Relevant elements: Too many to list
Why it resonated: It's a family-friendly Rodgers and Hammerstein musical set in a striking location with a touch of historical drama
General comments on the film: Here it is: the film that kicked off this whole enterprise. For whatever reason, The Sound of Music has become associated with Easter, and I was able to take advantage of the film being shown on ABC Family this weekend. I only bring up the manner of viewing because it raises a point about the essential nature of the film and perhaps why I hadn't seen it.
This is a family movie, which means that for a male film consumer, there is a substantial blackout window for it. If a person somehow is not exposed to it as a young child, the odds of viewing it collapse to near zero from the tween years through at least young adulthood. Since my parents and my sister never insisted on The Sound of Music as a family viewing selection during my childhood, I entered into that span in which it was not likely to be something I would seek out. Given a choice, I imagine most young men would opt for Pulp Fiction rather than any family film, let alone one with a reputation for wholesomeness above all else. Unless and until there are children around to be shown such a movie, there isn't much of an impetus for its viewing, and the circumstances of my family were such that there weren't many younger relatives about once I entered the blackout period, leaving the film a cultural gap that I am only now filling out of intellectual curiosity.
So I went into this viewing experience honestly wondering how much the popularity of The Sound of Music was a self-perpetuating phenomenon set into motion by the Baby Boomers. Because it was released in 1965, it is a film that would have been pretty much mandatory viewing for the Sally Drapers of the world (my new figurehead for that generation). And because it was one of the last major films before the seismic shift into more provocative filmmaking--1966 being the year when movies like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? raised industry-changing deliberations about "adult" films, and coincidentally the year Walt Disney died--it can be seen as the final great "movie for all audiences" before the moviegoing public began substantially segmenting when films like Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, and Easy Rider arrived. In other words, The Sound of Music came at the end of the true era of culturally relevant films--movies that literally almost everyone who watched movies would have seen. Today, a film like Avatar would be considered a massively popular movie, and a lot of people have seen it, but because there are so many other films to be seen and the marketplace is so fragmented, there are also a lot of moviegoing folks who haven't seen it, including me.
All of that made me consider the possibility that the reason The Sound of Music has persisted so strongly in our culture is not just its own merit but its historical situation. Baby Boomers have greatly determined the course of American popular culture over the past fifty years, so a film that was pitched directly at them when it was released would have an inordinately powerful cultural position. As a treasured part of their youth, they would be likely to champion it going forward and make sure that successive generations saw it. The fact that it is a family film only intensifies the likelihood of such a movie surviving, since children are less likely to judge a film on its actual quality. Baby Boomers would make an important item of their childhoods an important part of their children's childhoods, and so on. The persistence of truly terrible children's movies supports this theory, as I have seen some of my peers revel in making their children watch things they freely admit are terrible just because they fondly remember watching them as children. Such a lack of quality control in family films led me to be apprehensive about The Sound of Music. How much of its popularity derives from its previous popularity? In other words, if it were released for the first time today, what would be its chances of survival?
As it turns out, I think The Sound of Music hasn't been coasting on Baby Boomer cred. That's not to say that I enjoyed it, because frankly I didn't enjoy it much at all. But how much I like a film has never been an important consideration during this project. My goal has always been to better understand the culture in which I partake by examining the fittest specimens--the items that have survived and become essential to the culture's sense of itself. The Sound of Music is not really to my taste, but it does have qualities that I think would have appeal for successive generations of people. Pre-ironic viewers (i.e. children) would likely have no problem with its corny nature, and the bones of the story encourage young viewers to put themselves in the position of the von Trapp kids. Children would also be less likely to share my annoyance at the repetition of songs, particularly in the second half of the film.
Speaking of the songs, I found myself constantly surprised at my simultaneous familiarity and lack of familiarity with the movie's soundtrack. For nearly every song, I realized that I had heard the first ten seconds about a million times, but had never heard past those opening lines. It's the same experience I've had with songs included on those compilation albums that used to be advertised in heavy rotation on television. The commercials would play short clips of several songs, so today I am intensely aware of those snippets, but if I hear another part of the tune, I often won't recognize that it's the same song because I've never heard the whole thing.
