If my blog was a movie, this would be the 48th official sequel. Not counting 2 reboots and a few spinoffs. As such, we're really starting to reach with these titles. But I feel like this one is Family Guy cutaway-worthy. This was a pretty good year I suppose. Although I will say that I thought the movies would start getting shorter pretty soon...I feel like most movies that came out in this era were like an hour and twenty minutes long and the five that went beyond that were your Best Picture nominees. On that note: the Academy has just mentioned that for their upcoming year of nominees they'll have anywhere from 5 to 10 nominees, depending on how they vote. So they're nominating as many deserve it instead of an arbitrary number. I'm not sure which entry it was, but I made that EXACT recommendation a while ago. Oh, they're listening.
We start this year off with a family favorite: The Alamo. My dad is super into the story of the Alamo. Every Christmas he gets books about that, mom gets Titanic books, and I get stuff about serial killers. Oh and my Aunt reads about the Holocaust and my Uncle loves the Darwin Awards. My other Uncle is really into bicycling...so he's kind of the black sheep (or white sheep perhaps). Anyway, even my dad was surprised to learn today that this movie was nominated. It's not the best portrayal of the story, although to this day there really isn't a defining film about it. Which is why I intend to make one someday. It'll have Lost-ian flashbacks that provide insight into Crockett, Bowie, and others, as well as allusions to Norse mythology and a crazy bloody battle (just like the real one). Apparently John Wayne didn't even want to play Davy, and he also didn't want John Ford anywhere near it. And then he was involved in every part of making the film and directed it like a Ford picture...so that's weird. It was butchered by the studio and according to my dad (I haven't seen the director's cut) some of the best scenes were left out. I suppose it's refreshing to learn that even in 1960 all of the great little character moments were the first to go. So maybe we've always been tasteless as a society. Anyway, I'm sure you're familiar with the story and if you're not then Wikipedia can explain it better and much less interestingly than I could. But probably in a more accurate manner. The problem with the movie is that it's really all just buildup to the battle. That's why if I was doing it, I would launch into the battle like an Abrams pilot. Most of it would still take place at the end but I'd give you a little taste before going into flashbacks and whatnot. Instead, what you've got is a lot of fluff and then a pretty great battle scene. Literally fluff though. Wooing of Spanish women, drinking, goofy dialogue, etc. It's very well-filmed and the music is fantastic enough to also serve as the main title music for Inglourious Basterds. But there's an awful lot of unnecessary dialogue, so it's an even bigger shame that they cut out some of the better scenes. The 2004 adaptation of the story was even worse of course, but at least that attempted to be serious. This movie felt like it had two very different screenwriters. Which it probably did. It's still better to watch than a whole lot of the crap that I've had to take in over the years, but considering how truly fascinating the story is...I don't think it was given the justice it deserved. And my dad seconds that, as an official "Alamo Society" member. That's seriously a real thing. They have articles four times a year about how everybody still died.
