the midst of all of the great actors in the movie, Katharine Hepburn really steals the show as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. She tied with Streisand that year for Best Actress, the first and only time this has happened in that category to date, and I can't say I disagree. Totally different performances but both excellent. Of course, if I had to side with anyone it would be Hepburn. Mostly because I often side with darker and more twisted performances (in case you hadn't noticed). The film is about the complicated relationship between all of the members of the Royal Family in the late 12th Century and the question of who should be next in the line of succession. Do I know anything about this period of history? Not particularly. Did I need to? Nope. That's how you do a freaking period piece! A real human drama that just happens to take place back in time. No Bachelor's Degree in History needed. The Award-winning score from John Barry doesn't hurt either. The overall plot can be described fairly briefly (check Wikipedia if you really want to) but the meat of the film is in the acting. And unlike other films where this applies: the directing, writing, etc. is up to the same standard. And while the script itself is inherently good, the actors really take it to the next level. There are lines in it that could easily be stupid if delivered differently but when Hepburn says them they are either hilarious, acerbic, or both. Usually both. By means of a similar example from a completely different movie (just because that's how I roll): when Daniel Craig survives an attempt on his life in Casino Royale and then returns to poker to say: "that last hand nearly killed me" it was totally badass. If Roger Moore had said it, it would have sucked. Timothy Dalton could have done it too (see what I did there to bring it back?) and why he didn't have more of a career than he did after his role in this movie as King Phillip is anyone's guess. Well I think I've salivated over this one enough. Forgive me, but it's been a while since I was this pleasantly surprised by a nominee.

Which must mean that I've just set up a segue to: the fact that I was unpleasantly unsurprised by Rachel, Rachel. I thought it would be stupid and it was. I'm really running out of things to say for these "character studies" that don't really go anywhere. So I'll just repeat what I've said all along: there's no point studying a character who is uninteresting. In this case the character is a thirty-something spinster with an overbearing mother whose only respite is her work. Wow, thanks for characterizing everyone's Aunt So-and-So, Cousin So-and-So, or Self So-and-S0. Everyone knows someone at least a little bit like that. So you either go the romantic comedy route and have that be a starting point for a heartwarming-yet-standard date movie, or you do what this movie did and bore everybody to tears. Here's my "tweet" of the movie: "Oh hey, it's sad to be a spinster. Oh hey, here's another thing that's sad. Oh hey, I get happy after the end credits but you can't watch." I just saved you about 100 minutes of your life, you're welcome. Of course it was the 60s and I suppose having a subplot about a closeted lesbian who is interested in the main character was socially conscious. And I suppose having an entire movie about an ordinary woman who breaks free of her humdrum life and empowers herself was a metaphor for the entire Sexual Revolution which was going on at the time. See? I get it! I just don't care. After all, I could make a movie about World War II that uses a metaphor of a supermarket with: an angry German kid stealing microwavable pierogi and Belgian waffles from the frozen foods section, doing terrible terrible things to loaves of Challah, and then finally being relocated to the parking lot by the American and British cashiers. But that wouldn't be particularly interesting. Nor would it be very funny if it was any longer than a Family Guy cutaway. Still, everything I've just described is far more interesting than whatever movie I'm supposed to be talking about.