That actually sums up my experience of the movie as a whole, since I already knew the outlines of just about everything in the film. Watching it just filled in details, some of which I could have done without, such as the creepily hallucinogenic yodeling goat puppet show. But now at least I have viewed this iconic film, and will never again have to hear an incredulous "You've never seen The Sound of Music???" aimed at me.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Cultural Gap Film #22: Titanic
Relevant elements: The "king of the world" moment, "My Heart Will Go On," the necklace, the nude sketch, the handprint on the steamy car window, the ship sinking and all
Why it resonated: People like big things, I guess. Also, the discovery of the wreckage helped reignite interest in the event in the ten years preceding the film.
General comments on the film: Does any director have less trust in an audience than James Cameron? Everything needs to be spelled out in clankingly overt detail, from lingering shots of poor children whose parents explain to them that they will be saved after the wealthy folks have their turn to unlikely innocent small talk with the ship's designer about the lack of adequate lifeboats to groaners like the paintings by "something Picasso" to Billy Zane's outrageously overdone eyeliner.
A grad school professor of mine once asked a student who was disputing a poor grade to show him where in the essay there was an idea. When the student pointed to something, the professor said, "That's not an idea--it's a damn cliche." I thought of that statement as I watched this movie and waited for something original to make me pay attention or care about the characters, but it felt too much like cardboard cutouts moving around in a painstakingly crafted dollhouse/ship that its creator couldn't wait to smash to bits. No amount of Irish-tinged music or indomitability from elderly women can make me empathize with poorly-drawn mannequins, even as they meet their inevitable icy fate.
Given my lack of engagement with the goings-on, the lengthy runtime felt even longer, but at least I was only subjected to Bill Paxton's accent and earring for a small portion of the film. Another silver lining is that I now have only one movie left from my original list--the one that started it all, The Sound of Music. As soon as I can get my hands on it, I will view that classic and write the final entry for this series. Sorry it's taken so long....
Why it resonated: People like big things, I guess. Also, the discovery of the wreckage helped reignite interest in the event in the ten years preceding the film.
General comments on the film: Does any director have less trust in an audience than James Cameron? Everything needs to be spelled out in clankingly overt detail, from lingering shots of poor children whose parents explain to them that they will be saved after the wealthy folks have their turn to unlikely innocent small talk with the ship's designer about the lack of adequate lifeboats to groaners like the paintings by "something Picasso" to Billy Zane's outrageously overdone eyeliner.
A grad school professor of mine once asked a student who was disputing a poor grade to show him where in the essay there was an idea. When the student pointed to something, the professor said, "That's not an idea--it's a damn cliche." I thought of that statement as I watched this movie and waited for something original to make me pay attention or care about the characters, but it felt too much like cardboard cutouts moving around in a painstakingly crafted dollhouse/ship that its creator couldn't wait to smash to bits. No amount of Irish-tinged music or indomitability from elderly women can make me empathize with poorly-drawn mannequins, even as they meet their inevitable icy fate.
Given my lack of engagement with the goings-on, the lengthy runtime felt even longer, but at least I was only subjected to Bill Paxton's accent and earring for a small portion of the film. Another silver lining is that I now have only one movie left from my original list--the one that started it all, The Sound of Music. As soon as I can get my hands on it, I will view that classic and write the final entry for this series. Sorry it's taken so long....
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Cultural Gap Film #21: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Relevant elements: Interracial marriage, the trope of a child bringing home someone surprising to meet the folks
Why it resonated: Took on racial and generational issues that were roiling in the 1960s
General comments on the film: You can complain that it's too talky. You can marvel at the prescience of a white woman meeting a black man in Hawaii and dreaming that their child would become the President of the United States. You can question the probability of the existence of such a jolly, socially progressive monsignor. You can feel sorry for Katharine Houghton as she is doomed to be the dimmest presence on the screen, obliterated by the waves of charisma emanating from Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Sidney Poitier. You can even be a little annoyed at yet another pervasive song being played in pretty much every scene (this time "The Glory of Love"-- the one that Bette Midler's character brassily oversings throughout Beaches, not the Peter Cetera one featured in Karate Kid II). But it's hard not to feel stirred by the film's passionate argument for the importance of peace, love, and understanding.
