I just finished reading Mark Harris' great book, "Pictures at the Revolution", which is about the five films nominated for Best Picture Oscars in 1967:
Bonnie and Clyde
Doctor Doolittle
The Graduate
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
In the Heat of the Night
The book covers the history of each film getting made and lays to rest some of th myths that have built up around the films, especially Bonnie and Clyde.
It's a great read and if anyone would like to talk about the book or the films, I'm game!
Pictures at the Revolution
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Pictures at the Revolution
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
Doctor Doolittle seems somewhat out of place in this list. (I think it's reputation has suffered too.)
I guess my favorite of the group is "In The Heat of The Night." I think the play between Steiger and Poitier helps keep it rolling. I think on the surface it seems a straightforward murder but the complications of the characters makes it different.
Been too long since I've seen "Bonnie and Clyde" but I don't think the others hold up as well.
What are your thoughts Lynn?
I guess my favorite of the group is "In The Heat of The Night." I think the play between Steiger and Poitier helps keep it rolling. I think on the surface it seems a straightforward murder but the complications of the characters makes it different.
Been too long since I've seen "Bonnie and Clyde" but I don't think the others hold up as well.
What are your thoughts Lynn?
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Hey Chris,
Dr. Doolittle is definitely a relic of old Hollywood but the reason it got made was with the success of "The Sound of Music" and "My Fair Lady", Hollywood became convinced that roadshow musicals were the new nirvana for the public. Music made so much money for Fox (helping them out of the hole that Cleopatra had gotten them into) that they were convinced that musicals would rule the box office for the next several years and they weren't the only ones. Every studio put blockbuster musicals into the pipeline.
The book reveals just what an a** Rex Harrison could be.
As for Heat, I love the film. What I find interesting and the book points out is the difference in the characters that Sidney Poitier played between this film and Dinner.
Norman Jewison wanted Virgil Tibbs to be a real person. Sidney wanted Virgil Tibbs to be a real person and not be the exemplary black character that he had been forced to play for too long. They both wanted Virgil to be a real character.
Stanley Kramer on other hand, wanted Poitier to be the exemplary black doctor that no family could refuse having as a member of their family. For all of his liberal thinking and wanting to do the right thing, Kramer made a very middle of the road film that is highlighted not by its inter-racial love story but the love story between Hepburn and Tracey and the audience's identification with them as the basis of the parents.
Poitier reveals in both films the very thin line that he had to walk as the one of a small handful of Black actors working during that decade. He was an Oscar winner and was held to a standard by not only by Hollywood and the press but himself as well. It did not leave much room for him to be a real character until Jewison came along and offered him the role of Tibbs.
For me the real gold in Heat is Rod Steiger who, as an actor, loses himself in and becomes the sheriff of a small Mississippi town. He is the real revelation in the film and the deserved Oscar winner of 1967.
The anger and the prejudice that Poitier had to put up with is always evident in his characters. He makes Virgil Tibbs a real-life character but
Steiger became his character and that is the difference between the two.
At least for me.
Dr. Doolittle is definitely a relic of old Hollywood but the reason it got made was with the success of "The Sound of Music" and "My Fair Lady", Hollywood became convinced that roadshow musicals were the new nirvana for the public. Music made so much money for Fox (helping them out of the hole that Cleopatra had gotten them into) that they were convinced that musicals would rule the box office for the next several years and they weren't the only ones. Every studio put blockbuster musicals into the pipeline.
The book reveals just what an a** Rex Harrison could be.
As for Heat, I love the film. What I find interesting and the book points out is the difference in the characters that Sidney Poitier played between this film and Dinner.
Norman Jewison wanted Virgil Tibbs to be a real person. Sidney wanted Virgil Tibbs to be a real person and not be the exemplary black character that he had been forced to play for too long. They both wanted Virgil to be a real character.
Stanley Kramer on other hand, wanted Poitier to be the exemplary black doctor that no family could refuse having as a member of their family. For all of his liberal thinking and wanting to do the right thing, Kramer made a very middle of the road film that is highlighted not by its inter-racial love story but the love story between Hepburn and Tracey and the audience's identification with them as the basis of the parents.
Poitier reveals in both films the very thin line that he had to walk as the one of a small handful of Black actors working during that decade. He was an Oscar winner and was held to a standard by not only by Hollywood and the press but himself as well. It did not leave much room for him to be a real character until Jewison came along and offered him the role of Tibbs.
For me the real gold in Heat is Rod Steiger who, as an actor, loses himself in and becomes the sheriff of a small Mississippi town. He is the real revelation in the film and the deserved Oscar winner of 1967.
