LISTS

Chit-chat, current events
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

The 1960s. The culture changed. Music changed. Promising leaders were taken from us. And the era of classic movies came to a crashing end. Never again (so far) would the quality of American cinema be as consistently entertaining as it had previously been. Films of this decade initiated changes in technique, style and content. Most of it detrimental! The film industry has not yet recovered.

Nonetheless, there were some great ones in this, as in all decades. The best movies of the 60s are just about as good as any others. In order of my preference, and with the assistance of Wikipedia...

THE APARTMENT. One of the great comedies. One of the great dramas. Billy Wilder's finest film.
THE GRADUATE. The ultimate 60s groundbreaker. As effective today as then.
THE HUSTLER. Grim, tense and disturbing. What fun!
CAPE FEAR. If there's a more suspenseful thriller, I don't know it. That's why I rate it even ahead of...
PSYCHO. I assume you're familiar with this one!
DR. STRANGELOVE. Darkest of dark comedy, but so silly you can't get too depressed!
ADVISE AND CONSENT. Shocking in its time; still incredibly well structured drama.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Straightforward telling of one of our great stories.
BONNIE AND CLYDE. Stylized violence has never been done more effectively.
REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT. Small, heartfelt and human. Less is more.

With a tip of the popcorn box to some slightly lesser entries that won my heart!

DR. NO. Most grounded of the Bond adventures. One of the best action films of all.
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Woody Allen's first and funniest effort.
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Almost unbearably intense filming of Albee's wonderful play.
ELMER GANTRY. Who says classic drama can't be colorful?

I'm prepared for hate mail from fans of "Liberty Valance". That's simply not one of my favorite Ford films. If it helps, that would be next on my list!
User avatar
ChiO
Posts: 3899
Joined: January 2nd, 2008, 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: LISTS

Post by ChiO »

1960 is a tough one for me. Lots of non-English language films that are top-notch, but relatively few English language movies really grabbed me. But here goes:

1960

1. PEEPING TOM (Michael Powell) - The travails of an artist trying to achieve perfection, but failing and being rejected. Did Powell know in his heart how this film would be received? A work of genius. And Art, ultimately, does triumph.

2. THE SAVAGE EYE (Ben Maddow/Sidney Meyers/JosephStrick) - When I saw this for the first time a few years ago, I exclaimed: "This is it! This is it! The movie that I want my movie to look like!"

3. THE HYPNOTIC EYE (George Blair) - The first time I saw it, I loved it. Seeing it at the Roxie last week, I decided I was right the first time.

4. THE SINISTER URGE (Edward D. Wood, Jr.) - "Pornography is a nasty word for a dirty business." Thank you, auteur Wood, for letting us in on it.

5. THE SAVAGE INNOCENTS (Nicholas Ray) - Ray moves his Melodrama to the Arctic. I gladly follow.

6. THE RISE AND FALL OF LEGS DIAMOND (Budd Boetticher) - I liked it before. At the Roxie, it got much better.

7. THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (Roger Corman) - Corman at his goofiest. And was Jack Nicholson, before he became Jack Nicholson, ever better? "Feed me!"

8. EXODUS (Otto Preminger) - I know, Mr. Sahl: "Otto! Let my people go!" But it's one of the few Epics that I enjoy with each viewing. Bonus points to Preminger for giving Dalton Trumbo a screen credit.

9. VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (Wolf Rilla) - Those damned kids scared me then and they scare me now.

10. ELMER GANTRY (Richard Brooks) - Burt Lancaster chews the scenery, but that's okay when John Alton is shooting it.

I feel compelled to explain - not justify - my exclusion of the top pick on the other two 1960 lists. Admittedly, there may be a tad bit of an over-reaction to the acclaim that movie received upon its later release compared to the near destruction of a career my #1 caused, even though I find the one vastly superior. Also, you know how there are movies that you really like that get better each time you see them? The trajectory of that other film, for me, is the opposite.

