Ilov80s
Footballguy
Is it all that dated though? From some of my experiences even in the North, I don’t think it’s too improbable that a black outsider walking into a white a community would get treated poorly.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FBG Movie Club: We're Getting the Band Back Together: Metallica vs Nina Simone Movie Docs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ilov80s
- Start date
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
never spent any time in the South? it ain't who gets treated how nor a case-by-case thing. it's pervasive, in the air, like humidity. an ubiquitous, suffocating feudal funk which stupifies all that breathe of it. it is the settled death of liberty
identikit
Footballguy
The things I liked in 'Bonnie and Clyde'
Faye's cheekbones
Blanche
Eugene Grizzard/Gene Wilder
Denver 'Uncle Jesse' Pyle/Frank Hamer
Ivan Moss' lecture to his son about tattoos
The inevitable 'inside information' that brings everything to a bloody end
Things I liked about 'In the Heat of the Night'
The 'suffocating humidity' (thanks Wikkid) that is ever-present
The first suspect's (Herschel from the Walking Dead) mad run on the bridge
The always-beautiful-yet-tough Lee Grant as the widow
All of the one-on-one scenes with Gillespie and Tibbs
Faye's cheekbones
Blanche
Eugene Grizzard/Gene Wilder
Denver 'Uncle Jesse' Pyle/Frank Hamer
Ivan Moss' lecture to his son about tattoos
The inevitable 'inside information' that brings everything to a bloody end
Things I liked about 'In the Heat of the Night'
The 'suffocating humidity' (thanks Wikkid) that is ever-present
The first suspect's (Herschel from the Walking Dead) mad run on the bridge
The always-beautiful-yet-tough Lee Grant as the widow
All of the one-on-one scenes with Gillespie and Tibbs
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
identikit
Footballguy
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
Regarding Bonnie and Clyde (in no particular order):
1. Couldn't get away from the thought that this was some sort of vanity project for Warren Beatty and as such I expected everything to be set up to revolve around him/his character. I guess ultimately that was not the end result, as I felt the best parts of the movie came from the supporting cast, all the way down to the actress that played Bonnie's mother.
2. Don't know if seeing this at a younger age would have made me get into this movie more or not, but in my middle age I'm pretty much meh about it.
3. Back to Beatty. I think he was born about 30 years too late. He seems more like a Gary Cooper type who just plays the same basic guy in all of his movies but gets away with it because he has leading man looks.
4. Back to the supporting cast. Absolutely the best part of the film. To me, they all stole the show. Don't agree with Estelle Parsons winning an Oscar for her performance. To me, Bonnie's mother's bit at the end was the best emotional moment of the story, and even before she delivered her lines, you could see her seething before she spoke. Big props to whoever did the casting.
5. I'm a big believer in context when it comes to viewing a movie for it's 'proper' place in history, but I'm still not impressed with this one.
Regarding In the Heat of the Night (still in no particular order):
1. I said this earlier but will repeat it here: Sidney Poitier is the black William Shatner. This isn't necessarily supposed to be an insult, but how it fits on the larger spectrum of acting. His character seem more like a caricature.
2. Steiger's acting seemed kind of off, as if he wanted to portray the sheriff as both a racist and not a racist alternatively. I got more 'redemption' from Warren Oates' character's arc.
3. Just like with Bonnie and Clyde, the supporting cast was strong and did a fine job.
4. I can't speak to the 'authenticity' of what life in the deep South is/was like, but I'm pretty sure this is a very whitewashed version of it, which I think is not only an insult to the actors (as it didn't really give them strong enough material to match their acting reputations), but also lessened the deeper impact this story could have had. It seemed like it wanted to be a social commentary but undercut itself along the way and instead tiptoed around the edge of the 'racial equality' issue whenever it got too close.
5. Even in its day, I think they left too much meat on the bone with the story, not just about race relations but also about progress and change, and we ended up with a small step forward where we could have had more.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Well, it ain't gonna be much...
Bonnie & Clyde is largely indistinguishable from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or Dude, Where's My Car in my ViewMaster. No motive, rhyme nor reason to it, just violent crackers (i can say it, i'm white) on a heedless holiday. I know why it was done the way it was done - filmmakers at the dawn of the anti-hero era pointing out that famous gangsters can be just folks, but i didn't buy it then and i don't buy it now. It hit because Beatty & Dunaway are very watchable, a girl shot a gun and because of the "realistic" ending (at a time when people just grabbed their chest and rolled away from the camera when shot), but i just never saw but laziness from the entire effort
MISTER Tibbs walked into a southern police station that wasn't a southern police station. It was a buncha-guys-from-Brooklyn's idea of a southern police station. What one said didn't matter in Jim Crow Era southern police stations. Only whether one had standing to say ANYTHING 't'all. They never brought the wants of the guy-that-owned-the-sleepy-town thing to a head - just his minions (and plantation owners just get more minions) - and therefore, did not respect how stultifying southern hierarchy is. Woulda took more than the chief allowing the detective to do his thing - they woulda had to team against Mr Orchid til he was took down to make any sense of this at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Well, he was a Martian. He wasn't so much an actor as an avatar - removing any hint of shuffle or shiftless from his character to show whitefolk (the immense % of whom, even those supporting civil rights, still believed there was a large, functional difference between Negroes and Caucasians) he was his own person and still making it palatable - or he couldn't have got to be an actor on white people's movie screens. It mostly didn't work for me either when he was playing "the black guy" instead of a guy.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm really with you on the weed and recalibrating for old movies. It's how I got my love for French New Wave, and thus, my avatar. Weed was instrumental in watching old films. Now that I don't smoke it, I find them too obvious, obvious because the innovations have been ingrained so deep into cinema that I lose the groundbreaking effect of them.
whoknew
Footballguy
I forgot about Bonnie's mother, but you are right. She was terrific in her limited role.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
B&C opened the floodgates for more realistic violence in movies. In retrospect, was that good for the art? Terrible for society?
I think their impact on society is interesting. I can only imagine what it must have felt like for people to see Sydney slap a wealthy white man. Roles of class and race in that film are still interesting to me even if Wikkid finds them totally phony.
I think their impact on society is interesting. I can only imagine what it must have felt like for people to see Sydney slap a wealthy white man. Roles of class and race in that film are still interesting to me even if Wikkid finds them totally phony.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
The first person through the wall always gets a little bloody, and that's why I don't really hold his 'wooden' acting against him.
The other credit I will give Mr. Poitier is that with regards to my comparing him to Shatner is that Sidney was able to use that same 'style' paired with his on-screen presence/charisma to build a career that is more respected than Shatner's when comparing them as actors.
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
Her scene at the end really caught me by surprise. It was easy to think she was out of touch as everything was going on around her yet she didn't seem to acknowledge any of it until she spoke directly to Bonnie and spoke as only a mother could speak to her daughter. Such a strong yet measured rebuke.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
That was the whole movie for me. Unfortunately, it set a covenant which had only two possible outcomes - Mr Orchid in jail or Mr Tibbs in a shallow grave. Sorry, NO alternatives. That and the totally wrong courthouse vibe ruined it for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
I think more realism and violence in movies has always been inevitable, so I guess my concern is how 'well' it's done and what kind of statement they're trying to make with it. In B&C, it was kind of sloppily done, at least when it comes to when Buck got shot in the head. The depiction of the wound--a gaping head shot--didn't do as much damage as it would logically seem; he should have bled out quicker than he did, or he should have been at least brain dead after that.
