1967: The Year that Talking Animals Were Trying to Seduce You

If you're disturbed by such a notion, you should be. But that's 1967 for you, not a great year. Not terrible either I suppose. Actually, there's really just the one bad one now that I look at it. It really stuck with me though. And at least there's some variety so I can throw some flavor in my rant. I took a few weeks off from my Netflix adventure because this year's Oscars exhausted me (in case you couldn't tell). And now my PS3 may or may not be out of commission for a little while (with my Mad Men season 2 disc 2 DVD held captive within!) so I figured it was a good time to return. Luckily I'd already seen most of the year's movies by the time I wrote my 2010 post so it didn't take long to catch up.

And after all of my whining, of course the first movie is pretty great: Bonnie and Clyde. I saw this a while ago actually, almost exactly 4 years ago when they released the 40th anniversary DVD. I hadn't seen it, but that was back when I was employed and could buy classic movies I hadn't seen without selling my body to science first. I highly enjoyed it then, and it's even better for me now. Because I now realize the turning point that it represented for movies of its type. Tracking the "crime drama" through time is very interesting. Because back in the 30s and 40s many of them, like most of Jimmy Cagney's outstanding gangster films, were basically exceptionally made PSAs. They were real movies with good stories, but at the end of the day they were meant to say "hey kids, don't be criminals." Then came the era of film noir, which were meant to say "hey adults, don't fall in love with exotic women." I'm being facetious of course, because noir is about much more than that. They are especially about glorifying exceptionally dark lifestyles, people, and situations. They usually end up with everyone dying or at least losing, but up until then they're like chick flicks for men (I forget the colloquialism for that, actually I don't but my mother reads this). Booze! Broads! Black and White! Totally awesome. But before the era of the anti-hero began, there were a few interesting films like Bonnie and Clyde that took a more realistic look at the life of a criminal. In it, they find the life of crime appealing but we do not. We find it disturbing because of how much they seem to enjoy it. It's quite actually a turn-on for them. Not in an abstract "women who kick ass are hot" way (not that I know anyone like that at all). They actually derive pleasure from robbing banks, and the film even heavily implies that Clyde is impotent unless they are committing crimes. They become increasingly more violent with their heists and eventually end up in "one of the bloodiest death scenes in cinematic history." Judging by what had been in films up until that point, I'd say that's definitely true. The film really pushed the envelope, but in a good way. They weren't trying to be explicit just to do it, they were making a point. Because if the titular characters got killed off-screen or in a bloodless way, they would almost be martyrs. They'd be the lovers who went too far and ended up dying. A post-modern Romeo and Juliet. But by having a truly impactful and violent death scene, we see that there is nothing glamorous whatsoever about their lifestyle. The end for them was neither glorious nor pretty. So what we end up with is a very maturely done movie that takes a real look at characters that had previously been glorified both in fiction and reality. Pretty great stuff. Probably too extreme to win in that year, but I think it's the best of the nominees if you're looking at it from today's standards.

From the standards of any time frame the worst is Doctor Dolittle. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. It was panned at the time and no one thinks any more of it now. It was infamously nominated because the producers wined and dined the Academy. If this still goes on (and it probably does) then it explains a lot. The movie is just a mess. It's aimed toward children but it's pretty boring and it's like two and a half hours long. The only movies for kids I'm aware of that are that long and hold their attention involve wizardry and flying cars and most importantly: whomping willows. Talking ducks doesn't quite do it. And if I understood it correctly, everyone can hear the animals but only the Doctor can talk to them. Which doesn't make sense at all. I can buy the talking animals. But what kind of wonky rules determine a world where animals speak English but only one guy can talk back to them? I'm sure they had some kind of rule in mind such as "the animals are speaking their own languages but it's translated for the audience" but they don't seem to stick to it very well. Then there's a giant snail and a giant butterfly and a bunch of tribespeople and it's all very strange. I was also watching it whilst doing my 2010 write-up, so I felt like I was in a very strange haze of craziness. I was exhausted from ranting and upset from the awards and all the while there's a guy singing to a frigging monkey. Not that I remember many of the songs, because none of them were about anything. BUT I do remember one that I found quite disturbing and made sure to make a mental note about. It's basically a song addressing the hypocrisy of a person who talks to pigs but also eats sausage and bacon for breakfast. I wasn't even thinking about that angle of the story. It literally made me think about it and tried to justify it but only succeeded in making me disturbed. If I could talk to animals I'd be a vegetarian. Because you're basically an honorary cannibal otherwise. I don't remember what his reasoning was, but I think it boiled down to: "I'm a hypocritical, cannibalistic douche but I can sing so who cares?" I'm thankfully not alone in my dislike for this movie. And just because the opportunity will never come around again, I'd like to say this: "Eddie Murphy's version is better." I haven't seen it but it's shorter so it has to be. Definitely won't be saying that ever again in my life, so take a good look Michael. Because it's the last time.

