Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Movies: Bonnie and Clyde and Will
The 1967 Warren Beatty film Bonnie and Clyde was a turning point in American cinema. It celebrated violence, it thrashed virtue, and it asked the audience to love murderers and criminals.
Most critics found Bonnie and Clyde empty and trashy. The crusty old New York Times guy, Bosley Crowther, then one of the most influential American critics, decided that Bonnie and Clyde failed to meet his narrow, simple-minded, painfully respectable standards. It was too violent, and he thought the love story of its doomed, hare-brained title characters was “sentimental claptrap.”
This claptrap is commonplace now, and it’s not just in “violent” films. It’s also a part of the brainless fodder films we love and adore. Read this short essay about Pauline Kael, one of the first critics to champion Bonnie and Clyde, ushering in the triumph of low-quality movies over good ones, and see how her high criticism created a world where Will Smith is as good as it gets:
Not long before she died, Pauline Kael remarked to a friend, “When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.”
Be careful what you ask for, I guess.
back to top33 Comments to “Movies: Bonnie and Clyde and Will”
It’s been a very, very long time since I saw Bonnie & Clyde, but I thought the movie trashed trash culture — you know, the illusions that give desperate meaning to desperate people-turned-desperadoes, etc. The movie wasn’t about bank robberies and sheriffs, not even about Clyde’s accomplishments in bed, but about Blanche and sentimental picnics in the sand dunes.
Report comment to moderator
1967? 1967!!
I can’t believe it’s been that long.
Bonnie and Clyde died in 1934. The movie was made 33 years later in ‘67. It’s been 41 years since the movie. Wow!
Report comment to moderator
HSK: Will Smith is as good as it gets
He is as good as anyone could be in his role in “Six Degrees of Separation.”
I wish economics allowed actors without big names to take big roles, but overexposure has always been Hollywood’s worst travesty, IMHO. You could get sick of looking at Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, and Katherine Hepburn.
Nevertheless, actors are good enough in my view and ultimately not very important. Harrison should worry about the screenwriters, not the actors.
Report comment to moderator
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~smarx/Shakespeare/smquotation/titus.html
Gruesome dismemberings. A live burial. Madness. Rape. Cannibalism. Final body count: 14.
These could be the stats for a grisly, modern-day slasher flick.
But no: It is a tally of dastardly deeds in Shakespeare’s action-packed drama “Titus Andronicus.”
As far as sex, check out Restoration comedy some time.
An interesting book to read is called History Laid Bare by Richard Zacks.
I don’t have the title handy, but there’s a book recently published about how much the Ancient Greeks used psychotropic drugs (mostly opiates) we now cringe in horror about and try to stop with our absurd “War on Drugs” (one of our ways of financing the Taliban, for example.
However, I do think humans will destroy themselves by the end of the century, or at least brutalize ourselves out of what we laughingly call “civilization.” So that’s new and improved degradation and depravity, if you like.
Report comment to moderator
1967 was a year after I graduated from high school. I didn’t realize then that I was enjoying learning about the truths of reformed theology when my buddies and I first saw the movie Bonnie and Clyde. Today I would just write it off as another example of how true the first point of the T.U.L.I.P. doctrine is:
Report comment to moderator
As for the attempt to glamorize “champion” Bonnie and Clyde. This was done long before their movie.
“The Outlaw” was an attempt by Howard Hughes to galmorize Billy the Kid. Instead, it glamorized Jane Russell. Correction: Jane Russell glamorized the film. She was the only reason for it.
And, in “Belle Starr”, Gene Tireney and Randalph Scott glamorized the female outlaw by that name. That was in the 1940’s.
Report comment to moderator
I was reading a Premier magazine article on the 500 greatest actors of all time (or something like that). I’m a Will Smith fan, and yet I saw his name not just on the list, but way up on the list, and I was pissed.