So it goes.
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
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

I love VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED! Oddly, I remember almost nothing of the sequel.
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

Next to GRAPES OF WRATH, ELMER GANTRY just might be my favorite adaptation of a widely recognized classic. By that, I mean not counting the great crime thrillers!
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

GUNS OF NAVARONE is an exceptional action film. It's one of the few movies I've seen by J. Lee Thompson, who directed my beloved CAPE FEAR!
User avatar
ChiO
Posts: 3899
Joined: January 2nd, 2008, 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: LISTS

Post by ChiO »

For 1961, six movies jumped to the top. Of the next tier, three stood out. As for the 10th, darn near a pick'em.

1961

1. BLAST OF SILENCE (Allan Baron) - Film noir. Nihilism. Lionel Stander as the Voice of God. Or the Anti-Christ.

2. SOMETHING WILD (Jack Garfein) - What is on the screen is enough. Then there is Garfein's history. And his marriage. And, this, his second and last movie.

3. THE CONNECTION (Shirley Clarke) - Can the line between documentary and fiction be any blurrier?

4. THE EXILES (Kent MacKenzie) - Yes, maybe it can.

5. THE HUSTLER (Robert Rossen) - George C. Scott scares me. Jackie Gleason proves that to be a comic actor means you are a great dramatic actor. Paul Newman is. And, thank you, Eugen Schufftan.

6. NIGHT TIDE (Curtis Harrington) - As if the movie isn't bizarre enough, there's Dennis Hopper. And Curtis Harrington.

7. WEST SIDE STORY (Robert Wise) - Okay. I'm tired of the grief I catch from film-fanatic friends who are amazed that I like this. Yes, it's the beginning of the end for a sometimes interesting director who enabled the destruction of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, but...There's a place for us./Somewhere/A place for us. It just works for me.

8. THE LADIES MAN (Jerry Lewis) - Laaaaady! Like it or not, he's an auteur and this shows it.

9. UNDERWORLD, U.S.A. (Samuel Fuller) - Corruption. Vengeance. Fuller.

10. THE CHOPPERS (Leigh Jason) - This slot could have been as easily filled by about eight others, but I'll go with this. Arch Hall, Jr.'s first movie. And a reasonably significant role by Bruno VeSota. Good enough.
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
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

I saw THE HUSTLER on TV when I was about 13. I've been in awe ever since. It's the best acting by Newman, Gleason, Scott and Piper Laurie. And let's not forget the wonderful characterization by Myron McCormick as Eddie's partner. I have only recently learned that the real life Minnesota Fats adopted that name from the movie. I assumed it was the other way around! This is one of the best small scale dramas I've seen.
User avatar
fxreyman
Posts: 49
Joined: May 1st, 2009, 10:16 pm
Location: Libertyville, Illinois

Re: LISTS

Post by fxreyman »

RedRiver wrote:The 1960s. The culture changed. Music changed. Promising leaders were taken from us. And the era of classic movies came to a crashing end. Never again (so far) would the quality of American cinema be as consistently entertaining as it had previously been. Films of this decade initiated changes in technique, style and content. Most of it detrimental! The film industry has not yet recovered.

Nonetheless, there were some great ones in this, as in all decades. The best movies of the 60s are just about as good as any others. In order of my preference, and with the assistance of Wikipedia...

THE APARTMENT. One of the great comedies. One of the great dramas. Billy Wilder's finest film.
THE GRADUATE. The ultimate 60s groundbreaker. As effective today as then.
THE HUSTLER. Grim, tense and disturbing. What fun!
CAPE FEAR. If there's a more suspenseful thriller, I don't know it. That's why I rate it even ahead of...
PSYCHO. I assume you're familiar with this one!
DR. STRANGELOVE. Darkest of dark comedy, but so silly you can't get too depressed!
ADVISE AND CONSENT. Shocking in its time; still incredibly well structured drama.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Straightforward telling of one of our great stories.
BONNIE AND CLYDE. Stylized violence has never been done more effectively.
REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT. Small, heartfelt and human. Less is more.

With a tip of the popcorn box to some slightly lesser entries that won my heart!

