Playtime (1967)

Art film is sometimes hard to understand or to relate with. “Playtime” is an excellent example of a film that lacks a conventional storyline but instead the production design, including the use of color, the frequent use of framing, and the enormous set communicates subtle messages of industrial technologies ultimately obstructing normal human interaction.

The large, ambitious set for “Playtime” was created especially for the film. Each towering building and major skyscraper was designed to create this mood of modernity through the sharp lines, the unusual shapes, and the bleak but bright colors. This simultaneously makes the audience feel both that this is something artificial and out of the ordinary, but also makes them feel like they are there experiencing it. There aren’t camera tricks to make things seem enlarged, it is actually designed that big so it has a much more overwhelming effect. The largeness of the effect almost seems to communicate that the presence of the artificial (including these buildings) is more important than the presence of the people themselves. The people are so small and insignificant in comparison.

The film frequently incorporates framing techniques that are unique to “Playtime” and Tati’s style. This is most noticeable in two scenes. In the office scene, every desk is surrounded by a box, or cubicles, as we now know them. This represents the closed off nature of the society and once again the dominance of the architecture over the people. Later, when Monsieur Hulot goes to an apartment, the entirety of the scene is filmed from the exterior. It looks like TV sets piled on top of one another with glimpses into private life, but with the lack of dialogue, nothing is learned beyond the surface action. This was a fascinating technique that really helped employ this theme of the decline of human interaction. There are some amusing physical gags particularly with our protagonist, but nevertheless you can’t help but feel that you are watching a TV show and all you will ever get is that one frame of reference – nothing deeper.

Lastly, the color scheme largely influences the mood. It is filmed in color, but still gives off the impression that it is black and white with its use of grey, blue, black, and white. Most of the buildings are white, while sharp contrasts are provided with black lines and black furniture. However, in most scenes there is some other color present. In the office, there is a man with a bright blue clipboard. Your eyes can’t help but follow him as the color stands out amongst the bleak. This, again, reinforces that technology and design dominate over the people, even though our eyes follow what little life we can find. The color also changes from beginning to end and other colors are much more apparent by the end than by the beginning symbolizing society’s triumph over the impending technology.

Though the plot (or lack thereof) is difficult to follow, this is a story that can be understood by paying close attention to these subtle cues created and manipulated by the set itself. In “Playtime,” the set is just as much a character as the actors are.

All the analysis aside (did you guys really make it through all that?) This movie is pretty boring and has little to no redeeming entertainment value. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless you're looking for a little artistic reflection. 3/10

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (1967)

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is, simply put, the story of two families overcoming their concerns of an interracial marriage in one single evening. It's certainly a drama. And yet the situation provides for undeniable comedic opportunities. Disregarding whatever genre it may be, Stanley Kramer's iconic film is a celebration of two of Hollywood's greatest stars.

When Joanna "Joey" Drayton (Katharine Houghton) comes home from her two-week vacation with the handsome, successful - and black - Doctor John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) on her arm, the engagement is met with mixed reactions. To the viewer in the 21st century, this match seems clearly promising. He's rich, they're in love, what's the big deal? However, in 1960's San Francisco, even to a liberal family this kind of news is met with some shock.

Joey's mother Christina (Katharine Hepburn) takes the news rather well after the initial surprise. With a shaky "pleased to meet you" and a wide-eyed glance at the camera, she recovers quickly after taking a minute to sit down and eagerly supports Joey's decision. This is a stark contrast to the "what the hell is going on here?" response from Mr. Drayton (Spencer Tracy).

Kramer intentionally designed Poitier's character to be so perfect and upstanding that the only possible reason to object to the marriage would be on the issue of race. And it is so easy to love Poitier. His charming demeanor, perfect smile and chivalrous character are enchanting. (As an aside, it is unbelievable that he was not nominated for this nor "In the Heat of the Night" that same year). However, it's almost as if the plot is structured like a trifle cake. With each layer, the situation becomes even more absurd and finally the absurdity overflows. Even disregarding the laughable length of their 10-day courtship (though this didn't actually bother me - I'm a Mormon and I see that all the time with my peers), the absurdity reaches its limit when the two lovebirds place a deadline on the two shocked parents. Not only do they wish approval for the engagement, but they demand approval before their 10 pm flight to Geneva. Really? You can't give them a week? A day, even?

To add to the overflow, Joey invites John's parents (Beah Richards & Roy Glenn) to join for dinner. Besides my growing dislike for the crazy situation, the scenes involving John and his parents - particularly his father - were especially bothersome. The idea that is presented in John's conversations with his father and with Joey's is that this isn't about race but about pride. It's an issue that would be interesting to explore, but sadly is manipulatively executed. The dialogue is poorly constructed and accusatorially delivered. I would have liked to have seen this film more à la style of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" which was also centered around a dinner. What "Woolf" has that "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" lacks is a building character tension driven by their interactions. The tension present in Kramer's film is manipulative and driven by absurd plot details rather than the dialogue and lacks the character development and the wit. I applaud the film's bravery for addressing a then controversial issue, but it would have been better without the artificiality behind the plot constraints.

My last complaint for this already flawed movie is in Joey's character. Perhaps it's a cop-out to label the pretty blonde as annoying but is anyone else with me on this? It's hard to stomach her high pitched voice and entitled attitude for two hours. Katharine Houghton is beautiful to be sure but her performance is too bubbly and overwhelming. I give it 2 weeks in Geneva before the distinguished Dr. Prentice ditches her.

As I stated earlier, this film is much more than a discussion on racial stereotypes. It's all about the nostalgia for two beloved stars. This is the ninth and final pairing for Hepburn and Tracy. In fact, the filming for "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" ended just 17 days before Tracy's death. It has been noted that Hepburn refused to see the final cut because it was too emotional for her (I'm going to pretend like I understand their "partnership" but really I don't. 27-year affair? Good friends?) I have tried for years to like Katharine Hepburn, and though I can find nothing faulty about her performances, there is simply something about her overdramatic portrayals that rub me the wrong way. I don't like the way she talks and I don't like that she won an Oscar for this when Anne Bancroft clearly should have won for "The Graduate."

Besides Sidney Poitier's enjoyable performance, the main attraction is clearly Spencer Tracy. I've seen a lot of Tracy's early work including his Oscar-winning performances in "Boy's Town" and "Captains Courageous." What has struck me about Tracy is the instant credibility he brings to the screen. His open countenance and striking eyes invite the audience to trust him. His performance as Matthew Drayton is no different. I felt connected to his character while he mulled over his looming decision while eating Fresh Oregon Boysenberry Sherbet at the local drive thru. Of course his performance is made more poignant with his death, and when he delivers his moving speech at the close of the film, you can't help but believe him.

Unfortunately despite my love for these two great actors, this movie is simply too unbelievable for me to truly enjoy it. 5/10

Other notes:
Directed by Stanley Kramer
Won Academy Awards for Best Actress (Katharine Hepburn), and Best Writing Original Story and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor (Spencer Tracy), Best Supporting Actor (Cecil Kellaway), Best Supporting Actress (Beah Richards), Best Director (Stanley Kramer), Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Music
It was ranked #99 in AFI's Top 100 Years... 100 Films list in 1998

The Graduate (1967)

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson.

Dustin Hoffman stars as Benjamin Braddock, who recently completed his undergrad and is deciding what to do with his life.  The film begins at the Braddock’s home in California where his parents are throwing him a graduation party.  Embarrassed, frustrated, uncomfortable, he escapes and stares at his fish.  Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) – wife of Ben’s father’s law partner and family friend, she also doesn’t have a first name apparently – finds Ben hiding.  Asks him for a ride home… asks him in the house… offers him a drink… turns on music… starts taking off her clothes…. “Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me.”  Ben’s a little taken aback by these advances of a 40 somethin’ year old woman and panics his way out of the house.  But with no direction, he doesn’t stay horrified for long.  He soon arranges their first rendez-vous at a hotel and their affair awkwardly begins.

