1965: The Year that the Hills were Alive with the Sound of Anti-Semitism

This was the year that took me longer to write than any other (I think). Due to several contributing factors: 1) my ill-fated job training that ended up being less Sterling/Cooper and more Laurel/Hardy and 2) the fact that one of these movies isn't really available, one is only available in full screen from Netflix, and another one was on Netflix Instant but I couldn't access it on my PS3 because Playstation got hacked! Well the universe might want to discontinue my escapade but to that I will respond with a half-assed "well then give me something else to do." Take that cosmos. I don't even know if you're supposed to capitalize cosmos, and I don't care. But enough about my war on reality, this year has two mostly outstanding films, two meh, and one TBD that's off to a not terrible start.

We begin with yet another British comedy that I don't quite get: Darling. It's apparently supposed to be making fun of uppity British society but it does this by...showing uppity British society. It didn't seem too caricatured to me. Although maybe that's because every representation of British "high society" in the media is a caricature. Another thing that kind of baffled me was the casting of Julie Christie. Let me explain why: I don't find Julie Christie particularly appealing. I'll talk more about that in the next paragraph too. But for the purposes of discussing this film, it's relevant because it affects what may or may not be funny within the film. The plot concerns a woman who basically sleeps her way to the top of society and leaving a trail of broken marriages in her wake (not to mention STDs). Now, if Julie Christie was seen as someone who was fairly good looking but more known for her acting prowess than anything else (like, say...Hilary Swank maybe?) then that's pretty funny. Because it would show that high society is such an amoral quagmire (giggity) that people within it are aching to be terrible to such an extent that they'll cheat on their wives just to cheat. BUT if Julie Christie is supposed to be a total hottie (which I think was probably the intent) then A) I disagree with this assessment of physical beauty and B) that doesn't make it a satire it just makes it...true. And that sounds terribly cynical to say, even for me, but I mean come on. How is it funny to show an attractive woman seducing men all the way to the top of society? That happens wayyyyyyyyy too much! If she wasn't that attractive it'd be funny but instead it's just frustrating. She ends up trapped in a life she doesn't want with a husband she doesn't love, but who cares? It's an appropriate comeuppance for her and it makes me wonder how much of Alfie was the male version of this movie. And if the whole thing was supposed to be a drama then that would have made more sense. But nooooooooooo it just had to be a "dramedy." I frigging hate dramedies. They're not dramatic and they're not funny. I like dark comedies with a serious edge to them like The Big Lebowski and I like serious dramas with funny moments like The Sopranos. But dramedies are just tonally bi-curious. But then again, this could very well be one of those instances where I simply can't understand the sense of humor because I grew up in a different time. But then again again, there are plenty of comedies from the 60s that I find hilarious and brilliant. So maybe it's just meh.

Now let's do an almost complete 180 and talk about Doctor Zhivago. I was a little worried about watching this movie because it's one of my mom's favorites. I mean like, favorite favorite. Seriously. The equivalent for me would be if Quentin Tarantino made a movie starring Natalie Portman that was scored by John Williams. Well that's maybe a little overboard but since she's been telling me about it since I was a kid, if you adjust her opinion on it for inflation then my comparison is accurate. Plus I'm a fan of David Lean's other films and I think Lara's Theme is one of the most beautiful love themes ever written. My verdict is this: (and pay attention) I liked a normal-sized movie's amount of it but not the whole thing. Because it's about 3 hours and 20 minutes long and I liked about 2 and 1/2 hours' worth. And what I liked I really liked. The cinematography is just as gorgeous as one would expect from a David Lean film and it has one of those "happy/tragic/powerful" endings which I happen to love. The music, as I said, is fantastic. But oddly enough this fact led to one of my issues with the movie. I've listened to Lara's Theme a TON of times because it's on a compilation "Epics" CD that I have. After listening to it so many times I always envisioned Lara as pretty much the most beautiful and exotic woman of all time. Using only recognizable examples of the time, in my mind she would've been some kind of Rita Hayworth/Elizabeth Taylor/Grace Kelly hybrid with the wit of a female Marx brother and the badass-ery of Emma Peel (also her looks too, just pointing that out). So in other words: the piece of music is so beautiful that no human being born within the confines of nature could live up to it. But there were those who could have come closer than Julie Christie. Just saying. On one hand you've got Omar Sharif who was like the foreign Clark Gable and he's playing a doctor who goes and saves people whilst risking his life during the Russian Revolution. He was like the ultimate man. And his love interest is...some married lady that doesn't talk much that he met one time when she was sick. Once their romance actually strikes up I totally buy it, and like I said I thought most of the movie was excellent, but it takes a little too much time for them to meet and it spends a bit too much time on her and not enough on him in the beginning. But it's still a fantastic movie and I think that if I watched it a second time I'd like it even more because that's what always happens with films that I have only one or two qualms with.

