16 August 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1967: In which the New Hollywood Cinema announces itself

It's probably possible to overstate the importance of Bonnie and Clyde to the subsequent development of American cinema, but you'd have to indulge in some pretty outrageous hyperbole to do it. It almost single-handedly dragged Hollywood into the aggressive stylistic modernism that Europe had been enjoying for most of the 1960s; there had been scattered earlier efforts to incorporate the attitude of the French New Wave into an American movie (among them, in fact, was 1965's Mickey One, which shared Bonnie and Clyde's director, Arthur Penn, and lead actor, Warren Beatty), but none that had clicked in a big way with audiences and critics. It dragged Hollywood into a new, previously inconceivable place of frank sex and violence onscreen, putting the final nail in the coffin of the old Production Code. It dragged Hollywood into dealing with the fact that the best way to engage young people was to let other young people communicate to them on their level, telling a ruthlessly sardonic anti-establishment story whose period trappings don't even try to obscure the fact that it's really about the wholesale rejection of the "adult" regime that was responsible for getting the United States mired in a war in Vietnam. Hell, it even drew a clear line between two generations of film critics: Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael first made their names championing the film, while Bosley Crowther's heated hatred of the film was at least partially responsible for his firing from the New York Times.

None of which is obvious watching the film now, but that's largely because of its success: in 1967 Bonnie and Clyde, along with The Graduate, was arguably at the vanguard of what we now call "modern cinema", depending on you want to draw that line ("anything made since I was born" seems to be the most popular definition on the internet). The cultural impact of those two movies defined and continues to define everything that got made after them. And what hit like a ten-megaton bomb at the time the film was new has been so thoroughly absorbed by filmmakers in the generations to follow that Bonnie and Clyde merely looks normal now; Dede Allen's Godard-influenced editing that was perceived as visual savagery in '67 looks a bit genteel stacked up with just about any Cuisinart-cut summer action tentpole, and you can see worse things on network television than the violence that led moralists to speak against the film with a fervor you or I might reserve for a feature-length apologia for pedophilic cannibalism (even Jack Warner, whose namesake studio financed the movie, despised it so much that he attempted to bury it on the B-circuit, where it was discovered and passed around by dazzled young audiences, making it one of the truly legendary grassroots box office hits of all time). There's a little bit of Bonnie and Clyde in a great many American movies, whether in aesthetic, attitude, or just the freedom to show some blood.

The project was conceived by writers David Newman & Robert Benton in the hopes that they could put it in front of François Truffaut, who did end up giving some advice on how to shape the material (and yet, it bears a more obvious debt to Jean-Luc Godard's technique and narrative interests, at least as far as I can tell). So any resemblance to European filmmaking, and any tendency to say a loud "fuck you" to the Hollywood establishment is strictly intentional. The film's story is told in a highly elliptical way, collapsing the time frame of the events depicted (late in 1931, through 23 May, 1934) into a rush of disconnected events that could just as easily take place over a month as over a few years. Clyde Barrow (Beatty), an ex-convict who wants to be a bank robber, meets Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) while trying to steal her mother's car; they flirt shamelessly and when he shares his dreams of criminality, she agrees on the spot. As they break the law across Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas, they pick up Clyde's brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons), as well as a socially awkward mechanic named C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), to create a little ad hoc family for themselves. All while being celebrated by the dirt-poor farmers of the Depression-era and hunted by the cops of several states, embodied by humiliated Texas Ranger Frank Hamer (Denver Pyle). It's one of the most directly romantic pro-criminal films since the early sound years, when the classic gangster picture was at its height; and that mentality was every bit as profoundly important as the film's stylistic radicalism in endearing it to a generation of young folk for whom the movies were out-of-touch and unable to say real things about actual life.

In putting the story across, the writers and Penn went all-out in experimenting: with a fluid, more impressionistic than precisely descriptive scene structure, as mentioned; and with a wildly fluctuating range of tones, from genial comedy (this was the film debut of Gene Wilder, one of the greatest genial comedians the movies ever knew) to sarcastic cynicism; from sweat-soaked eroticism to sweet post-coital shyness; from picturesque nostalgia to fashion magazine cool; from thrilling action to brutal, distressing violence, punctuated and emphasised by the unpleasantly harsh bullet sound effects that Beatty insisted on cranking up louder than the rest of the soundtrack. It's certainly fair to say that this patchwork tonality was as deliberate as anything else in the film, a calculation to keep the movie unpredictable and energetic.

For energy is the most important element of Bonnie and Clyde: it has many things to say about society in 1967 and a handful of things to say about society in 1931, but mostly it has to say things about how cinema can be, when it's not pinioned by the stuffy solemnity of the big studio pictures, like the pious Guess Who's Coming to Dinner or the suffocating Doctor Dolittle, both of which were incongruously nominated for the Best Picture Oscar alongside Bonnie and Clyde (this is the point where I finally get to mention Mark Harris's glorious 2008 book Pictures at a Revolution, a study of the production of the five '67 Best Picture nominees and the culture that produced them; it's among the best general-readership film histories that I've ever read, and I recommend it to each and every one of you). It sounds like an insult, but it absolute isn't, that Bonnie and Clyde is a really surface-level film; not because it has no depth, but because what's happening on the surface is tremendously important. Dunaway and Beatty's performances, which irritated me the first couple of times I saw the film, are as much a series of poses as they are "acting", but that's entirely the point, of course: Bonnie and Clyde are seen here as a form of pop art rather than as human beings, with some shots of Dunaway especially that frame her with exactly the same dramatic intensity as a comic book panel or Lichtenstein painting. It's a movie about visual iconicism: on the narrative level, we see this in the repetition of the Barrow gang sending their own photographs and poems to the newspapers, to craft their own image (this includes recreating a famous picture of the real-life Parker with her leg on a running board and a cigar chomped between her teeth); it crops up in Theodora Van Runkle's costuming, which is far more self-consciously stylish than makes even a little bit of sense for a Depression-set crime drama; it's at the heart of the cinematography, a point of contention between Penn and DP Burnett Guffey, who didn't understand what the director was getting at. But the flatness and overly-yellowed color balance gives the film the feeling of a series of moving pictures from a photo album, deliberately artificial in its attempt to mimic natural weathering, hyper-modern in its aping of and old-fashioned look.

Radical, challenging movies have always existed; Bonnie and Clyde was lucky to have the exact right mix of onscreen talent and offscreen social upheaval to explode in the Zeitgeist in a way that the weirder, harder Mickey One had no chance to (it's also mostly an artistic leap forward in an American context; Godard's Week End came out the same year, in comparison to which Bonnie and Clyde looks boringly conventional). And if this film hadn't filled the niche it did, something else would have come along, surely. But the point is that Bonnie and Clyde did end up filling that niche: it got to be the movie to aggressively, showily re-define the kind of stories that Hollywood movies could tell and the way that they could be told through daring cinematic language. I don't know if the film's inherent quality is quite as impressive as its seismic effect on the medium's possibilities - I frankly like a lot of the movies that picked up its baton and ran with it in the years to come quite a lot more, and The Graduate strikes me as the more consistent and effective movie qua movies - but after nearly a half century, the film's influence is still overwhelming and obvious, and that kind of legacy is impossible to deny or diminish in any way.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1967
-Paul Newman and Strother Martin have failure t' communicate in Cool Hand Luke
-Audrey Hepburn plays a blind woman in the classy horror-thriller Wait Until Dark, directed by James Bond specialist Terence Young
-D.A. Pennebaker's radical Dont Look Back, a Bob Dylan documentary, opens

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1967
-In Sweden, a country that had long been known for its saucy films, Vilgot Sjöman's I Am Curious (Yellow) still manages to incite controversy for its sexual content and aggressive style
-Sergei Bondarchuck completes his massive four-part adaptation of War and Peace in the Soviet Union
-Suzuki Seijun's defiantly bizarre crime thriller Branded to Kill gets him fired from Japan's Nikkatsu

13 comments:

  1. I truly love this film. Bought it basically on a whim on dvd, had no clue at the time of it's reputation or impact, and just loved it.

    But... Have we abandoned Psycho as the dawn of modern film-making now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Brian- I can't say how Tim would answer that question. While "Psycho" is all kinds of awesome, the term "New Hollywood" has a pretty specific meaning, generally said to begin with "Bonnie & Clyde" and running through the 1970's (with movies like "Easy Rider", "The Last Picture Show", "The Godfather" etc.) and the rise of directors like Beatty, De Palma, Scorsese, Coppola et. al.

    It all came to a crashing, screeching halt with 1980's "Heaven's Gate".

    Hitchcock's career stretched back to the 20's, and while a great artist, in 1967, he was about as "Establishment Hollywood" as it gets.

    ReplyDelete
  3. this is the point where I finally get to mention Mark Harris's glorious 2008 book Pictures at a Revolution, a study of the production of the five '67 Best Picture nominees and the culture that produced them

    Sold. It's on my list as we speak.

    @Rick: it's amazing: I agree with you completely (except possibly to call Heaven's Gate the icon of collapse, rather than the cause) but I didn't know a single bit of that before starting Tim's blog. Tim, you rock, you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've never considered "New Hollywood" and "modern cinema" to be the same thing. One is simply a movement that had it's time and place, and then ended. The other is a sum total of nearly everything being made, at least in the U.S. market.

    At any rate, Psycho is, to my own experience in filmophilia, nearly always credited as the movie that "gave birth to modern cinema" with it's ballsy structure and the cold-dropping of the presumed protagonist part-way through.