Why it resonated: Took on racial and generational issues that were roiling in the 1960s
General comments on the film: You can complain that it's too talky. You can marvel at the prescience of a white woman meeting a black man in Hawaii and dreaming that their child would become the President of the United States. You can question the probability of the existence of such a jolly, socially progressive monsignor. You can feel sorry for Katharine Houghton as she is doomed to be the dimmest presence on the screen, obliterated by the waves of charisma emanating from Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Sidney Poitier. You can even be a little annoyed at yet another pervasive song being played in pretty much every scene (this time "The Glory of Love"-- the one that Bette Midler's character brassily oversings throughout Beaches, not the Peter Cetera one featured in Karate Kid II). But it's hard not to feel stirred by the film's passionate argument for the importance of peace, love, and understanding.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Cultural Gap Film #20: Love Story
Relevant elements: "Love means never having to say you're sorry"
Why it resonated: "Boy meets girl, boy rejects privileged family when they reject girl, boy and girl get married and scratch their way to a good life, girl dies of an unspecified disease" is timeless
General comments on the film: There's a lot to commend this movie beyond its admittedly poignant tear-jerking ability. Its efficiency echoes the simplicity of its title, moving through the courtship, marriage, and death with little exposition or narrative fat. That means it relies pretty heavily on the leads, and although I sometimes found Ali MacGraw's character off-putting, the film makes you believe in the young couple even though the opening voice-over has already told you the tragic end of the story.
It also remains cinematically interesting in a way that I didn't expect. The mobility of the camera, particularly in the early days of the relationship, lends a sense of handheld verisimilitude, as though these are home movies. But the really noticeable element is the sound design. The lovely piano score underpins much of the movie without being as obtrusive as some other themes I've encountered during this series (see Breakfast at Tiffany's), and there are several unconventional uses of sound, such as an entire scene in which we hear a flirty back-and-forth between our young lovers but the visual is just a discreet slow zoom on the exterior of a Harvard dorm. Throughout the film, sound is used in expressive ways without feeling overly gimmicky and distracting from the romance at its heart.
One parting observation: Here we have another Harvard-based movie with the line "It's not your fault" near the end. It almost makes me want to re-watch the last ten minutes of The Social Network and With Honors to make sure it's not some running inside joke.
Why it resonated: "Boy meets girl, boy rejects privileged family when they reject girl, boy and girl get married and scratch their way to a good life, girl dies of an unspecified disease" is timeless
General comments on the film: There's a lot to commend this movie beyond its admittedly poignant tear-jerking ability. Its efficiency echoes the simplicity of its title, moving through the courtship, marriage, and death with little exposition or narrative fat. That means it relies pretty heavily on the leads, and although I sometimes found Ali MacGraw's character off-putting, the film makes you believe in the young couple even though the opening voice-over has already told you the tragic end of the story.
It also remains cinematically interesting in a way that I didn't expect. The mobility of the camera, particularly in the early days of the relationship, lends a sense of handheld verisimilitude, as though these are home movies. But the really noticeable element is the sound design. The lovely piano score underpins much of the movie without being as obtrusive as some other themes I've encountered during this series (see Breakfast at Tiffany's), and there are several unconventional uses of sound, such as an entire scene in which we hear a flirty back-and-forth between our young lovers but the visual is just a discreet slow zoom on the exterior of a Harvard dorm. Throughout the film, sound is used in expressive ways without feeling overly gimmicky and distracting from the romance at its heart.
One parting observation: Here we have another Harvard-based movie with the line "It's not your fault" near the end. It almost makes me want to re-watch the last ten minutes of The Social Network and With Honors to make sure it's not some running inside joke.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Cultural Gap Film #19: Rudy
Relevant elements: Scrappy underdog inspires everyone around him, "RU-DY! RU-DY! RU-DY!"
Why it resonated: The American public always likes inspirational sports movies, and there's a built-in Notre Dame fan base
General comments on the film: As faithful readers might have noticed, I have somewhat of an allergic reaction to overly earnest films that try way too hard to inspire the audience. That, of course, didn't bode well for this movie, and in fact was probably the reason I'd avoided it until now.