If only I had even one or two nice things to say about Ship of Fools. Right off the bat you already don't want to watch it. It's pretty much saying: "this is a two-and-a-half hour film about people who are stupid and probably ignorant and probably not likable." Well, at least they were honest. I get that it's supposed to be a microcosm of pre-WWII society but I got that in the first 10 minutes. Then they just kept reinforcing that point again and again. And as if it wasn't "on the nose" enough already, the film begins with a midget talking to the camera and saying (mercifully paraphrased) "this ship is full of bigots. Look closely enough and you might see...yourself." Oh man! I bet you could hear that 1965 scream from the KKK all the way in the 21st Century as they felt their worldview collapse around them. That bit that I italicized was the actual last part of the aside to the audience. He gives a reprise of it at the end of the film which went something like, "if you're still in the theater then I hope you're appropriately ashamed for your feelings toward the Jews." And I'm thinking to myself: if there's a movie that's described as a representation of anti-semitism in the 30s then why would anyone be going to see it besides people who are already anti-anti-semites? Because all that happens is you sit there and you nod and agree and say, "yes the Germans did bad things." It doesn't really tell a story, or not a very good story anyway. It's just reaffirming an opinion you more than likely already share and reinforce it with some truly hambone acting. Plus I had to pay money to rent it off of iTunes because Netflix only had the fullscreen so that was an added frustration. Because no matter how much I am expecting to dislike something, it must always be viewed in its appropriate full glory. Or you know...full whatever.

An unusually good film that is formerly TBD is A Thousand Clowns. From the plot description I thought it was going to be pretty boring. It's basically about an unemployed guy who lives with his 12-year-old nephew and he's going to lose custody of his nephew unless he gets a job. And it's based on a stage play so I didn't expect anything too interesting besides maybe some good dialogue and hopefully good acting. Instead, this is a really good example of how you can take something from the stage and translate it into a movie very effectively. It has its moments where a scene goes on a little too long, especially near the middle where the social workers inspecting his apartment seem to stay forever. But it also has a lot of really interesting techniques that I frankly did not expect from a movie of its type or its time. Mostly in the way it's edited. It occasionally cuts unexpectedly or has jolting montages of city life and is often scored with classic American marches. The beginning of the film portrays people going to work to basically a death march and then when the title comes up in front of a crowd of workers, you instantly understand its meaning without the film completely shoving it in your face. And then when you see a bunch of chubby people downing hot dogs and ice cream on the streets of New York City while Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" plays, you think to yourself: is this America? What if this is as good as it gets? (cross-film shout-out!) The great thing about the film is that it's not necessarily saying "look at how terrible we've become" it's more saying "look at how terrible the main character thinks we've become." It's showing you the world through his eyes and asking you to sympathize with his opinion that jobs are for clowns. This was a pretty gutsy thing to be saying right in the midst of the "if I don't work then my life is worthless" mentality of the mid-20th century. And here also is a film that knows it's a dark satire with some touching moments and an overall heartwarming story as well. See? It can be done! So no excuses from the Brits. I had to download it illegally though, because it's not available anywhere and they aren't showing it on TCM anytime soon. And the sole upshot of no longer having to worry about security type issues is that I...no longer have to worry about security type issues. So there's that.

And now we are brought at last to one of the most well-known classic films of all time: The Sound of Music. Don't worry, I love the movie. I won't be ripping on it. Except a little bit because I'm me. But to begin with: love the music. And why? Because not only is it well-orchestrated and well-sung, the songs are ABOUT SOMETHING. I think only once or twice were they singing just to sing, but since the kids were traveling singers it made sense. The movie also earns its length for the most part and doesn't waste any scenes with needless exposition. I will say that a large part of it is atmospheric in that the scenes are there to set a tone and not necessarily advance the plot, but those scenes are also enjoyable so it's okay. I also really like how it's set against a very serious backdrop but it balances it very well. You have to give props to anyone who can write a family friendly movie about resisting the Nazis that doesn't come off as hokey to adults. The sole issue I had is that I think there were one too many close calls with running away from the S.S. at the end. It took away from the tension a little bit. But then the last scene is fantastic and if only 2 of 174 minutes are meh then that's not bad at all. Everything else about it is top notch. The writing is sharp without being too contrived and the filmmaking is grand without being unnecessary. Plus it is well-cast from Julie Andrews all the way down to the youngest kid. On that note: here's an example of things I experience when watching stuff. As I was watching, I was thinking the oldest daughter was pretty hot. But then she sings her whole "I am 16 going on 17" piece and I felt creepy. But then I looked her up on IMDb and saw that she was actually 22 at the time of filming so I felt better. Then I realized that now she's like 74 so it was kind of a moot point anyway, and then I felt creepy again for liking an old lady. And that's what it's like to be me.

Well it feels good to be back on the quest. My next entries should be coming up pretty quickly because I got way caught up on other years as I put off watching/finding some of the scarcer choices for this year. I only have 1 left to watch for 1964, so that should be coming up soon. It has some actually good things in it for once so that's very exciting. And some good rant-y material too which is also exciting. All I can say for now is that it will contain the inspiration for Stewie, the possible ancestor of my dentist, and an enemy so evil that they're trying to steal all of your precious bodily fluids.