FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When a recently retired sheriff (Gary Cooper) learns that a man (Ian MacDonald) he helped send to prison for life has returned to town with three assistants (Lee Van Cleef, Robert J. Wilke, and Sheb Wooley) to seek revenge, he goes against the wishes of his new wife (Grace Kelly) by deciding to stay and confront the men — but he quickly finds that few townsfolk are willing to join his posse.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Fred Zinnemann Films
• Gary Cooper Films
• Grace Kelly Films
• Lee Van Cleef Films
• Lloyd Bridges Films
• Lon Chaney, Jr. Films
• Revenge
• Sheriffs
• Thomas Mitchell Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of High Noon — based on a short story by John W. Cunningham, and scripted by blacklisted writer Carl Foreman — Peary argues that “some brilliant editing… and a dramatic Oscar-winning score by Dimitri Tiomkin (with Tex Ritter giving an emotional performance on the Oscar-winning title song) elevated Fred Zinnemann’s slightly-above-average western into a classic”. He’s not alone in this rather lukewarm assessment, with DVD Savant similarly dismissing it as “a well-acted, fairly klunky, faux-profound script given good direction within a mediocre production”. I feel much the same way about High Noon, which I admire more than I enjoy — yet there is much to admire, given that the performances throughout are solid (especially by both Oscar-winning Cooper and Katy Jurado as his former mistress); Zinnemann’s direction is reasonably creative; the editing is nearly always top-notch; and the score is nicely atmospheric (though I do find the title song a tad over-used).

Regarding the “fairly clunky, faux-profound” script, the film’s moral compass remains notoriously challenging to grasp, with critics continuously debating whether it more accurately represents a liberal or a conservative viewpoint. While many see Cooper’s “Will Kane” as a stand-in for Foreman himself (abandoned by friends and colleagues during his blacklisting in the HUAC era), others see him as a staunch version of America, unafraid to fight and stand up to Communist threats. Personally, I choose to view the film on a much simpler and more human level — as the tale of a man who knows he’ll be followed for the rest of his life unless he confronts the menace that’s out to get him. To that end, Cooper’s Kane makes a pragmatic but life-altering choice in what seems like an instant, despite the fact that it means the disruption of his brand-new marriage to beautiful (pacifist) Kelly; indeed, given that the film is basically “told in real time”, we’re plunged immediately into Kane’s dilemma, without much of a chance to learn more about his character or what might have caused him to make such a seemingly reckless decision.

Peary writes, “Personally, I think Cooper should have left town… but I’m glad he doesn’t because the final shootout is one of the western’s most exciting sequences”, since “Cooper finally displays strength” and “because of the way Floyd Crosby’s striking images are edited to fit the music”. Indeed, regardless of whether one believes Cooper is being foolhardy or not by staying in town (and I personally disagree that he shows anything but “strength” all along), the storyline itself — including the enjoyably taut final shootout — remains intrinsically compelling, simply given the threat of an ever-looming deadline, and the question of whether or how Cooper will be able to pull together enough support to stay alive.

Interestingly, Peary points out that High Noon is “one of the few westerns that are favorites of viewers who dislike the genre”, perhaps because of its strategically thriller-like structure — or perhaps because of its unconventional storyline, which is ultimately more of an allegorical morality tale than a standard western. Who are the “good guys” here, and who (other than the obvious four gunmen) are the “bad”? That’s ultimately left up to viewers to decide. Speaking of personal takes on the film, Peary writes that apparently “Howard Hawks was so infuriated by Cooper’s whimpering [sic] that he made Rio Bravo to show that a professional lawman like Cooper’s wouldn’t ask common folk for help against the gunmen”. While I don’t agree with Hawks’ interpretation of Cooper’s character, I’m not upset that Rio Bravo was the result of his dissatisfaction.

