1957: The Year that Ron Swanson Ate Steak with Obi-Wan

That's right, this year's winner is apparently one of the favorites of Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation. He was fictionally born on my birthday you know. And it is indeed a great movie. Thankfully, it's not completely alone in being good for this year. There are some requisite stinkers as well and they tell me some interesting things about the progression of entertainment in this country. And since that particular film was a big soap opera, I'll probably spend more time on the societal implications than the film itself. But believe me: you're better off.

And look! We're talking about the soap opera already: Peyton Place. I really thought this would be later in the write-up but I guess it's kind of a wonky year in terms of alphabetization. Actually, I wanted to list another film first but Wikipedia didn't list it that way and I don't want to break my Wiki-pattern. Anyway, this movie is schmaltz to the Nth degree. Basically, it's the classic small town hiding secrets. Gasp! The nice town isn't all that it seems? People are actually messed up and not all nice and stuff? Shocker. What I find interesting is that a lot of critics smashed this movie at the time because they felt it was simply a lot of controversy thrown together to get attention rather than tell a story. So even though today it's basically a tame episode of Gossip Girl, back then it was scandal. And I'm glad there were those that recognized it for what it was. But it was a ginormous hit! Because apparently in 1957 a girl on screen talking vaguely about sex was tantemount to a Jessica Alba striptease. I would like to direct everyone to my 1997 write-up where I discuss why Titanic was such a huge hit (a clue: the answer is in the beginning of the title). It works today and it worked in 1957. By means of another for instance: the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens makes it look like Olivia Wilde gets naked. But the film's rating and her own Twitter account a year ago tell a different story. But they want you to think it's possible so that you'll go to see it. It's a delicate game they play, because you have to make a movie that's good enough to appease people looking to follow the plot and also has parts in it that make for a good trailer tease. I haven't seen the trailer for the 1957 nominee in question, but if they were similar at that time then I imagine the trailer was just the scene where the two teens talk about books about sex they purchased. Because if the trailer was: "this is a movie that's over 2 1/2 hours and most of that is boring, but there's one scene where they almost talk about sex sort of" then no one would have seen it. In fact, the Catholic church apparently approved this film for its members so how lewd could it have been? Others back then said that the original novel was quite raunchy to a purpose and thus very good. I can't imagine that's true, but it's probably better than the movie. Because the film just gives you a small tease of everything, which is bad from a storytelling point of view. If you dance around certain issues, that might excite tweeners but the rest of us are stuck here wondering what's going on. They play one too many scandals in the film and it becomes ridiculous. Child born out of wedlock? Okay. Unrelated pre-marital sex for the sake of being a rebellious teen? Fine. Step-father impregnating his step-daughter? Too far. If that was the whole story then that's fine but I mean come on, it was like they were begging for attention. So as bad as I thought the film was, it at least brought me some comfort to learn that people were the same in 1957 even if their threshold for controversial content was much lower.

Another film that's entirely too long is Sayonara. Ready for my Roger Ebert impression? "Say sayonara to this Japanimerican mess." What a waste of Marlon Brando. This was right in the midst of some of his most iconic and excellent pre-Godfather work. This film is so bad that I actually hated when they said the title in it. Here's how it's done: "When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die." Boom! Or: "Authority is not given to you to deny The Return of the King." Sweet! Now how about: "What should we tell the Army?" "Tell 'em, sayonara!" HAHAHAHA get it? Of course you don't, as I haven't explained the movie. It's about a military dude who disapproves of his friend dating an Asian chick and then he predictably falls for an Asian chick and spends the rest of the movie convincing himself and others why they should be together. Then he up and decides to leave the Army. So when he says "sayonara" it's signifying not only saying goodbye to the Army but also hello to his new quasi-Japanese lifestyle. Get it? It would've been good if they delivered it properly but it was such a wink-wink moment that it was terrible. It was like, "pay attention! Here is why the movie is called this!" If more of the film had been about him being torn between duty and love it might have been salvageable. And maybe more of it was about that then I thought but it was so boring for almost 2 1/2 hours that it's possible I missed it. Instead, it takes like 45 minutes to establish that he disapproves dating Asians before he meets the girl. That's too much buildup. We should have met her like 20 minutes in, tops. It'd still be dumb, but it would have been more believable for 20 minutes of one opinion to switch around rather than 45 minutes. And he shouldn't have fallen for her so quickly, or if he did then it should have been established that maybe he wasn't buying his own opinion this whole time. Because we're not talking like this was a "I have never dated blondes...oh hey! There's a hot blonde, I think I'll date her" situation. It was more of a "I am racist against Asians. Oh hey! There's an attractive one, and I'm no longer a bigot for some reason" situation. Didn't buy it, didn't buy their romance. Which is weird since all they did was re-enforce that they were in love for the whole movie. And why was this nominated anyway? This is like the world's least awwww-inducing chick flick. And why is he falling for a Japanese girl during the Korean War? Wouldn't it have been better to have him fall for a Japanese girl during WWII or a Korean girl during the Korean War? That would have been a nice together-ness message either way. Instead it was a "this supports together-ness if you think all Asians look alike" message. Classy. I'm being a bit unfair, but I doubt anyone cares 54 years later anyway so I'll let it stand.