In that sense, the film didn't disappoint. It plucks every formulaic schmaltz string: underdog blue-collar kid with no support for his dream whose best friend dies but he never gives up.... More than just seeming to have been written by a script machine, though, Rudy actually focuses so hard on its story that it becomes enjoyably disturbing.
It takes a demented pleasure in beating down its protagonist for much of the movie, with family members, girlfriends, priests, student activities leaders, groundskeepers, coaches, and just about anyone else who comes across his path repeatedly telling him things like "You're too small," "Not everyone is meant to go to college," and so on. Only one person doesn't try to crush his dream, and that guy predictably dies in a steel mill explosion. It's like the scene in Airplane! when people are lined up to take a whack at the hysterical woman--everyone delights in stomping on Rudy to the point that it becomes absurd. So if you like watching Sean Astin get kicked in the head, sometimes literally, the first 90 minutes are a dream for you.
One might think that all this adversity would make Rudy a sympathetic character, but unless you accept the premise that Notre Dame is heaven on earth, his behavior comes off as pretty much psychopathic. He ditches his doting girlfriend, quits his job, goes directly from his friend's funeral to Notre Dame's campus at dawn and demands to speak to someone who will let him go there, lies, scams, forces his way into the head coach's office, and commits multiple counts of breaking and entering, all so he can get his father to validate his existence by being on the field for two plays of college football. The film provides a few epilogue sentences to give a sense of the aftermath, but I couldn't help feeling like Rudy woke up the day after his triumph and thought, "What do I do with my life now?"
As for the sports part of the movie, I'd like to point out that his team, up two scores with under 20 seconds left in the game, runs a halfback pass to score a touchdown just to get the defense back on the field to let what is essentially their mascot get to play. Let's just say that if Georgia Tech didn't file a grievance with the NCAA about Notre Dame's sportsmanship, I'd be glad to do so on their behalf.
Why it resonated: The American public always likes inspirational sports movies, and there's a built-in Notre Dame fan base
General comments on the film: As faithful readers might have noticed, I have somewhat of an allergic reaction to overly earnest films that try way too hard to inspire the audience. That, of course, didn't bode well for this movie, and in fact was probably the reason I'd avoided it until now.
In that sense, the film didn't disappoint. It plucks every formulaic schmaltz string: underdog blue-collar kid with no support for his dream whose best friend dies but he never gives up.... More than just seeming to have been written by a script machine, though, Rudy actually focuses so hard on its story that it becomes enjoyably disturbing.
It takes a demented pleasure in beating down its protagonist for much of the movie, with family members, girlfriends, priests, student activities leaders, groundskeepers, coaches, and just about anyone else who comes across his path repeatedly telling him things like "You're too small," "Not everyone is meant to go to college," and so on. Only one person doesn't try to crush his dream, and that guy predictably dies in a steel mill explosion. It's like the scene in Airplane! when people are lined up to take a whack at the hysterical woman--everyone delights in stomping on Rudy to the point that it becomes absurd. So if you like watching Sean Astin get kicked in the head, sometimes literally, the first 90 minutes are a dream for you.
One might think that all this adversity would make Rudy a sympathetic character, but unless you accept the premise that Notre Dame is heaven on earth, his behavior comes off as pretty much psychopathic. He ditches his doting girlfriend, quits his job, goes directly from his friend's funeral to Notre Dame's campus at dawn and demands to speak to someone who will let him go there, lies, scams, forces his way into the head coach's office, and commits multiple counts of breaking and entering, all so he can get his father to validate his existence by being on the field for two plays of college football. The film provides a few epilogue sentences to give a sense of the aftermath, but I couldn't help feeling like Rudy woke up the day after his triumph and thought, "What do I do with my life now?"