DR. NO. Most grounded of the Bond adventures. One of the best action films of all.
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. Woody Allen's first and funniest effort.
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Almost unbearably intense filming of Albee's wonderful play.
ELMER GANTRY. Who says classic drama can't be colorful?

I'm prepared for hate mail from fans of "Liberty Valance". That's simply not one of my favorite Ford films. If it helps, that would be next on my list!
I agree somewhat with your opening paragraph, except when you say the following: "Most of it detrimental! The film industry has not yet recovered."

What did you expect to happen? By the mid 1950's the Hays Code began to be changed based on cultural change in America. And with increased competition from television and foreign films which did not have to adhere to the code, the Hays Code started to recede, at first little by little. In the late 1940's, the Paramount vs. the United States court decision effectively ended the anti-trust laws the eight major studios had been using via vertical integration. This integration was the control by those studios to not only control the films they produced and distributed but also showing their product in theaters that they owned.

After this landmark Supreme Court decision the studio system began to start to crumble. Following this decision which ultimately led to an influx of foreign films plus the growing popularity of television also started the slow descent of the Hollywood studio system. Eventually as the culture changed, so did the Hays Code. In 1956, parts of the Code were rewritten to accept subjects such as interracial marriage, adultery and prostitution. By the late 1950’s more explicit films started showing including Anatomy of a Murder, Suddenly Last Summer, and Psycho. The MPAA granted approval of these films eventually but not before the producers had to make certain cuts to them. After Some Like It Hot did so well at the box office, the Code was weakened further.

By the mid 1960’s the Hays Code was on it’s last grasp of air. Many films now being released dealt with adult subject manner to the point that the code was dismissed altogether. It all came apart in 1967 to 1968 when on November 1, 1968, the MPAA established the film rating system with four ratings: G, M, R and X. By this time some mainstream Hollywood productions still featured old world production values, especially those starring John Wayne, Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart, but violence even in their films were on the rise.

I think that eventually things were going to change anyway. And with the despise of the Hays Code and the establishment of the Ratings system, Hollywood began to go back to it’s roots as was the case before 1934 when the Hays Code was established. Lets face it, what do you think would have happened had the Hays Code not been established? Well for one thing more films like DeMille’s Sign of the Cross and The Blue Angel would have possibly started to show more and more and what happened in the mid to late 1960’s could have been seen in movie houses during the mid to late 1930’s.

I agree that many films from the 1960s like the ones you listed were great films, but don’t you think the 1970’s and 80’s, 90’s and now the 2000’s have seen additional great films?

Detrimental? To whom? The movie going public or the producers of the films?

I think that the quality of films being produced today are at least as high as those that were made before 1960. Now there is a back and forth argument over on the TCM Message Boards that has over the years derailed quite a few threads because of the ensuing arguments, but would you not agree that actually a larger amount of badly made films existed before the demise of the Hays Code in the mid 1960’s than afterwards? More films were being churned out before 1960 than after. So the law of averages works against pre-1960 films.

I am sure with all of the list making going on here one could easily find film years where it is hard to find 10 quality produced films for a given year and compare those years to the post 1968 time period. Sure, there were some lean years for Hollywood, especially in the 1980’s but on a whole, I think the past 24 years or so there has been a resurgence of film making here in the United States and elsewhere…
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: LISTS

Post by RedRiver »

I don't challenge your opinion, or anyone else's. It's a matter of personal preference. By detrimental, I mean to the overall quality of movies released. Yes, there were plenty of bad films in every year, every decade. But films by Ford, Hawks, Huston and the likes were more likely to get to the point. The point being the story. Not psycho/sexual hang-ups. Not graphic violence and vulgar language. Certainly not people thoughtfully wandering through fields of daisies as music by Strawberry Alarm Clock played in the background!

Pacing suffered a blow as these changes took effect. Compared to CHINATOWN, MALTESE FALCON is a roller coaster. STAGECOACH storms across the screen more efficiently than any western directed by, or starring Clint Eastwood. Why must everything take so long these days? Do they think we're getting more for our money? We're not!

don’t you think the 1970’s and 80’s, 90’s and now the 2000’s have seen additional great films?