A thankfully good movie is 12 Angry Men. I would put numbers before letters but I guess Wikipedia goes by pronunciation. Weird. Anyway, here is an example of a movie taking place in one room and during what is basically one long conversation being incredibly well-done. And why does it work so well? For one thing, it's not too long. It's a bit over 1 1/2 hours which is exactly how long it should be. It doesn't waste time getting to its premise and it doesn't overstay its welcome. Almost the entire movie takes place in the jury room at the end of a murder trial, deciding if they should sentence the man to death by proclaiming him guilty or not. Henry Fonda leads the great ensemble cast as the first man to put in a bid for "not guilty." And Sidney Lumet manages to make some really good directorial decisions even though the whole movie takes place in one room. As things get more tense the camera gets more claustrophobic, increasing the suspense. It also allows us to see the characters in all their heated desperation, as subtext abounds near the conclusion of the film. I think this movie is required viewing for everyone who was upset over the Casey Anthony verdict. Because over the course of the film, we are never certain whether the culprit committed the crime or not. And as Henry Fonda admits, he's not saying he's convinced of the man's innocence either. But he also says that the evidence isn't strong enough to convict him. The sequences of events that break down each piece of evidence one by one are brilliantly paced and played out so well. By the end you are in no way convinced that the man is innocent, just that many jury members were allowing their impatience, non-chalance, and own personal issues cloud what should be their unbiased opinions. It couldn't have been timed better that I was re-watching this during the Casey Anthony aftermath. Because it's a similar case of how circumstantial evidence isn't enough to put someone away, certainly not when the death penalty is involved. So it's always fascinating to see similar arguments being waged almost 60 years ago as today. Ordinarily I might say it's depressing, but I think in this case it's a good thing. We should always question these types of situations to no end, because human life is at stake. The film manages to convey all of this while telling a compelling story with great actors and a solid script. In another year it might have won the Oscar, in fact I wish it had come out in 1958 instead and beaten the French strumpet, but it was no match for this year's winner. Which isn't up next, sorry for the mislead.

Instead, up next is another compelling legal drama of a different kind: Witness for the Prosecution. This is based on an Agatha Christie short story, so you have to figure that it's A) better than most courtroom dramas and B) there are probably more twists and turns than most courtroom dramas. As it turned out, I think they did one twist too many. It's a really good movie and the initial twist at the end is fantastic but if they had left it at that then the bad guy would've gotten away. That would have been a chilling and excellent ending but in 1957 the bad guy pretty much always has to bite it. As such, the ending is kind of disappointing and the tone is odd. But the rest of the film is really good. It's a Billy Wilder film so it manages to balance humor with the drama without seeming too silly. Charles Laughton steals the show as the recently hospitalized defense attorney. The other actors are good too for the most part, but they look like amateurs next to Laughton in many of the scenes. He's like a precursor to the David E. Kelley lawyers of The Practice and Boston Legal. He charms the audience with his humor right before he reminds us that he is very sly and a genius when it comes to argument. In fact, I liked his character so much that I found myself wishing that this was the pilot to some ahead-of-its-time 50s show. The plot itself is also carried out in a well-plotted manner. It utilizes POV flashbacks that may or may not be reliable and also spends a fair amount of non-flashback time outside of the courtroom at the beginning of the film. This establishes the tone and the characters in an environment that isn't so open and public as a courtroom. Every courtroom drama should do this, because otherwise you can only get the façade of the courtroom which rarely allows us to see a character's true intentions. Anatomy of a Murder also did a good job with that, but it went on a bit too long. At just under 2 hours this movie is delivered as well as it possibly could have been, aside from that last twist of course.

A film that manages to earn its lengthy running time is this year's excellent winner: The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is another David Lean masterpiece. Though its cinematography is not as stunning as Lawrence of Arabia or Dr. Zhivago (due to the setting of the film being less scenic) it's still more stunning than pretty much any WWII film and more than most any film. The story concerns a unit of British soldiers in a Japanese prison camp. They are instructed that they all must begin working on a bridge over the river Kwai so as to carry a new railway line. What follows is one sequence of unfortunate events after another. Because at first, there is a lot of understandable strife between the British and the Japanese. But the head Japanese officer comes to respect Alec Guinness' character and the British soldiers eventually take great pride in the building of the bridge. Not necessarily because they've switched sides, just because they've worked so hard for so long on it. We eventually meet an American soldier at the camp as well. He escapes and is then sent back on a mission to destroy the bridge. I won't ruin the ending, but the film becomes very interesting when considering everyone's motives. After being in a POW camp for several years, if you're being treated fairly well and taking pride in your work, are you still a fervent part of the war effort for Queen and country? And if you're on a dangerous mission because of a threat and not because of your own choice, can you really be trusted to carry it out? The film dares to show the absurdity of war and the similarities between two warring sides during a time in America's history when everyone still remembered WWII. But it said these things with its story, not by being preachy. So it's a film that is carried out well, with a thought-provoking message, and some very impressive visuals. It's certainly one of those iconic Best Picture winners that many people remember, rather than the ones that are given the Oscar simply because it has to go to someone.

Well that was overall a good year of movies. Which is good because I was beginning to wonder about the 50s. My dad was laughing because of all the good movies that came out in some of these years, none of which were nominated. Though this legitimizes my initial reason for starting the escapade, so I guess I should be happy. Hopefully next year will be more in line with this one. All I know for now is that it has a Mexican guy playing a Frenchman, a white guy playing an Asian, and a Gentile playing a Jew playing an Egyptian.