Note: Watch for Lon Chaney, Jr. in a brief supporting role as the town’s former sheriff; it’s lovely to see him given such a dignified moment in a highly-regarded film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Gary Cooper as Will Kane
  
• Katy Jurado as Helen Ramirez
  
• Fine direction by Fred Zinnemann
  
• The tense final shootout
  
• Oscar-winning editing by Elmo Williams and Harry Gerstad

Must See?
Yes, as a certified classic of the western genre.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• ReelViews Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
When a recent college graduate (Dustin Hoffman) returns home to live with his parents (William Daniels and Elizabeth Wilson), he’s immediately seduced by the wife (Anne Bancroft) of his father’s law partner (Murray Hamilton). Bancroft warns him not to have anything to do with her grown daughter, Elaine (Katharine Ross) — but Ben (Hoffman) soon finds himself enamored with Elaine, and caught in an undeniably sticky love triangle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Anne Bancroft Films
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Generation Gap
• Love Triangle
• May-December Romance
• Mike Nichols Films
• Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of The Graduate (based on a 1963 novel by Charles Webb), Peary focuses primarily on its nostalgia value as someone who saw it “several times” the year it was released, when it was considered “the film of the year” and was “integral to everyday conversation”. He notes that “while not all of us were impressed by director Mike Nichols’s technical innovations, we were excited by his novel use of contemporary music (popular songs by Simon & Garfunkel); the provocative sexual theme; a lead character, Ben (Dustin Hoffman’s first major role), whose problems we could relate to; and a hilarious new style (for movies) of comic dialogue, in which the listener, Ben, must find words to fill in the adult talker’s long and awkward pauses.” He posits that “Nichols intentionally stops being funny at about the time Elaine enters the picture”, noting that “the humor disappears when Ben stops being passive and awkward and snaps out of his postgraduate depression”, as he “comes alive and exhibits a desperate, anarchic spirit that any young person in 1967 could identify with.” Peary concludes his review by noting that the “film is dated” but “essential to any study of film during the protest years”.

Many (including myself) would disagree with Peary’s assertion that The Graduate is “dated”, given its iconic status as a cult favorite, with countless memorable scenes and quotes:

“Are you here for an affair, sir?”
“I just want to say one word to you. Just one word… Plastics.”
“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me.”
“I think you’re the most attractive of all my parents’ friends.”

Peary is right, however, to point out that “the acting by Hoffman and Bancroft is super”, with “their scenes together still hold[ing] up”. Indeed, the first half of the film — during which Ben carries out his affair with Mrs. Robinson — is undeniably its funniest and most powerful, with nearly every scene packing a punch, and Nichols establishing himself as a master of sly romantic wit; Bancroft’s seduction of Hoffman will have you laughing out loud, yet simultaneously wincing at Ben’s obvious discomfort. Once Elaine “enters the picture”, it’s true that events take a more somber turn, and one can’t help regretting that Bancroft’s character eventually recedes into the background as a one-dimensional mother-bitch; but Ben’s pursuit of Elaine is ultimately what drives the film, so while we may miss Bancroft, we nonetheless remain glued to the screen, wondering how in the world Ben will salvage the mess that is his love life.

Adding to the film’s appeal is the fact that Ben remains a sympathetic character throughout the entire movie, given that he was clearly (oh, so clearly) the one seduced by Mrs. Robinson; that he tells Elaine about his affair immediately after meeting her, at which point it stops; and that he’s never anything but transparent and sincere about his intentions to put his past with Mrs. Robinson behind him. It’s also easy to relate on a personal level to Ben’s broader existential dilemma, as he contemplates how to craft a life for himself without automatically following in his parents’ footsteps; there’s nothing at all dated about that coming-of-age scenario. Finally, Nichols’ creative direction (which, unlike Peary, I do find impressive), Richard Surtees’ cinematography, fine supporting performances, and Simon & Garfunkel’s instantly recognizable soundtrack all add to the appeal of this deserved cult classic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dustin Hoffman as Ben (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  
• Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  
• Katharine Ross as Elaine
  