A movie I didn't expect to like very much but ended up really enjoying is Elmer Gantry. For some reason, when I read the Netflix description it sounded like a feel-good movie about a con man who goes straight. It's lit-trally the opposite of that. It reverse-reminded me a lot of There Will Be Blood actually. In the sense that it captures the time period in America when people became very cynical towards religion. Is that supposed to be "toward" religion? What's the grammar on that? If I was podcasting, I'd mumble that word just in case. The story centers on a con man who falls for a religious woman that runs traveling religious roadshows. Because apparently those were a thing at one time. Does he legitimately want to change or does he just want to get into a nun's pants? She's not really a nun but who could resist that imagery? I think there are moments where you see that he wants to change, but he mostly just wants to comfort her with his rod and his staff. BOOM! Nawwwww but, there's a moment when he realizes that the man collecting the offering believed his lie about why he couldn't pay and you can tell that he felt bad about it. His facial expression tells you everything you need to know without dialogue, and that's the mark of a great actor. Speaking of which, Burt Lancaster earned every bit of his Best Actor award for this film. He's over-the-top at times when it makes sense for his fast-talking swindler of a character to be that way, and he's also subtle when he needs to be. Rather than having everything work out in the end and become boring and terrible, this film actually takes a pretty dark turn and becomes awesome. And much like many of my favorite characters have done, in the end Elmer just forgets all about the moral quandary he has just faced. He simply forgets that any of it ever happened and goes right back to being the same rotten guy he was. The only way this would have played out better is if Lancaster had been allowed to use the line he originally wanted to use: "see you in Hell, brother." As opposed to "see you around, brother." I presume the line delivery would have been similar, and it wouldn't have been a Schwarzenegger-esque delivery that one might hear before shooting somebody in the face. It would have been a "I'll be seeing you in Hell, and I don't really care about that fact and what it means for either of us." It also implies that he thinks everyone ends up about the same anyway, regardless of their moral actions in life. Which pretty much sums up his whole worldview. So it would have been a fantastic way to end the film, but it was 1960 and you don't want the kiddies saying words that you can't say in church. Words like Hell. Still a great movie though, and probably the year's best.
You can probably predict what I'm going to say about Sons and Lovers. I mean, look at the title. A title like this is too broad to imply anything interesting about the movie. It's basically saying: this movie is about everyone in the human race except virgin girls. But I'm pretty positive that there were some of them in there too. So not only is the title broad and meaningless, it's a liar! I went through all the trouble of finding and downloading this, because it's unavailable on DVD, and when I'm finally ready to watch it what do I find? That it's now on Instant Watch. Charming. But we'll count that as positive karma since it's better quality. But there is no Wikipedia or IMDB description of this movie. That's negative karma. Because that means I had to hang onto every melodramatic word and if I missed something, I couldn't just check the internet. I know what you're thinking: "Domenic cheats when he watches these movies!" Not true. I sit through every single excruciating second, through the credits. But my mind wanders through a lot of these things because they're boring, and if I were to rewind all of them I'd be in a constant state of watching The Remains of the Day. So I use the internet to fill in the gaps. Anyway, Dean Stockwell is in this movie and so I kept hoping Sam Beckett was going to show up to change the movie into something interesting. And...oh man! Between that sentence and this one I found that TCM has some really good recaps. So I was hanging onto every word for nothing...this is clearly not my finest hour. Yeah, it's about a kid who wants to leave the boonies and be an artist and all of the douchey things about his personality you would assume it to be about. He says things like: "I think you can feel religion when a crow flies." And: surprise! Adolescent angst alert! His parents don't support this, and are further enraged when he starts an affair with an older woman and blah blah. This is of course after the first big chunk of the movie is spent showing him essentially talking this sweet and innocent farm girl into sleeping with him. And then at the end he's all: "I have to be free to truly experience what it means to be alive!" Are we supposed to feel for these people? Or admire them? Hannibal Lecter displayed more humanity than this kid. At least he only killed people that he found rude. This kid messes up all of these people's lives for no reason. But this was a different time and I suppose back then it might've meant something different to the average viewer/soon-to-be-hippie. I always imagine people like this dying in a shack somewhere of syphilis or alcohol poisoning, a paintbrush in their hand, curled up on the floor in front of a half-painted canvas of their most mediocre work. That, kids, is where the sidewalk ends for dudes who want to "know what it means to truly live."
