esrosedotblog

TODAY'S MOVIE

BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967): NYTimes11176BestFilms. I thought it was horseshit. And that is just the beginning. First and foremost, it is a patent vehicle for Beatty. He and Dunaway cannot carry the plot in any genuine way as their teeth are so perfect and the hair........well; Let's put it this way, there is no way to suspend disbelief or to identify with the characters. And, if you do get involved, there will soon be a set of country grotesques artfully brought on; Oakies, itinerants, farmers, even B and C's family; all of whom are made to look as drab and down and out as B and C are made to look pretty and above it all. Even the B-players Hackman, Parsons, and Pollard do not 'go with' the stars. These contrasts only remind us that Warren's gym bod and Dunaway's false eyelashes (big ones) are not the stuff of malnourished edge-of-society dropouts.

Then, there is the music, which is very intrusive. Flat and Scruggs high energy pickin' to accompany an escape in which a few cops were mowed down or perhaps some innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; good-timey music, feets a-slapping. Glamorized violence. The 'cinematic' parts of it are pretty good but they are set pieces. The reunion with the family is beautifully realized; done in a totally different palette, which again, reminds us of the cartoonishness of the plot-part. Dick Tracy.

Then, the plot; which I suppose is based to some extent on real life. I am not too clear whether Clyde cannot get it up or is a premature ejaculator; but, whichever it is, it is rather simplified Psych-1 stuff. In and out and he can't do it and now he can; pull the rabbit out of the hat (or put it back in). And so on. Come to think of it though, his nipples are erect in the 'sex' scenes (clothes on); so I guess it is the old quick squirt problem. At least part of him is erect. But it could be Warren getting off on himself.

My man Ebert (the solo written Ebert) looks back and finds art and the beginning of the new cinema. I look back and see a bad turn of affairs that has given us a whole film-literature of half-baked pulp; but then someone made a film about that too. I didn't like PULP FICTION either. And so on.

Ebert tells us that the film was a relative failure at the time; critically panned and not well attended. He claims to have seen "art" in it then; when he was only six months in his new critic-job. OK. Of course he will defend it now.

One other thing and then I will shut up. There is a small bit where Gene Wilder makes his screen debut. He and his girl are necking and B&C steal their car. They give chase (I do not believe this) and are kidnapped by the gang; suddenly becoming buddies; until Bonnie finds out that Wilder is a funeral director and they are put out of the car unharmed because it makes her all squeamish. Ha ha. It is funny and neat to see Wilder but it is an add-on. Out of context. "Don't you think we need a laugh or two in here" kind of thing.

OK. Another last thing. Arthur Penn. Spotty career (PENN AND TELLER GET KILLED? Whew). A teevee director of some note who made teevee-like movies; I liked ALICE'S RESTAURANT which is like a teevee special. THE MIRACLE WORKER which was a play. I believe that the gauzy, genuine, rough-looking-people scenes are all Penn. And the rest of it is Warren trying to make a commercial picture: "Uhhhh Arthur, Warren says that there is no way he is going to discolor his teeth and the tank-top scenes will stay"

I will give this a 2 out of Netflix5 because I was happy to see Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons in their first flick.