In ITHOTN, I know Tibbs slapping the rich guy should have been beyond scandalous, but the way it was depicted, it came across as weak. In the moment of seeing it, I felt it was a measured response by Tibbs, which for any non-racist spectator seems perfectly rational and even acceptable, and this is where I'm definitely siding with Wikkid; you can't fake a charged atmosphere and expect to get away with it, which is what this movie seemed to do when it had everything it needed to be more authentic. Both slaps should have been harder, or at least Endicott should have slapped Tibbs again with more force, for example.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Someone who was around back then is probably more familiar with contemporary images than me, but the depiction of realistic violence seems to coincide with images that people would have seen on TV during the Vietnam war (not to mention other stuff in the 60s connected with the civil rights movement and the JFK assassination). Some of the images of Vietnam are seared into my head now, but I'm not sure how well they would have been in 1967. A bit curious if movies were behind TV, or ahead of TV, on that front.
Regardless, definitely good for the art. I don't think we'd have had stuff like Godfather without that band-aid getting ripped off.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
That’s a fair point. My only counter is that he’s a cop and obviously the brotherhood of police meant something to Gillespie. He let Tibbs get away with it. It’s also likely he was sick of being looked down upon and bossed around by Endicott. It probably cost him his job in the long run. I liked the turn that Endicott wasn’t responsible. That would have been an easy predictable finish. Tibbs wanted it so badly to be him and let his own bias compromise his police work.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Interesting, I think it’s still of one of the most powerful moments in movies and resonates still. It’s a hard and immediate slapback. Endicott doesn’t slap back because:
A) he’s in shock
B) he expects Gillespie to beat Tibbs and he doesn’t
It’s a not so subtle sign that some things are changing
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
As a symbolic gesture, I get it, and TBH Tibbs' slapback is no harder than what Endicott did, so again this slapping is more symbolic than anything else, but where it gets lost on me is that I don't see the world the way Endicott does, so his little tap is nothing and when he acts so shocked, I'm nonplussed. To impact a more 'modern-thinking' audience, Endicott's slap should have either been harder the first time, or been followed up by a stronger slap than the first time.
I feel like a revisionist at this point, because I just didn't get the full shock that the act of slapping Endicott back was scandalous enough that the force behind it didn't matter to the audience of the time, so even though I don't fully agree with how it was done, I understand it was powerful in its time.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
not trying to win here, simply saying that a black man who slaps a white man who "owns" a town in the Deep South of 1965 don't live out the week unless the plantation guy loses his power & freedom. your assuming the possibility of otherwise is equivalent to saying that a movie scene where unicorns fly prisoners to freedom from Auschwitz didn't hinder your ability to enjoy the picture
worst date i ever had was a Kid Creole concert. no story - old-fashioned Albuquerque girl just didn't "get" the Coconuts or New Wave or, actually, nothin' and went all hysterical on me.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Sure but this is a movie. It can take some liberties and project changes on to the world or give som wish fulfillment.
Eephus
Footballguy
Eephus
Footballguy
Tibbs would have been killed if not for an improbable climax where Purdy and Ralph both wanted Tibbs dead but ended up killing each other, while Purdy's posse stood by.
Eephus
Footballguy
He wouldn't have gotten as much tail in the 40s.
Beatty is an interesting guy who benefited tremendously from the breakup of the studio system. He was good looking enough to have been a star in an earlier era but he would have been typecast and eventually shuffled out for younger studs. In the New Hollywood which he helped create, Beatty became the star as auteur able to control all aspects of a production. He's in his 80s now and known now for announcing the wrong winner at the Oscars but he's a guy who changed the industry.
His critics fault Beatty for his limited acting chops but as Clyde he carried the picture. I can't think of any other 60s stars who could have filled the role. Maybe James Coburn but he would have brought a more sinister edge that might have disturbed the audience's relationship with the antiheroes.
Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
Fair points about his role in the industry, but I disagree about him carrying B&C. I don't think he acted poorly, but the whole cast around him was so good, even if they basically were there for one note. To me, they were all pretty much equal contributors, plus Hackman and Pollard both were nominated for Oscars, and Wilder's future greatness was pretty obvious even in a smaller part.
Eephus
Footballguy
One obvious similarity is both movies took place in rural America. In the 1960s, 30% of Americans lived in areas defined by the Census Bureau as rural. In the half century since, that has declined to under 20%.
There aren't many movies today that feature predominantly rural settings. There's an occasional period piece or art house film but I suspect there are more movies today set in post-apocalyptic environments than in anything resembling the rural USA. Movie audiences are largely urban so they've become the target demographic more than ever. International box office is also critical and I doubt Mississippi or the Great Plains are what audiences in Asia associate with the USA.
There aren't many movies today that feature predominantly rural settings. There's an occasional period piece or art house film but I suspect there are more movies today set in post-apocalyptic environments than in anything resembling the rural USA. Movie audiences are largely urban so they've become the target demographic more than ever. International box office is also critical and I doubt Mississippi or the Great Plains are what audiences in Asia associate with the USA.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I guess all the stuff around Clyde's impotency was risque to put on the screen for its time, but it felt a bit overwrought to me. Maybe B&C has just inspired 50 years of "the bigger the gun, the smaller the pecker" style jokes, but after the first one or two jokes (if that is what they were) about impotency, I was thinking, yeah, yeah, we get it, and then they made a half dozen more.
prosopis
Arizona Chupacabra
I think this is part of why I liked it. It was not full on Natural Born Killers but the vibe was there. Springsteens song Nebraska has that same vibe. Sometimes there is no motive, rhyme or reason for evil. It just happens. It is a subject I find interesting.wikkidpissah said:
I also liked/disliked the prop and camera work with Dunaway's first scene. I really wanted to see more of her but I do like the tease as well.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Both movies start in similar ways- a tease of nudity, peering in/out windows, bored young women.
Eephus
Footballguy
Clyde was the fulcrum for the whole story. If the audience can't buy in on Beatty as an impotent, murderous thief, you don't have much of a movie. He's too pretty and his accent is kind of silly but he's totally believable.Charlie Steiner said:
The quality of acting in both films is strong. ITHOTN's mixture of detective procedural and social commentary doles out nice scenes to a variety of supporting players to create atmosphere and set up potential suspects. The comic characters in the police station, the mechanic and the always wonderful Beah Richards as the abortionist are standouts. The woman who played Delores isn't much of an actress but she certainly makes an impression in her few scenes. Her name was Quentin Dean and this was her first film in a two year long career. Her IMDB bio is three sentences and her Wikipedia entry is six.
Eephus
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Isn't a bit of this to do with the time and audience of the movie? Wasn't Poitier about the only black leading man at that time, but these were still movies made to be viewed by white audiences. I it was meant to dip people's toes into the pool of deeper ideas about race relations, but not be "too real" about it. I am sure they had to toe a lot of lines that they might not have had to decades later.Charlie Steiner said:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
One thing I do realize is that my ratings system breaks down as we get to 60s movies and earlier, so I either have to rethink my system or get my ### in gear and watch a lot more movies from those eras. I think option #2 is the better course of action.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
For this double feature, I think B&C was more seamless and seemed to have a clearer vision of what it was going to be. On the flip slide, I think Heat had the higher highs, but lower lows and I found myself thinking about that one a lot more after watching them. I think for me ItHoTN went back to the "GTFO, no wait - I need you" well one too many times. But there was some fantastic scenes that stayed with me a lot longer - Tibbs morphing his character depending on who he's around and showcasing SP's talent, the scene between the two at the house at the end, etc...
I would give the slight edge to Heat of the Night, but it is picking nits. I also watched the other 2 main ones from the year - The Graduate and Guess Who's Coming for Dinner? and I think @Ilov80s for sure picked the right combo here - great idea for a double feature. Can't wait to depress everybody with next month's picks.
I would give the slight edge to Heat of the Night, but it is picking nits. I also watched the other 2 main ones from the year - The Graduate and Guess Who's Coming for Dinner? and I think @Ilov80s for sure picked the right combo here - great idea for a double feature. Can't wait to depress everybody with next month's picks.
Eephus
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Correction - of the six movies we've watched so far, I liked The Magnificent Seven the best.
ETA:
- The Magnificent Seven
- The Lives of Others
- The Conversation
- Bonnie and Clyde
- The Hateful Eight
- In the Heat of the Night
Last edited by a moderator:
Eephus
Footballguy
It's impossible to watch In the Heat of the Night without broaching the ever sensitive topic of race. I watched the movie with Mrs. Eephus but only came away with a few insights from her Black experience. She first saw it when she was around ten and remembers how angry the opening scenes made. She remains in love with Sidney Poitier and would probably slap anyone who equates him with William Shatner. Other than her childhood memories at the beginning, she was very quiet while watching the movie other than the occasional "uh uh" in reaction to the racism of the characters. She was sick so she went to bed right after the end and when I mentioned the movie a couple of days later, we quickly ended up on a tangent as people who've been married a long time tend to do.
It's tough to recreate the original historical context; modern viewers can only watch movies through their own eyes and experiences. The film was released in a much different time, three years after Freedom Summer and two years after the Watts riots. The times were so tense that the filmmakers did most of the location shots in Illinois rather than the South. I think the filmmakers did an admirable job addressing race through the characters and especially the environment. The movie takes a much more realistic and critical view of race than the pollyannish Guess Who's Coming to Dinner which was also released in 1967. Poitier appears in both (as does Beah Richards) but is given much less to do in GWCTD as a largely symbolic figure playing a supporting role to Hepburn and Tracy. As Tibbs, Poitier is able to effectively convey the suppressed rage in his character.
We've already mentioned the slap as a landmark of race relations on film but I thought the scene immediately before it made a powerful statement on race in America. It begins with yet another closeup of machinery, in this case a harvester and a terrific establishing crane shot of the cotton fields before cutting to Tibbs and Gillespie driving through to Endicott's mansion. They drive in silence with Tibbs' vision focused on the pickers outside as the blues swell in the background. Gillespie gives Tibbs a double take before breaking the silence with a single line "None of that for you, huh Virgil?" Poitier turns his head and gives Gillespie the look. It quickly cuts back to Steiger chewing gum before returning to Poitier with the same icy stare on his face. It's a short scene, maybe a minute long with only one line of dialog but it speaks volumes.
It's tough to recreate the original historical context; modern viewers can only watch movies through their own eyes and experiences. The film was released in a much different time, three years after Freedom Summer and two years after the Watts riots. The times were so tense that the filmmakers did most of the location shots in Illinois rather than the South. I think the filmmakers did an admirable job addressing race through the characters and especially the environment. The movie takes a much more realistic and critical view of race than the pollyannish Guess Who's Coming to Dinner which was also released in 1967. Poitier appears in both (as does Beah Richards) but is given much less to do in GWCTD as a largely symbolic figure playing a supporting role to Hepburn and Tracy. As Tibbs, Poitier is able to effectively convey the suppressed rage in his character.
We've already mentioned the slap as a landmark of race relations on film but I thought the scene immediately before it made a powerful statement on race in America. It begins with yet another closeup of machinery, in this case a harvester and a terrific establishing crane shot of the cotton fields before cutting to Tibbs and Gillespie driving through to Endicott's mansion. They drive in silence with Tibbs' vision focused on the pickers outside as the blues swell in the background. Gillespie gives Tibbs a double take before breaking the silence with a single line "None of that for you, huh Virgil?" Poitier turns his head and gives Gillespie the look. It quickly cuts back to Steiger chewing gum before returning to Poitier with the same icy stare on his face. It's a short scene, maybe a minute long with only one line of dialog but it speaks volumes.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Great call. That’s an incredible scene. Also as someone else pointed out, the scene with the 2 cops at Gillespie’s place drinking and talking is great stuff.