Yeah...I dislike hippies, and I find their plotlines only slightly less interesting than that of the sheep hearders of The Sundowners. When you see a badass-sounding title like that and a Netflix description that includes the phrase "Western-style," you expect certain things. Like excitement. Or an interesting plot. Instead, the titular phrase refers to people who set up camp wherever and whenever the sun goes down. They're always on the move. The father, played by Robert Mitchum, is just this type of person. But his wife, played by Deborah Kerr, isn't at all. She wants to settle down somewhere and just live. He wants to stay on the move. Question: if he doesn't like settling down then why did he get married? Another question: why is herding sheep in one part of Australia any different from anywhere else? Don't know, don't care. The exciting scene in this movie was a sheep-shaving contest. Boy, that's interesting. Spoiler alert: they never settle down but it leaves you with the implication that they might someday. Just like at the beginning of the movie. So nothing really happened that was important. That's about it, so I'll use this as an excuse to mention something about genre descriptions that bothers me. Using this as an example, just because something takes place on the open plains and has people wearing cowboy hats and riding horses, doesn't mean it's a Western. Westerns have certain themes and certain types of characters. If Napoleon Dynamite was the exact same movie but took place in the Old West, would it be a Western? Hell no. You may recall that I referred to Taxi Driver as "a Western in the East" and I stand by that. Same themes, different setting. Will the upcoming Captain America movie be classified as a "period piece" because it takes place in World War II? It shouldn't be. Genre is more than just the setting and the costumes and the time period. The characters and the themes are what's important. The Star Wars saga is more of a Western in Space/Space Opera hybrid than Sci-Fi. It bears almost no resemblance to most Science Fiction in terms of themes. So while this particular film featured a "Western-esque" and had some great actors, it makes its point in the first ten minutes and thus doesn't need to continue for a superfluous two hours more.
An overall fun movie and still odd choice for this year's winner is The Apartment. It's directed by one of the all-time greatest directors: Billy Wilder. What I find interesting about him is that he directed some very hard-hitting and fantastic dramas, which I'll be discussing in upcoming entries, and he also directed what's considered to be one of the finest comedies of all time: Some Like It Hot. That particular film will sadly not get an entry on my blog, but you should watch it if you haven't. It's really funny, really darkly funny I should add, and Marilyn Monroe is in it. So there's really no reason not to watch it. But with all of that in mind, I wasn't sure what to expect from this film (interesting tidbit: the last film that is entirely in black and white to ever win Best Picture). The first half of it, which I quite liked, is pretty much a screwball comedy. The rest of it is kind of melodramatic. Maybe it was supposed to be funny in an "oh man, look how complicated this has become!" kind of way, but I just found it over-the-top. The first half though, is truly great. The plot centers on a guy who is looking to advance his career by letting his higher-ups use his apartment for extra-marital purposes. And who doesn't love a goomar in the penthouse? Amirite? Needless to say, hijinks ensue. I find that many comedies change their tone at some point in the movie because they want you to care about the characters and then give you a happy ending. I don't like that. Some Like It Hot has an absurd and absurdly funny ending. Just like the whole movie. But this just had screwy things go on for a while, which were funny, and then a lot of melodrama. I'd have rather seen Jack Lemmon's character ditch the entire rest of the cast, rather than everyone besides the secretary. She's crazy! But if that's what he's into then I guess that's fine, because crazy girls need loving too. Much like the film..........Darling? Maybe? I found that the storyline was more funny because the main girl wasn't that attractive. And I think in this case it was intentional. I'm not sure how one is supposed to feel about Shirley MacLaine's looks, but most guys aren't into women with short hair. And her hair in this is WAY short. I imagine that back in 1960, this predilection was even more prevalent. So it makes it kind of funny that a desk jockey is silently feuding with his boss for the affections of a woman who they've made up to look kind of unusual. She's still pretty, but I think the short hair was a deliberate choice. Or maybe it wasn't at all. Maybe her hairdresser got over-zealous before filming. But I saw it as a funny aspect to the movie, whether intentional or not. But I do think that if Billy Wilder wasn't attached to it, it would've been largely the same movie and probably wouldn't have been as recognized.
And with that, we're done with 1960. Overall this was a good decade in terms of winners. Even though it did contain the worst Best Picture winner of all time (probably). It also had some of the best, so that's what we'll remember it for. The 50s should be even better if my perusing of the nominees is any indication. I've already seen a lot of the winners because they're classics that everyone should see, so that's a good sign. All I can say about 1959 for now though is that it'll have Jews, nuns, and Romans. Not all in the same movie, but almost!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment