Hollywood's Greatest Year?
As studios disgorge summer schlock, 1967 beckons like a celluloid dream.
Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft in 'The Graduate.'
- Scenes From A Revolution: The Birth of the New Hollywood
- Canongate Books (2008)
There's always more to learn from imperfection than those few, hallowed works of art that defy any critique. Take Mark Harris' book about the five films nominated for best picture in 1967's Oscar race. None are perfect, though two -- The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde -- are now regarded as classics of the new filmmaking era. A third, In The Heat of the Night, was a respectable, middle-brow thriller that struck sparks with its theme of bigotry. That explosive bugaboo is also front and centre in the heavy-handed fourth, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, a film considered schematic, condescending and old-fashioned even while it was being made, but loved to this day as the final screen appearance of Spencer Tracy. And then there's the fifth: Dr. Doolittle, an infamous bomb, a vast, creaky, interminable disaster that fatally wounded the once-healthy musical genre.
In some ways, the story behind Doolittle -- a tale of Hollywood at its spendthrift, ego-maddened worst -- is the most entertaining part of the book.
It's not just that Harris is a juicy writer willing to let you in on what a thoroughly miserable, insecure, petulant and vain human being Doolittle star Rex Harrison was (though he does, at length, along with many tales of his alcoholic wife and her penchant for, among other things, performing knickerless cartwheels in high-end restaurants). He's good at gossip, but even better at the business end of things. The bloated production is tracked from its inception at the height of the musical's last, baroque phase, when extravagant roadshow productions criss-crossed the United States bringing in boffo box-office, through a painful pre-production, a disastrous shoot and a Hail Mary marketing campaign. And of course, the backroom arm-pulling and chicanery from producer Arthur Jacob and Fox's desperate head of production, Richard Zanuck, that ended up getting this waterlogged turkey a Best Picture nomination.
What does Oscar know, anyway?
Whether 1967 really was a watershed is open for debate. As usual when dealing with any "pivotal year" theory, it begins to fall apart on closer examination. And reading the Oscars for cultural significance is always a tricky business. For instance, in 1968 the best picture nominees were Oliver!, Funny Girl, The Lion in Winter, Rachel, Rachel and Romeo and Juliet. Hardly a revolutionary crop -- and Oliver! won. But there's no denying that the cultural earthquake was starting to rattle movie houses. In 1969, Midnight Cowboy, a genuinely innovative film, won against Anne of the Thousand Days, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Hello, Dolly! and Costa-Gavras' groundbreaking Z. And then came the wholesale studio invasions of the 1970s.
But Harris has certainly chosen an interesting year. While the Doolittle debacle is often jaw-dropping fun, the story of Sidney Poitier, then at the height of his fame, is the most resonant. Poitier starred in two of the nominated films (and was briefly considered for a part in Doolittle), and as the first black movie star, he was doomed to play perfect Negro heroes, de-sexed, denatured and beyond reproach, while all around him the Civil Rights struggle raged.
Poitier walked a maddeningly difficult tightrope: Black audiences cheered when he slapped a white racist during a stirring scene in Heat, but were disparaging of his "House Negro" role in Dinner. In 1968, he was named the biggest box office star in America by a national poll of theatre owners -- but his retreat from public life had already begun. "Poitier rarely spoke in detail of the pain he felt at being jeered at as a symbol of accommodation to white America," Harris notes in a postscript, but his eventual, voluntary 12-year absence from the screen -- from 1977 to 1989 -- speaks volumes.
As does a telling vignette about the actress Beah Richards, who played Poitier's mother in Dinner -- "meant to embody the kind of soft-spoken, well-kept, epitome-of-dignity little old black lady" the filmmakers thought would put white audiences at ease. In reality, Richards was a well-regarded stage actress (when she could get work other than walk-on maid parts), a political activist (that the FBI had been keeping a file on for 16 years) and a columnist for the civil rights publication Freedomways.
"These children are in love, and love is all that we need to consider," went the lines of her big, anodyne speech in the film. "Now, Beah knew that was a lie," said her friend Ossie Davis, and she was openly upset about the film's pathetic racial politics -- but it was the only work she could get, and so she donned makeup and a synthetic wig (she was only seven years older than Poitier) and delivered the lines. Said Katherine Houghton, who played Poitier's white fiancée: "I felt that she hated all of us."
Near-disaster flicks
Harris talks to just about everyone still alive, and there are similar vivid details about each of the five films. Even Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate -- two movies so widely written about and so frequently revived it seems impossible to find anything new about them to say -- are brought to life with vivid and sympathetic reportage that underlines what ramshackle, risky projects they were, always a hair's-breadth from disaster.