• Fine supporting performances
  
• Creatively stylistic direction by Nichols
  
• Robert Surtees’ cinematography
  
• Richard Sylbert’s production design
  
• Simon and Garfunkel’s soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, of course, as a genuine classic. Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Q Network Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A group of midwestern college girls (Dolores Hart, Paula Prentiss, Yvette Mimieux, and Connie Francis) head to Fort Lauderdale for spring break, seeking romantic happiness and adventure in the sun — but they quickly find that dating is much more complicated than they anticipated, as Mimieux becomes sexually involved with a series of partying “Yalies”, Prentiss struggles to maintain her “good girl” status while dating an eccentric student (Jim Hutton), Hart dates a suave millionaire (George Hamilton), and Francis desperately pursues a quirky jazz musician (Frank Gorshin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming-of-Age
• George Hamilton Films
• Jim Hutton Films
• Paula Prentiss Films
• Sexuality
• Yvette Mimieux Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “cult favorite” (directed by Henry Levin) is “dated in many ways”, it remains an “enjoyable, offbeat, interesting film with appealing performances by the lead actresses”. He points out that “it’s surprisingly more advanced than other films of the period in regard to sex”, noting that “the dialogue about sex is frank” and that “it’s clear that our four girls are in search of boys for sex” (a point I can’t quite agree with, as discussed below). He further notes that “the four leads are very appealing”, given that they “all have a sense of humor” and “their characters are believable”; he commends the script for providing us with an “early film in which the girls are supportive friends, rather than rivals”. In his Cult Movies 3 book, Peary provides a much more detailed analysis of the film, describing its many differences from the novel it was based on (by Glendon Swarthout), which is apparently even more sexually explicit, and focuses primarily on the sexual adventures of Merritt (Hart).

In Cult Movies 3, Peary concedes that WTBA shouldn’t really “be taken all that seriously”, given that “any picture about the students who migrate to Spring Break in Fort Lauderdale is bound to be somewhat stupid and junky”. He further points out that one shouldn’t forget “this picture actually has George ‘Mr. Tan’ Hamilton striding across the beach — an image that never fails to delight camp-movie addicts”. However, he argues that the film “is above being enjoyed only on a camp level”, given that “there is much to appreciate” — including “young heroes and heroines” who are portrayed as “caring, smart, and, ultimately, responsible”, and men who “show… respect for the women they’re attracted to”. The exception to this latter statement is, of course, the tragic subplot involving Mimieux’s fatally naive sexual interactions with a group of faux-Yalies — but it’s to the film’s credit that these male characters never emerge as anything other than bit players designed to play slimy louses.

As noted above, I don’t quite agree with Peary that all the girls in this film are interested in pursuing sex per se. While they are all sexually curious to one extent or another (who isn’t?), it’s evident that they’re primarily looking for boys to date, to have fun with, and to possibly turn into longer-term mates. Prentiss’s “Tuggle”, for instance, is a self-avowed “good girl” who makes it clear that she’s exclusively interested in finding a man to settle down with: “Girls like me weren’t built to be educated. We were made to have children. That’s my ambition: to be a walking, talking baby factory.” In her screen debut, Prentiss has an appealing comedic presence, and her interactions with lanky Hutton generally ring true. Much less satisfying is the character played by Connie Francis, who nicely sings the title song but otherwise is relegated to a thankless role as the girl desperate to catch a man, any man; she’s too attractive to merit this type of degrading characterization, and I don’t blame her for dismissing the film later in her life as terrible.

Note: Where the Boys Are remains of minor historical interest as well simply given that its lead, Dolores Hart, left Hollywood after making this film to become a lifelong Benedictine nun in Connecticut.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Yvette Mimieux as Melanie
  
• Paula Prentiss as Tuggle
  
• Dolores Hart as Merritt
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its (relatively) bold exploration of ’50s sexual mores. But I doubt it holds much of its cult status any longer.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review (spoiler alert)
• Digitally Obsessed Review

Synopsis:
A young Cajun boy (Joseph Boudreaux) living with his father (Lionel Le Blanc) and mother (E. Bienvenu) is eager to engage with workers on the oil derrick that has just arrived in his idyllic bayou.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Deep South
• Documentary
• Robert Flaherty Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Although it’s lauded by numerous critics as documentarian Robert Flaherty’s finest achievement, Louisiana Story (his final film) “looks nice” but possesses a fatally underdeveloped script (which, ironically, was nominated for an Oscar). As Peary notes, the fact that “the film was financed by Standard Oil Company” may account “for Flaherty’s oddly romantic notion that the presence of the oil company will have no adverse effect on the environment” (a particularly egregious stance given the tragedy of recent oil spills in the region). Meanwhile, as Peary points out, “Flaherty spends a lot of time filming the derrick in action, but the workers look so bored that the scenes are dull”; indeed, none of the workers are particularly distinctive or memorable, and Boudreaux himself (a non-actor whose inexperience shows) lacks the requisite charisma to remain sufficiently engaging as the protagonist of the film. His interactions with his pet raccoon and his tussle with an alligator are decidedly tame, and smack uncomfortably of a Disney-fied view of nature.