The anger and the prejudice that Poitier had to put up with is always evident in his characters. He makes Virgil Tibbs a real-life character but
Steiger became his character and that is the difference between the two.
At least for me.
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Thus, based on actual merit alone, The Graduate always gets the nod from me. Plus, it is the more entertaining film out of the five. Sorry, Sidney, but Dustin Hoffman simply got the better role here.>>
Steiger was the Oscar winner that year.
Steiger was the Oscar winner that year.
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Bonnie and Clyde
Often touted as the first modern American film and you can see why. Sex and violence are unleashed here in a way never seen by U.S. audiences previously. The death scene where the Bonnie and Clyde are ripped apart by the crossfire in a slow motion ballet was also something that would haunt audiences and influence Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch only two years later. As a film though, I don't think it measures up to previous couple on the run films such as You Only Live Once, They Live By Night, or Gun Crazy.
Dr. Dolittle
I won't even dignify this with a response.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Often claimed to be a great race barrier breaking film, but actually quite tame even by 60's standards when you consider films like The World, The Flesh and The Devil, Raisin in the Sun, Take a Giant Step, etc. As for Poitier, his work in 1965's Patch of Blue far surpasses this movie in every respect.
In The Heat of the Night
A good crime/mystery film with Rod Steiger pulling out all the stops and finally winning the Oscar he deserved for The Pawnbroker two years before. One thing that is truly amazing about his work is how he builds his characters with many quiet moments. Steiger is often considered volcanic and blustery, but if that's all you can see, you are missing his genius.
The Graduate
One of those films that was a product of its time and is best viewed in that context. I find everything about the picture hopelessly dated and creaking under its own weight. Hoffman and Bancroft do a good job in their roles, but the film as a whole is poor.
Often touted as the first modern American film and you can see why. Sex and violence are unleashed here in a way never seen by U.S. audiences previously. The death scene where the Bonnie and Clyde are ripped apart by the crossfire in a slow motion ballet was also something that would haunt audiences and influence Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch only two years later. As a film though, I don't think it measures up to previous couple on the run films such as You Only Live Once, They Live By Night, or Gun Crazy.
Dr. Dolittle
I won't even dignify this with a response.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Often claimed to be a great race barrier breaking film, but actually quite tame even by 60's standards when you consider films like The World, The Flesh and The Devil, Raisin in the Sun, Take a Giant Step, etc. As for Poitier, his work in 1965's Patch of Blue far surpasses this movie in every respect.
In The Heat of the Night
A good crime/mystery film with Rod Steiger pulling out all the stops and finally winning the Oscar he deserved for The Pawnbroker two years before. One thing that is truly amazing about his work is how he builds his characters with many quiet moments. Steiger is often considered volcanic and blustery, but if that's all you can see, you are missing his genius.
The Graduate
One of those films that was a product of its time and is best viewed in that context. I find everything about the picture hopelessly dated and creaking under its own weight. Hoffman and Bancroft do a good job in their roles, but the film as a whole is poor.
1967. Sixteen, with a license to drive to the Big City and see movies before they hit our local second-run theater. And I took advantage.
Bonnie and Clyde: Ark nailed it on this one, though for me it compares favorably with THEY LIVE BT NIGHT and YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE. Loved it then and still do, even though GUN CRAZY is now preferred. I still marvel at Gene Hackman's performance and I was convinced that Michael J. Pollard would be huge. Both were nominated for Best Supporting Actor; Beatty and Dunaway were nominated for Best Actor and Actress, respectively, Arthur Penn for Best Director, and Estelle Parsons won Best Supporting Actress; it won for Best Cinematography.
Doctor Doolittle: The one of these movies that I didn't see and still haven't, even though MrsChiO thinks we rented it for our little one 10 or so years ago. I must have walked out.
The Graduate: It was our generation's REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, or so it seemed. Doesn't have REBEL's timeless or near-universal qualities, seeming almost quaint to me now, though I still enjoy watching it; however, given Bryce's comments, maybe rather than it not aging well, it is I who has not aged well. Outstanding performances by Dustin Hoffman (weren't he and Hackman NYC roommates?) and Anne Bancroft.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner: Seemed like a Stanley Kramer movie then and haven't watched it since. I'll take Sidney Poitier in ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW and EDGE OF THE CITY and...