The Graduate, which I re-watched recently for the umpteenth time as a direct result of this book -- is as close to perfect as makes no difference. Forty-two years later, nearly every scene has been homaged and ripped-off and parodied and referenced, and it doesn't matter. The film, which both cast and crew thought was a lifeless, miscast dud while they were shooting it, has survived its period trappings to become timeless, and Harris' excellent book shows how this magical result -- as much as the other, less successful films he writes about -- was the result of incredibly hard work, genius, accident and mistake. ![]()



5
Login or register to post comments
Steve Burgess
2 years ago
The Graduate
Funny, but I started re-watching The Graduate recently and couldn't get through the first half hour or so. It just felt too dated, or perhaps I was too familiar with the story. I suppose I should try again.
Bonnie and Clyde still works just fine for me though.
Just me
2 years ago
What one person could hope
Sidney Poitier's and Beah Richards' experiences echo those of earlier black actors such as Paul Robeson, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson and Jeni LeGon (now retired and living in Vancouver). They never would be allowed full-fledged mainstream careers, certainly not top billing in any film with a mixed-race cast. But, in such constricted circumstances, what they could do in Hollywood was take what roles were offered and infuse them with luminous humanity. It was as much as any one person could hope to do, at the time, to bridge the racial divide.
And calling In The Heat of the Night, "a respectable, middle-brow thriller that struck sparks with its theme of bigotry" - ouch! Race in America was agonizingly front and centre in every scene. Rod Steiger's police chief Bill Gillespie, who first appears as a typical Southern cracker, then learns to respect Poiter's detective Virgil Tibbs may have been wishful thinking then, but ultimately pointed to the only way out of America's racial impasse. The civil rights movement of Dr. Martin Luther King had set out to win the hearts not just of sympathetic white liberals but of white - and black - racists. King's method, civil disobedience, used the obviously dignified actions of protesters who refused to meet violence with violence as a call to the inherent dignity they had faith could be found in those who opposed and even hated them. Poitier, much derided for his portrayal of "dignity," surely understood as much.
Not to knock The Graduate, or take Oscar too seriously, but In the Heat of the Night surely was the more important film, and Steiger's the more important character because he embodied the change of heart that America haltingly is coming to (think of the Obama election) and the world still needs.
wayfarer
2 years ago
Holywood's golden eras
There's ample room for argument as to which golden era of American cinema was the best: the silent era, the post-talkie era, the post-war era, and so on. The era after 1980 doesn't even merit being included in the debate, despite Scorcese and a few other bright moments. Even the trend setting slashers and horror flics of the 70's (Carpenter's Halloween, The Exorcist) were in a high art category, compared to the laughable spinoffs that followed and continue to this day - ad nauseum.
The medium has changed since 1967. Screenwriting used to be the most important element of a film, followed closely by director. Remember Paddy Chayefsky? Shit, even TV back in the 60's was better than most of today's Holywood blockbusters.
I've waxed McLuhan before and I apologize for doing it again - the medium is the message. Computer graphics and special effects are now the star of the show, and the films heavy on script and directorial skill seem to be increasongly exceptions to this rule. This isn't always a bad thing. I like a good eye-candy sensory-bender as much as anyone, but....
The other thing that's changed since 1967: capitalism. Commodity fetishism, consumerism, the increasing dominance of PR and advertising in our consumer culture - we should stop worrying so much about Wall St and focus more concern on Madison Ave. It didn't take long for Sundance to be co-opted by Madison Ave and Holywood, did it?
There's always going to be good writing and filmmaking, but you'll likely never see the stars align just in the right place as they did in '67, or in the few years after/before that.
Matthew Mallon
2 years ago
Thanks for the comments
Just Me, you're probably right that I was a bit harsh in my capsule description of In The Heat of the Night, and absolutely correct that its theme was more important a subject than The Graduate's. Racism beats young middle-class white angst every time. It's a matter of taste as to which is a better-made film, though. And there's not much point in discussing taste.
For example, Burgess remarks that he recently turned The Graduate off because it seemed too dated, while I found Bonnie and Clyde, on my most recent attempt at watching it, as shallow and modish as its fuddy-duddy detractors did when it was released. But I'm perfectly prepared for my opinion to change the next time I watch it.
Wayfarer, I would be wary of writing off everything post 1980. There have been many astoundingly good, script-driven films from Hollywood and elsewhere since then. The passage of time hasn't edited out all the clunkers yet, as it has for, say, the miraculous year of 1939, or indeed 1967, but I've seen films made in the last few years that have been as good as anything in Cinema's history -- and couldn't have been made at any other time in that history.
wayfarer
2 years ago
Not everything
Hi Matthew,
There's no way I could write of everything post-80. I just doubt that current Cinema has the bench strength it once had for aforementioned reasns.
Ironically, nowadays the really good stuff shines all the more because of the context of a lot of crap. Some of my all-time favourites have been made in the last decade or two (e.g., Sideways, You Can Count on Me, The Thin Red Line, among many others).
I guess I'm just geting old. I don't play computer games, Dungeons & Dragans , read comic books or any of that stuff, so graphic-heavy films or films in the fantasy or animation genres (Bored of the Rings, Harold Potter, Disney ad nauseum, for example), I don't even rent these...
Yep, getting old....
Thanks for the article.