    Again, though, I want it to be clear that I love Bonnie and Clyde, and I'm not at all trying to slight it. But if I'm drawing a line in the sand on pre-modern and modern cinema, I'm drawing it in 1960, not 67.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The difference between Psycho and Bonnie and Clyde, for me, is that Psycho was an astonishingly creative, brave, transgressive work that came out in the classic era (I do think it's actually far more radical than B&C, which mostly does a lot of skillful copying). It is an "old movie" that is astonishingly dangerous.

    Whereas I don't tend to think of Bonnie and Clyde as "old", nor anything that came out in its wake. The Godfather, Chinatown, All the President's Men, Raging Bull - these feel of a piece with The Social Network, Inception, or Magic Mike, while none of those films feel of a piece with My Fair Lady or Elmer Gantry. Though I appreciate that the teenagers of today would probably consider me a goddamn idiot for holding that opinion.

    Put it another way: it doesn't feel incongruous for Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg to be making films in 2014. But it does feel incongruous for George Cukor and Alfred Hitchcock to be making films in the 1970s. To me.

    Incidentally, it will come as no surprise to anybody when we get to 1980 and Heaven's Gate pops up, a film that, like Bonnie and Clyde, came along as part of the concept before I even started working on a schedule.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps a better way to look at (and this is not something I've given thought to before, so bear with me) is that Psycho gave birth to modern cinema, even if it took a few more years for it really take hold and become a thing.

    Psycho being, and good lord is this about to be a pretentious sentence, the John the Baptist, crying in the dessert about the messiah to come. Which, yes, makes Bonnie and Clyde an exceptionally violent and gay coded Jesus.


    Of course, if we're being honest, trying to peg one single film as being where "EVERYTHING CHANGED" is usually foolish. Even being the "first" something doesn't usually change everything. It's not until some other films follow in that wake, and move that new thing forward, that it truly becomes part of cinema.

    Getting off into a side-tangent, but a few years ago, a friend of mine was taking a film appreciation course as, more or less, a "fun class" while mostly studying engineering of some sort or another, and he got an assignment to write a (fairly major) essay on any film produced before 1980. I, being the biggest film geek he knows, offered him a list of every film I owned from that rather large stretch, and let him choose.

    He initially considered Citizen Kane, before deciding that far too much had already been written and said about it, that it'd be a worthless attempt and likely a more harshly graded paper. Then he picked Bonnie and Clyde.......

    I have no clue what his grade ended up being.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, and to your point about teenagers, Tim, I tried very hard to convince a girl I know in her early 20's to skip the new Carrie movie and rent the De Palma version. Or at least watch both.

    "I don't like old movies" I seriously wanted to weep.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Of course, if we're being honest, trying to peg one single film as being where "EVERYTHING CHANGED" is usually foolish."

    Totally. It's fun to think about, but it's geek semantics of the highest order. Besides everybody knows that the correct answer is REALLY Yojimbo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Which doesn't read as obviously sarcastic as it did in my head, and this is the internet. So I don't actually think that about Yojimbo. /overexplainingthejoke>

    ReplyDelete
  10. PSSSH. A Fistful of Dollars was better.


    *runs and hides*

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...Dunaway and Beatty's performances, which irritated me the first couple of times I saw the film, are as much a series of poses as they are 'acting'..."

    Nuh-uh. Nope. No way. This briar patch is not for me.

    I'm pretty sure the only reason I don't outright hate Bonnie and Clyde is how fascinating it is to watch Thompson SMGs kill people. Such got me through Public Enemies too.

    But then I realize there are movies that I enjoy, that also feature tommyguns. This means I don't ever again have to watch five boring people with patent and annoying cognitive disabilities stumble through a disjointed non-narrative for almost two hours.

    You're right about its importance (for better or for worse) and I did like (honest) some of the filmmaking acumen on display, but I side with Crowther regarding pretty much everything else. (That said, he was a real jerk to Jack Arnold once, and that I don't easily forgive.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that in terms of world cinema, 1960 really does mark the beginning of the Modern and the end of the Classic. There were a few forerunners in the fifties and plenty of lagging films/directors through the sixties, but really the game had been changed, modernity had come, and it was just a matter of time before the rest of the world caught up. Just look at the movies we got within a year or two there: Breathless, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Psycho, L'Avventura, La Dolce Vita, Peeping Tom, Shoot the Piano Player, The Bad Sleep Well, Eyes Without a Face, etc. Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate marked mainstream Hollywood capitulating to New Hollywood, but the modern movie began in 1960.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I saw this movie when I was 12! It left a deep impression on me and almost half a century later this film still holds up. Sensational performances by all. Risky subject matter handled brilliantly. Top 10 in my book...

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.