As is now well-known, Flaherty’s “documentaries” were actually highly constructed narratives featuring carefully selected actors, thus rendering his fame as a forerunner of ethnographic filmmaking suspect at best. As I discussed in my review of Flahery’s breakthrough film, Nanook of the North (1922), such an issue remains much less problematic when the material itself is intrinsically fascinating: in Nanook…, for instance, one can easily understand why he may have “needed” to reconstruct key scenes, given the severe constraints of life in such harsh circumstances. In Louisiana Story, however, such a “sin” is less pardonable — particularly given that we actually learn very little about life for this Cajun backwoods family. As DVD Savant notes in his review of the film, “Pa is never seen doing anything more vocational than handling a small trap, and the son has nothing to do but amuse himself exploring the dangerous bayou”. Louisiana Story is a visually gorgeous but otherwise disappointing finale to Flaherty’s career.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine b&w cinematography by Richard Leacock
  
  
• Virgil Thomson’s score

Must See?
No, though it will naturally be of interest to those curious about the trajectory of Flaherty’s oeuvre. Selected for the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress in 1994. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A small-town Texan (Jon Voight) heads to New York City in hopes of making a good living as a gigolo for wealthy women. Instead, he finds himself hustling to survive, and relying on the friendship of a down-and-out con-artist (Dustin Hoffman) who dreams of moving to Florida.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Con-Artists
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Friendship
• John Schlesinger Films
• Jon Voight Films
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Sylvia Miles Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this infamous cult movie — the first “X-Rated” film to win a Best Picture Oscar — “has humor and moments of warmth”, it nonetheless possesses a “cruel edge” which he believes is generated by the “America-hating director, John Schlesinger, who seems to enjoy victimizing [the two male leads] in the name of America”. From what I’ve read, Schlesinger’s relationship with America was actually much more nuanced than Peary indicates (he grew to love Los Angeles), and I can’t quite agree with Peary that the film’s “cruel edge” has anything to do with how its director chooses to “treat” the characters. Peary further complains that “scriptwriter Waldo Salt doesn’t… include any scenes in which the men open up to each other and discuss their deepest feelings or their past”, yet he praises both Voight and Hoffman (who he names Best Actor of the Year in his Alternate Oscars) for giving “excellent, sympathetic portrayals” which allow us to “understand both the reasons for and the depth of their friendship”.

In the remainder of his review, Peary labels Schlesinger’s use of flashbacks as a “technical imposition” which merely exhibits “his desire to use film to play with time,” given that we “never find out” how a gang-rape endured by Voight and his girlfriend (Jennifer Salt) “affected him”. I disagree: while it might be nice to understand a bit more about these and other earlier scenes from Voight’s life, we clearly understand that he comes from a troubled background, which is enough to help us sympathize with his desire for a better life in NYC. Similarly, we don’t find out much about Ratso’s background, or even learn exactly what illness causes him to cough so persistently — yet what’s most important here is that he and Voight find each other and develop a most unusual companionship in the midst of abject poverty. Their (mis)adventures together, while certainly often depressing, always ring true, and are (ironically) tinged with an air of subtle optimism given the obvious loyalty they’ve developed towards one another; indeed, despite a decidedly heartbreaking ending, I can think of a hundred different ways the storyline for Midnight Cowboy could have been even “crueler” than it is.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jon Voight as Joe Buck
  
• Dustin Hoffman as “Ratso”
  
• Sylvia Miles as Cass
  
• Adam Holender’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of Harry Nilsson’s instantly memorable rendition of Fred Neil’s “Everybody’s Talkin'”

Must See?
Yes, as an historically relevant cultural icon of late ’60 cinema.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Historically Relevant
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• Q Network Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Washington Post Review