A movie that is slightly better than I expected is The Graduate. And by that I mean: Dustin Hoffman isn't quite as annoying in it as he usually is. Only because his particular brand of bumbling buffoon works in this particular role. I still find the story to be unappealing and kind of pointless, but then again I'm an aimless 2010 graduate and not a 1967 one. Back then my review of it probably would have said, "see it man. It is a moonbeam." I will say that I'm happy it boosted the career of Simon and Garfunkel because I'm a big fan. I will also say that their songs are horribly misused in the movie. You have these excellent songs like "The Sound of Silence" which is an incredibly poetic social commentary, and it's being played over a scene where Hoffman is sitting in a pool all angsty over his affair with an older lady. Whenever the creative power of a band completely outshines the quality of a movie, it just doesn't work. The only one that does is, unsurprisingly, "Mrs. Robinson" which was the only one tweaked specifically for the movie. Apparently it originally was about "Mrs. Roosevelt." Actually, I also think "Scarborough Fair" was used well. That's it though. And it's more testament to the band than the filmmakers. I think the movie itself is probably a very good adaptation of a book I would never have any interest in reading. It's supposedly a comedy in parts, but it's too angsty to actually be funny. It accurately captures the mindset and uncertainty of the culture back then (so I'm told). And I suppose I could see that. The 60s were a turning point for the country because it was when the old ways fell by the wayside and the "new frontier" was on the rise. So should the youth of America shack up with the older way of doing things or with the hope of a different future? The famous last shot (and sole truly great part of the film I think) captures that uncertainty without being too obvious about it. Although it was apparently intended to be different (check Wikipedia) and the originally intended scene would have sucked. Like, terribly. As it stands, the interesting aspects of the story are all tied up in a movie that doesn't know what it is. It's either an unfunny comedy or a drama that isn't serious enough. It's the alcoholic cousin of rom-coms. Still better than a lot of today's drivel but Best Picture nominee is a bit much. Of course, if all it was up against was the terrible spoof version of Casino Royale then I guess I understand.

A surprisingly enjoyable film is Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I say that it's surprising not because I thought it would be bad, but because I didn't expect it to be so delightful. If it's even possible for a movie about racial strife to be delightful then it is certainly achieved here. But I knew the film had to be good, considering the fact that it stars Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, and Katharine Hepburn. I'm always struck by Hepburn's ability to really get up in people's faces and make them feel tiny. There's a specific sound I make when watching things that I'm sure my parents are all too familiar with. It's kind of a disturbed Santa laugh if that makes any sense. I only make it when somebody is being totally decimated. Either I'm doing the decimating in a video game or someone is in a show or movie. But I've only ever made that noise in response to dialogue when she delivers it. Whoever she happens to be talking to probably doesn't have to try very hard to look intimidated. The woman had a supreme presence. As did Tracy and Poitier of course, and they all have their great moments. Considering the movie that won for this year, it was interesting to see Poitier in a toned down role. His character spends almost the entire movie being uncomfortable and nervous, but still proud and sure of himself. Having the type of range as an actor to go from a movie where you have to be completely vulnerable to one where you have to dominate every scene you're in is very impressive. The movie itself feels very much like a stage play in the sense that it only has a few sets and a fairly limited cast of characters. But it doesn't feel like a stage play the way that Dangerous Liaisons did, where it all feels rehearsed. It all felt organic and even spontaneous at times. Sadly, it was also Spencer Tracy's final outing. But the good news is that it's only his first outing for me, and I look forward to watching more of his work that I have not yet experienced. All in all, the movie is funny at times and serious at times but it all seems to just fit together and it doesn't overstay its welcome by going on too long.

The aforementioned domination by Mr. Poitier occurs in this year's winner: In the Heat of the Night. It's also largely based in racial strife but it is in no way delightful. It focuses on a murder investigation in a racist town in the South and Poitier plays a black detective from Philadelphia who finds himself in the middle of the debacle. At first he's a suspect but he of course ends up helping out. Though the film thankfully never turns into a "buddy movie" wherein the two opposites, Poitier and the equally excellent Rod Steiger, put aside their differences and become best friends. They come to respect each other by the end of the film but in a very realistic way. It also includes one of the most famous movie quotes of all time, "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" I love that. It illustrates my "less is more" policy when it comes to good dialogue. Because if Steiger was mocking him in another movie, another screenwriter might have said something like, "you might not respect me because of the color of my skin but in response to your question, in Philadelphia they refer to me respectfully because I'm a damn good cop." That would suck. Well, it wouldn't suck necessarily but it wouldn't be very memorable either. To encapsulate that entire line of thinking along with the central racial conflict of the film into five words is far better. Aside from the acting and writing, the directing and music are also very good but the plot is pretty ordinary. Aside from the racist backdrop it's basically an episode of whatever the CSI of 1967 was. Lots of misdirects for who the killer is, all ending with a quick revelation by the hero and a humanizing portrait of the killer when they're finally tracked down. As such, it's not among the best of the Best Picture winners but it's certainly a good movie and Steiger earned every bit of his award for Actor.

Well that's about it for this year, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go around town yelling "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" and if there's a woman around who A) knows what it is and B) knows why it's a great quote then I will ask her to marry me. If she says yes then I'll run in the other direction, because she sounds pretty clingy. While I'm off doing that I'll also be checking out 1966's offerings. I'm not sure I know enough about them to say anything clever so I'll just mention that they involve fighting the Russians, fighting the Chinese, and fighting the King of England. I haven't watched any of them yet so don't tell me who wins.