In the Heat of the Night: Wonderful performance by Poitier, but Rod Steiger's is brilliant. I agree with Ark completely. Along with Sterling Hayden (his polar opposite?), he seems to be one of the most often criticized actors, but I'm mesmerized by both of them.
Bonnie and Clyde: Ark nailed it on this one, though for me it compares favorably with THEY LIVE BT NIGHT and YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE. Loved it then and still do, even though GUN CRAZY is now preferred. I still marvel at Gene Hackman's performance and I was convinced that Michael J. Pollard would be huge. Both were nominated for Best Supporting Actor; Beatty and Dunaway were nominated for Best Actor and Actress, respectively, Arthur Penn for Best Director, and Estelle Parsons won Best Supporting Actress; it won for Best Cinematography.
Doctor Doolittle: The one of these movies that I didn't see and still haven't, even though MrsChiO thinks we rented it for our little one 10 or so years ago. I must have walked out.
The Graduate: It was our generation's REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, or so it seemed. Doesn't have REBEL's timeless or near-universal qualities, seeming almost quaint to me now, though I still enjoy watching it; however, given Bryce's comments, maybe rather than it not aging well, it is I who has not aged well. Outstanding performances by Dustin Hoffman (weren't he and Hackman NYC roommates?) and Anne Bancroft.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner: Seemed like a Stanley Kramer movie then and haven't watched it since. I'll take Sidney Poitier in ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW and EDGE OF THE CITY and...
In the Heat of the Night: Wonderful performance by Poitier, but Rod Steiger's is brilliant. I agree with Ark completely. Along with Sterling Hayden (his polar opposite?), he seems to be one of the most often criticized actors, but I'm mesmerized by both of them.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
At the risk of a hijacking by going down the tangent I started by mentioning REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE in connection with THE GRADUATE...
I do like THE GRADUATE, Dustin Hoffman's performance, Mike Nichols as a director, and see the similarities between Ben Braddock and Jim Stark. With the exception of Ben and Mrs. Robinson, however, the characters in THE GRADUATE struck me then and strike me now as one-dimensional. "Ah...but that's the point," one might say. "It's about a young man fighting against his nouveau riche automaton-populated surroundings." Yes, it captures that very well and that's why it is a "classic" movie, but it is also trapped by that limitation, if not in an era, then in its focus and, therefore, any claim to universality. I certainly don't assign blame for that; it does what it does in a thoughtful and enjoyable way, but I can see it only in the context of an attack on middle-class values (as deserved as the attack may be).
The characters in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, however, seem multi-dimensional and only grow with repeated viewings (especially Sal Mineo's and Jim Backus' characters). The movie may take place in a middle-class setting and there are middle-class values galore, but however Nicholas Ray or Irving Shulman/Stewart Stern did it, the movie transcends being "about" teenage angst, the middle-class, and the '50s. It is about life (at least for this middle-class white guy) at any time, any place.
Of course, on the other hand, as I alluded to before, maybe I've just moved from being Ben Braddock to being his father...and the movie cuts too damned close to the bone.
P.S. to Bryce: The shame line for liking Steiger's performance in DR. ZHIVAGO starts behind me. With two of us now, we can stand proudly.
I do like THE GRADUATE, Dustin Hoffman's performance, Mike Nichols as a director, and see the similarities between Ben Braddock and Jim Stark. With the exception of Ben and Mrs. Robinson, however, the characters in THE GRADUATE struck me then and strike me now as one-dimensional. "Ah...but that's the point," one might say. "It's about a young man fighting against his nouveau riche automaton-populated surroundings." Yes, it captures that very well and that's why it is a "classic" movie, but it is also trapped by that limitation, if not in an era, then in its focus and, therefore, any claim to universality. I certainly don't assign blame for that; it does what it does in a thoughtful and enjoyable way, but I can see it only in the context of an attack on middle-class values (as deserved as the attack may be).
The characters in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, however, seem multi-dimensional and only grow with repeated viewings (especially Sal Mineo's and Jim Backus' characters). The movie may take place in a middle-class setting and there are middle-class values galore, but however Nicholas Ray or Irving Shulman/Stewart Stern did it, the movie transcends being "about" teenage angst, the middle-class, and the '50s. It is about life (at least for this middle-class white guy) at any time, any place.
Of course, on the other hand, as I alluded to before, maybe I've just moved from being Ben Braddock to being his father...and the movie cuts too damned close to the bone.
P.S. to Bryce: The shame line for liking Steiger's performance in DR. ZHIVAGO starts behind me. With two of us now, we can stand proudly.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
From that list of five films it's difficult to imagine any type of revolution taking place in the world of cinema.