To be honest, I can't comment on the last 20 years. Most of what I watch is so disappointing I'm not inspired toward increased viewing. As for the 1970s and 80s, there were good ones. There were great ones. But the work of Altman, Scorcese and Spielberg doesn't entertain me as much as that of their predecessors. And the trend toward filler rather than story has gotten progressively more dominant. It's as if someone's thinking, "Put it on the screen and they'll watch it. It doesn't have to mean anything. Just put it there!"
User avatar
Rita Hayworth
Posts: 10068
Joined: February 6th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: LISTS

Post by Rita Hayworth »

RedRiver wrote: don’t you think the 1970’s and 80’s, 90’s and now the 2000’s have seen additional great films?

To be honest, I can't comment on the last 20 years. Most of what I watch is so disappointing I'm not inspired toward increased viewing. As for the 1970s and 80s, there were good ones. There were great ones. But the work of Altman, Scorcese and Spielberg doesn't entertain me as much as that of their predecessors. And the trend toward filler rather than story has gotten progressively more dominant. It's as if someone's thinking, "Put it on the screen and they'll watch it. It doesn't have to mean anything. Just put it there!"

I totally agree with you on this ... :)
User avatar
fxreyman
Posts: 49
Joined: May 1st, 2009, 10:16 pm
Location: Libertyville, Illinois

Re: LISTS

Post by fxreyman »

RedRiver wrote:
To be honest, I can't comment on the last 20 years. Most of what I watch is so disappointing I'm not inspired toward increased viewing. As for the 1970s and 80s, there were good ones. There were great ones. But the work of Altman, Scorcese and Spielberg doesn't entertain me as much as that of their predecessors. And the trend toward filler rather than story has gotten progressively more dominant. It's as if someone's thinking, "Put it on the screen and they'll watch it. It doesn't have to mean anything. Just put it there!"

I don’t know if I would disagree with your opinion that many of today’s films trend toward filler rather than story, many are, but there are many that are not. As far as yesterday’s film directors are concerned, yes for the most part there were better stories, better acting and in many cases just better produced films.

Today one can produce a film with a hand held camera. Just look at the Blair Witch Project. I think due to technical film advances as in cameras, lighting and other aspects like special effects, the film industry has changed. Thereby allowing many different ways of getting film into a mainstream audience. Now we have films appearing on the internet and other forms of distribution channels.

I agree that we will never see the likes of Ford, Hawks, Huston again, although we might. They were true artisans who worked with their screenwriters and producers and technical staffs to get the very best out of them. But that is the same as today. The differences are that many film directors of today have other avenues to go to to direct. Many not only direct film but also theater, television and cable, areas where Ford and hawks could not even dream about.

Who is left? Not many great directors as there were back in the 1930’s to 1950’s. But there are a few...

Ethan and Joel Coen
Ang Lee
Clint Eastwood
Ron Howard
Robert Zemeckis
Jonathan Demme
Barry Levinson
Milos Foreman
James L. Brooks
Richard Attenborough
George Roy Hill
Franklin J. Schaffner
Mike Nichols

The one thing that the 1930’s to early 1950’s directors did not have to compete against was something called television, at least not until the early to mid 1950’s. Movies had a stranglehold on the American public for over thirty years, from the mid 1920’s until the mid 1950’s. Quite a long time to get the very best stories to the silver screen. Add to that the stranglehold that the Hollywood film studios had over almost every aspect of filmmaking.

Then you had the Hays Code which was in and of itself a powerful player in the film business. More like the studio bosses themselves, the Hays Code had it’s fair share of a stranglehold on the film industry.

So a lot has happened. Yes I do agree that the film directors of old and their stories were classic, many never to be repeated again. Just like the actors and actresses who are long gone. Many things from the past are never going to appear again, but we will always have them thanks to places like TCM and on dvd and vhs. Eventually the directors of today who may never reach the amount of films directed or produced like Ford and Hawks, but they too will be remembered and that is the way it ought to be.
Post Reply