He’s basically living the life.  Sun bathing and piña coladas in the pool by day… meeting the woman at night.  In one of their rare discussions, Mrs. Robinson forbids Ben to ever date her college-aged daughter, Elaine.  Ben’s reluctant to promise anything but doesn’t care much for the Robinson daughter so he agrees.  Too bad his parents do care.  They coerce him  into taking her out when she returns from Berkley.  With his affair between Mrs. R completely over, and despite his initial efforts to ruin their date, he starts to fall for the cute, full of life Elaine.  I’ll let you imagine where that might lead.

The great thing about The Graduate is that it takes its time.  One of the best scenes in the movie is a simple conversation between Mrs. Robinson and Ben.  The scene is quite long with many pauses, but it is one of the greatest crafted scenes I have ever seen.  Ben is flustered with their exclusively physical relationship, and starts asking Mrs. Robinson questions.  We glimpse his eyes grow with wonder, we watch her eyes fill with pain.  There’s so much sadness and so much growth.  Needless to say the script is impeccable.  Witty, satirical, but deep.

The rest of the movie is developed in a similar fashion.  The pacing is greatly due to the music of good ol’ Paul and Art.  ”The Sounds of Silence” is so perfect for the movie (as, of course, is “Mrs. Robinson”) and there are many scenes with nothing but.  It miraculously never drags.  Ben drives to see Elaine…. Ben slowly sinks in his pool, full of apprehension (great moment)… Ben lying in his pool… very little action.  I grew up listening to Simon and Garfunkel, but I never knew they were this cool.  The sounds of silence can speak so much louder than dialogue.

The Graduate is primarily a comedy – the script is evidence of that.

Ben: “Where’d you do it?”
Mrs. Robinson: “In his car.”
Ben: “What kind of car was it?”
Mrs. Robinson: “Come on now.”
Ben: “No, I really want to know.”
Mrs. Robinson: “A Ford.”
Ben: [laughs] “That’s great.  So Elaine Robinson got started in a Ford…”

It’s a funny movie, but it’s not just funny.  It’s a character study.  It makes you laugh, but I’d mostly say that it makes you smile at the realism.  The second half of the movie is greatly different from the first, its dynamic changes as Benjamin changes.  His and our attentions shift to Elaine, and his pursuit to win her over.  (Some great scenes there too… man I could rave about this whole movie scene by scene if I really wanted to).

Good acting? Check.  For me, it’s weird to think that Dustin Hoffman hasn’t always been the top dawg in his business.  I mean, this is the guy that did Rain Man, Kramer vs. Kramer, Tootsie, All the President’s Men… He’s been “the man” my whole life.  But nobody knew Dustin then.  Everyone knew Dustin after Benjamin Braddock.  Even without D. Hoffman, though, Anne Bancroft is sensational.  You hate her, you feel sorry for her.  The rest of the acting is solid as well, mainly Katherine Ross.

This film was one of the few to win the Best Director Oscar and not Best Picture.  Mike Nichols is the man.  It was nominated for basically everything else, though, including Cinematography (excellent – a constant visual treat) and Screenplay (also excellent).

And how ’bout that end?  The wedding crash to top all wedding crashes.  ”It’s too late.” “Not for me!” (Granted, that IS a relationship I’d love to see in the future… how could YOU handle being with someone that had slept with your mother?)

I can’t rave enough.  With these acclaimed classics that I’d never seen, it’s difficult sometimes to figure out if you love it because you know you should love it, or if you actually love it.  I didn’t want to hand out a 10 just to conform.  But the more I thought about it, the fewer things I disliked.  This movie is excellent on all fronts, and truly should be considered a classic.  10/10