BONNIE AND CLYDE probably comes the closest with its radicalized vision of violence and anti-hero worship. I recall seeing it several times during its original release in the spring and summer of 1967, amazed that such a film could even be made in this country. Forty-one years later it still seems fresh and altogether rude.
THE GRADUATE had the good fortune of being made at a time when audiences began demanding more provocative film fare, thanks largely to the same director's previous film, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? It's still relatively entertaining but it seems inconceivable that it created the hoopla that it did when first released. Watching it again recently I couldn't help being distracted by Hoffman's overly mannered performance and the drippy music of Simon and Garfunkel. And yes, I must be one of the two or three people in the world who feel that Doris Day would have made a much better Mrs. Robinson; she was offered the part, but her husband-manager, Marty Melcher, turned it down.
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, the film that took home the gold, never impressed me as much more than a slightly above average police movie. The performances were fine but as a film it still (as it did then) seems hopelessly slow and old fashioned.
GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER is flat-out grotesque and a complete embarrassment to all concerned. The less said about it the better.
I've never seen DR. DOOLITTLE and I suspect I never will. Its nomination no doubt a concession to the sadly outdated notions of Hoillywood filmmaking.
What might be more interesting would be a discussion revolving around the 1967 films not nominated. Richard Brooks' stunning IN COLD BLOOD was certainly too strong for most of the Academy members' stomachs; Boorman's POINT BLANK was probably not even seen by most of the Academy members and the film that should have been named the best of 1967, Stanley Donen's TWO FOR THE ROAD was undoubtedly too funny, sad and sophisticated for them.
BONNIE AND CLYDE probably comes the closest with its radicalized vision of violence and anti-hero worship. I recall seeing it several times during its original release in the spring and summer of 1967, amazed that such a film could even be made in this country. Forty-one years later it still seems fresh and altogether rude.
THE GRADUATE had the good fortune of being made at a time when audiences began demanding more provocative film fare, thanks largely to the same director's previous film, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? It's still relatively entertaining but it seems inconceivable that it created the hoopla that it did when first released. Watching it again recently I couldn't help being distracted by Hoffman's overly mannered performance and the drippy music of Simon and Garfunkel. And yes, I must be one of the two or three people in the world who feel that Doris Day would have made a much better Mrs. Robinson; she was offered the part, but her husband-manager, Marty Melcher, turned it down.
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, the film that took home the gold, never impressed me as much more than a slightly above average police movie. The performances were fine but as a film it still (as it did then) seems hopelessly slow and old fashioned.
GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER is flat-out grotesque and a complete embarrassment to all concerned. The less said about it the better.
I've never seen DR. DOOLITTLE and I suspect I never will. Its nomination no doubt a concession to the sadly outdated notions of Hoillywood filmmaking.
What might be more interesting would be a discussion revolving around the 1967 films not nominated. Richard Brooks' stunning IN COLD BLOOD was certainly too strong for most of the Academy members' stomachs; Boorman's POINT BLANK was probably not even seen by most of the Academy members and the film that should have been named the best of 1967, Stanley Donen's TWO FOR THE ROAD was undoubtedly too funny, sad and sophisticated for them.
-
jdb1
This is very interesting reading - it may be that 1967 was the first year I really considered movies as cinema and watched these films as more than just entertainment.
I've never been able to get into Bonnie and Clyde, no matter how hard I've tried. Probably because I simply don't like either Dunaway or Beatty. The movie never really spoke to me.
I appreciate The Graduate a bit more than I did in 1967, but I've always found Nichols' body of work to be overrated (except for Virginia Woolf, in which he drew out two of the most incredible screen performances ever from its stars). I still think Benjamin and his cronies were privileged, spoiled brats, and I've never been able to work up much sympathy for them. Get a job, you bums.
I think the performances in In the Heat of the Night far transcend the material. As a film, I find it little better than a TV drama, that is, small-scale and shallow.
When I first saw it, I was completely embarrassed that two of my very favorite actors (T&H) could have lent themselves to Guess Who. I still think it's one of the most awful major movies ever, on so many levels. (I did like Isabel Sanford, though. She was the only breath of reality in that self-important mess.)
I had, and still have, a similar reaction to Doctor Doolittle. I think it's an overblown mess, a knock-off of so many other, better, musical extravaganzas of the day. Have you ever seen the books? Does Rex Harrison fit your impression of the good doctor? Does he match the illustrations? Not even close. Ridiculous. The movie does, however, have a few good songs.