As for the sports part of the movie, I'd like to point out that his team, up two scores with under 20 seconds left in the game, runs a halfback pass to score a touchdown just to get the defense back on the field to let what is essentially their mascot get to play. Let's just say that if Georgia Tech didn't file a grievance with the NCAA about Notre Dame's sportsmanship, I'd be glad to do so on their behalf.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Cultural Gap Film #18: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Relevant elements: Depiction of a mental health facility, the steely Nurse Ratched, the gentle giant Chief
Why it resonated: It's hard for me to say, but I'd guess it was the combination of the existing popularity of Ken Kesey's novel and the 1970s-friendly anti-authoritarian theme, not to mention Jack Nicholson's usual aura of intensity
General comments on the film: I suppose it's a testament to the cultural relevance of this film that watching it for the first time yielded virtually no surprises. It went pretty much exactly as I thought it would, right down to the ending.
Having said that, it's a good example of early-to-mid-1970s filmmaking, with its shadowy cinematography, measured pacing, and focus on establishing character. Milos Forman's films have never really hit me where I live (since we seem to have somewhat different views of humanity), but the man has a type and he knows how to develop it. The use of overlapping dialogue, abrupt shifts in pitch and volume, and believable non-rational behavior creates a distinctive tone, and the very sparse use of music makes the final scene, with its swelling score, really pop.
There were some casting surprises, for me, I should add. I wasn't expecting Danny DeVito or Vincent Schiavelli. It would have been nice, though, to have seen this before 1989's The Dream Team, since Christopher Lloyd's presence as a patient in both films gave me the disturbing sense of this as a prequel to that much different movie....
Why it resonated: It's hard for me to say, but I'd guess it was the combination of the existing popularity of Ken Kesey's novel and the 1970s-friendly anti-authoritarian theme, not to mention Jack Nicholson's usual aura of intensity
General comments on the film: I suppose it's a testament to the cultural relevance of this film that watching it for the first time yielded virtually no surprises. It went pretty much exactly as I thought it would, right down to the ending.
Having said that, it's a good example of early-to-mid-1970s filmmaking, with its shadowy cinematography, measured pacing, and focus on establishing character. Milos Forman's films have never really hit me where I live (since we seem to have somewhat different views of humanity), but the man has a type and he knows how to develop it. The use of overlapping dialogue, abrupt shifts in pitch and volume, and believable non-rational behavior creates a distinctive tone, and the very sparse use of music makes the final scene, with its swelling score, really pop.
There were some casting surprises, for me, I should add. I wasn't expecting Danny DeVito or Vincent Schiavelli. It would have been nice, though, to have seen this before 1989's The Dream Team, since Christopher Lloyd's presence as a patient in both films gave me the disturbing sense of this as a prequel to that much different movie....
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Cultural Gap Film #17: Philadelphia
Relevant elements: Discrimination trial, the Springsteen song
Why it resonated: This was pretty much the first major-release film about AIDS
General comments on the film: I'm actually glad I'm only watching this film now. It gives me the bittersweet satisfaction of noting how dated it feels today. Much of the movie is dedicated to laying out demonstrations that gay people are human beings too, in ways that would seem grossly unnecessary and maybe even offensive today, but were probably pitched correctly in 1993.
In terms of the film itself, I just have to say that the legal elements didn't seem quite kosher (though I was tickled by the obligatory "partners sitting in leather chairs smoking cigars on the top floor" scene and even more obligatory "I'll allow it" judge), but the range of cinematographic approaches kept me interested visually and the Philly flavor (Dr. J! Ed Rendell!) made me a little homesick. Even though they gave the trademark song to a guy from Jersey....
Why it resonated: This was pretty much the first major-release film about AIDS
General comments on the film: I'm actually glad I'm only watching this film now. It gives me the bittersweet satisfaction of noting how dated it feels today. Much of the movie is dedicated to laying out demonstrations that gay people are human beings too, in ways that would seem grossly unnecessary and maybe even offensive today, but were probably pitched correctly in 1993.
In terms of the film itself, I just have to say that the legal elements didn't seem quite kosher (though I was tickled by the obligatory "partners sitting in leather chairs smoking cigars on the top floor" scene and even more obligatory "I'll allow it" judge), but the range of cinematographic approaches kept me interested visually and the Philly flavor (Dr. J! Ed Rendell!) made me a little homesick. Even though they gave the trademark song to a guy from Jersey....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)