Which brings me to the tangent to end all tangents on Romeo and Juliet. Of course, it'll really "end all tangents" about as much as either World War did for wars but whatever. First let's start with the positive: Nino Rota's score for this movie is fantastic and should have won the Oscar. It was the single high point of the movie and if I could watch it with just the music I would. The acting is good, the costumes are good, and even the choreography is good. It was adapted about as well as you could possibly adapt it. BUT all of that is based on what I feel is faulty source material. My dislike for Shakespeare in a WAY previous blog post is at least 90% hyperbole for humorous effect, but not in this case. For starters, I really don't buy the romance. The extent of his wooing of her is basically: he sees her at a party, he kisses her briefly, and now they have to be together forever. Or in the Shakespearean: "Her feet must be as tired as the sun is of setting, for she runneth through my mind all day. Henceforth, like the morning rain into mid-summer's lake: I too must tappeth that forever." They both almost immediately find out that they are from opposing families. Families that hate each other so much that several nonsensical swordfights break out between them over the course of the movie, just cuz. But so what if they spent their entire lives blindly hating each other? They can still love each other based on 3 minutes of random interaction right? I think not. It'd be like if the President of Israel's daughter saw the leader of Hezbollah's son at the market, neither knowing the other, and they fall in love because they both enjoy figs and shared a brief kiss over one. When their identities are revealed it's like: blood feud? Meh. Sounds like a pretty great dark comedy subplot actually. Which is how most of this movie/play is structured: like a comedy. And then it ends in tragedy. It'd be like having a Beverly Hills Cop movie where Eddie Murphy dies in the end. Bad example, because that'd be awesome. But I hope you see my point. I kind of feel like ole' Billy was contracted to do a starcrossed lovers story for the following weekend and this was what he came up with inbetween brothel visits. The level of quality (in my opinion anyway) between this and his other famous works is like the level of quality between Scorsese's Raging Bull and some other movie that Scorsese wouldn't even waste his time watching, let alone directing. Like Bad Boys. One qualm I do have with Zeffirelli himself (the director) and not the Bard is that he fought tooth and nail to be able to show 15-year-old Juliet's breasts in one scene. A bit of nudity that lasts about a quarter of a second. Know who fights tooth and nail to show an underage girl naked, "in the name of art," for a scene that barely even exists? Douchey arthouse directors, that's who. But I didn't get that vibe from him for the rest of the movie so we'll let it pass I guess. Plus it provides an amusing anecdote about how actress Olivia Hussey wasn't allowed to see her own movie because her own naked breasts were in it for a quarter of a second. I find that entertaining. I am being a bit unfair on purpose, but only because hating on Shakespeare is good for getting death threats and concordantly publicity. Also because my thoughts are legit and probably more common than one might think. Hopefully my escapade will lead me toward something worthwhile that I can say positive things about, like "Richard III" or "Henry V."

Which brings me at last to this year's winner: Oliver! I hate those exclamation marks, I really do. But I like this movie overall. It's kind of an amalgamation between the two types of musicals. Because though most of the songs are personal and important to the plot, there's also an overblown dancing and singing sequence that literally stems from the minor plot progression that several characters are going outside. That song and the staging of "Consider Yourself" were the only two that really bothered me. Oh, and one other one that might have been about recreational drugs. Or life contentment or something. But "Consider Yourself" has another one of my musical pet peeves in it: random people on the street singing and dancing with the main characters as though they're omnisciently aware of the main story. Not to mention the musical and lyrical delivery of said story. Musical numbers should be held to only a few people, unless it's a whole crowd of similarly minded people singing like in certain "Les Misérables" scenes. I also found it funny that Oliver was more of a side character in the movie than anything else. They would sometimes cut to him making a facial expression during another character's solo just to remind us that he was there. But that's just as well since he's not as interesting as some of the other people I suppose. Over-the-top staging or not, all of the songs are really good. And the sets are particularly amazing and far more intricate than the sets of most movies (especially today). They created almost an entire town for the movie. Well, a small town. But still! It really adds to the experience because it gives you the continuity of a set you'd see on Broadway while also retaining the size and scope of a film. I'd say more but I've tangented quite a bit today so I'll leave it there. That's my clever way of saying, "I have nothing left to say about this picture."

Well that's it for 1968, a fairly jejune year as they go. But I was twice pleasantly surprised and that hardly ever happens. I have 4 movies for 1967 left to watch so it's likely that my next entry will be for 2010 instead. So that means I have no idea what I'll be writing about next! All I can say is it might include Freudian bankrobbers, a precursor to sub-par Eddie Murphy movies, and the original MILF. But it's more likely that it will include a vengeful 14-year-old girl, Spider-Man's adventures with the Internet, and that porn with "a little production value" that Michael Cera told us about.