I'm in complete agreement with Dewey's list as to which 1967 films should have been nominated.
I've never been able to get into Bonnie and Clyde, no matter how hard I've tried. Probably because I simply don't like either Dunaway or Beatty. The movie never really spoke to me.
I appreciate The Graduate a bit more than I did in 1967, but I've always found Nichols' body of work to be overrated (except for Virginia Woolf, in which he drew out two of the most incredible screen performances ever from its stars). I still think Benjamin and his cronies were privileged, spoiled brats, and I've never been able to work up much sympathy for them. Get a job, you bums.
I think the performances in In the Heat of the Night far transcend the material. As a film, I find it little better than a TV drama, that is, small-scale and shallow.
When I first saw it, I was completely embarrassed that two of my very favorite actors (T&H) could have lent themselves to Guess Who. I still think it's one of the most awful major movies ever, on so many levels. (I did like Isabel Sanford, though. She was the only breath of reality in that self-important mess.)
I had, and still have, a similar reaction to Doctor Doolittle. I think it's an overblown mess, a knock-off of so many other, better, musical extravaganzas of the day. Have you ever seen the books? Does Rex Harrison fit your impression of the good doctor? Does he match the illustrations? Not even close. Ridiculous. The movie does, however, have a few good songs.
I'm in complete agreement with Dewey's list as to which 1967 films should have been nominated.
Last edited by jdb1 on September 13th, 2008, 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'd be happy to go with IN COLD BLOOD as the best movie of 1967, and even let Robert Blake and Scott Wilson share the Oscar for Best Actor over Rod Steiger, and Conrad Hall over Burnett Guffey for Best Cinematography. My girlfriend at the time just stared at me as we left the theater after seeing that one. I think we saw CLAMBAKE the next weekend (I don't recall that it received any nominations).
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
Hey Bryce - No, your status at the Record Party is unchanged and unchallenged. Heaven forbid the notion that anyone would be excused for displaying a lack of good taste!!
And yes, I agree that (most of) the best films that year were foreign releases, with the "Best Foreign Film" winner being the tremendous Czech film CLOSELY WATCHED TRAINS. However, the other nominated foreign films were somewhat less than spectacular, with the possible exception of Claude Lelouch's VIVRE POUR VIVRE (LIVE FOR LIFE), a really beautiful love story which is all but forgotten today (except, perhaps by those fortunate enough to have seen it). The other nominees in that category that year--EL AMOR BRUJO from Spain, CHIEKO-SHO from Japan, and SKUPLJACI PERJA from Yugoslavia barely merit discussion, if for no other reason that most people have never heard of, let alone seen them.
Of the un-nominated foreign films that year, three are among my most favorite French films ever: Melville's LE SAMOURAI, Bunuel's BELLE DE JOUR and Demy's YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT.
ChiO: I believe CLAMBAKE did receive one nomination: Worst Elvis Presley Movie Ever.
And yes, I agree that (most of) the best films that year were foreign releases, with the "Best Foreign Film" winner being the tremendous Czech film CLOSELY WATCHED TRAINS. However, the other nominated foreign films were somewhat less than spectacular, with the possible exception of Claude Lelouch's VIVRE POUR VIVRE (LIVE FOR LIFE), a really beautiful love story which is all but forgotten today (except, perhaps by those fortunate enough to have seen it). The other nominees in that category that year--EL AMOR BRUJO from Spain, CHIEKO-SHO from Japan, and SKUPLJACI PERJA from Yugoslavia barely merit discussion, if for no other reason that most people have never heard of, let alone seen them.
Of the un-nominated foreign films that year, three are among my most favorite French films ever: Melville's LE SAMOURAI, Bunuel's BELLE DE JOUR and Demy's YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT.
ChiO: I believe CLAMBAKE did receive one nomination: Worst Elvis Presley Movie Ever.
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
For what its worth, I still enjoy Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Burton and Segal are absolutely mesmerizing and it's even more incredible when you realize how Burton's character underpins and provides a foundation that lets the other characters dance on the edge of mania. Little do we know that this meek, bookish man holds all the cards.
Point Blank and In Cold Blood are good choices, but as Dewey suggests, the best films were definitely foreign works. These American directors were just given their freedom from the production code and while many of them strove to make exciting vehicles, you can see the awkwardness showing here and there.
Point Blank and In Cold Blood are good choices, but as Dewey suggests, the best films were definitely foreign works. These American directors were just given their freedom from the production code and while many of them strove to make exciting vehicles, you can see the awkwardness showing here and there.