Report comment to moderator
I still have a soft spot for the film “Dillinger” starring Warren Oates. (I believe he’s now deceased but some of you may recall him as the Drill Sgt in Bill Murray’s army comedy, “Stripes”)
The movie was as accurate as any about the 30s hoodlums and bankrobbers. I esp liked a then-unknown Richard Dreyfuss as Baby-faced Nelson. When Dillinger was (briefly) captured, the local DA and jailers posed in pix with the smiling bandit. It truly was an era of the criminal as celebrity, and the film accurately captured it.
Speaking of celeb criminals.. Susan Atkins– the gal who slashed open Sharon Tate, drank Sharon’s blood and used that blood to write “pigs” on the walls of the Polanski house–is dying of a terminal disease which already has claimed one leg. Should she be let loose on a compassionate furlough? Why or why not??
Report comment to moderator
#8: No, she showed no compassion for Sharon Tate, her unborn child, or the family and friends who loved her. Life in prison is supposed to mean life in prison, not ‘prison until we ignore what you did because it’s your turn to die.’
Report comment to moderator
I don’t buy the snobbery in HSK’s original post. Will Smith is a perfectly good actor, but even at that, he is hardly “as good as it gets.”
Such a statement is an insult to the many fine actors working today, and to all of us who appreciate their performances.
Report comment to moderator
How is referring to Will Smith as “as good as it gets” snobbery, SteveG? Doesn’t everyone have a right to their own preferences, without being denounced by a leftist as a snob?
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. – Maybe I’m not reading your comment correctly, but I don’t understand why you were “pissed” by that. Could you explain what exactly it was you didn’t like?
(As I’m reading it, you’re a Will Smith fan, he was named high on the list of great actors, & that angered you. I don’t get it.)
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – Isn’t the way we use “as good as it gets” kinda funny? Taking the words as they are, they should be a positive thing, but we use the phrase as more or less a negative.
Report comment to moderator
. . . I saw his name . . . way up on the list, and I was pissed.
Just one of the thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to, old timer.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: Don’t I have the right to disagree without being denounced by a proud know-nothing as a “leftist?” What does left or right even have to do with this topic.
You go out of your way to be ridiculous sometimes.
Do you really think Will Smith is the best and finest actor in American cinema?
Report comment to moderator
If it happens in Hollywood, it’s not news. Why seek anything meaningful there?
Hollywood is about glamorizing Hollywood. American culture, and dare I say world culture, has become focused on the court jesters. Award shows, commercials, magazines, even the news itself is primarily entertainment about entertainment.
Vanity of vanities all is vanity under the sun. In order to escape this meaninglessness, one should be occupied with things above the sun.
But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Luke 12:31
Report comment to moderator
Will Smith is as close as you can get for a sure bet in terms of entertainment. However, many of you need to broaden your film viewing from the cineplex before despairing about the cultural wasteland.
Today I watched Conspiracy Theory and Lord of War — both American made mainstream film yet not cultural pap for the masses — well designed and well thought out entertainment yet with a literary quality.
Report comment to moderator
Well that’s the snobbery I was talking about. There are plenty of good actors, and writers, working in film. It’s easy to point at the trifles and dismiss the whole enterprise, but it’s deliberately cultivated ignorance to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Karen: There are movies that I watch because I’m feeling kinda like a movie night, and want to just kick back, relax, and entertain myself. There are movies however, that go beyond those casual senses to pervade both spiritual, cultural, and intellectual aspects of my mind. That is why I would enjoy Bad Boys 1&2, but wouldn’t put it anywhere near Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. I’m a fan of all those movies, but not in the same way, or in the same level. The same goes for Actors. I’m a fan of Gibson, Washinton, and yes, even Smith. However, only two of those actors come with careers that are yes entertaining, but also have used their careers as an art form to truly play roles that goes beyond my casual need for entertainment. Will Smith is good for a few yucks and giggles, but to put him in a category with say, Wayne, Heston, Gable, Stewart, Hepburn, Cooper, e.t.c. is insulting. Not because he is a bad actor, but because… (no need to reiterate).
I would say though, that I Am Legend is a remarkable first step by Smith toward establishing himself as a more serious non-cartoonish actor. If he keeps getting those kind of roles, he could be onto something.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Lord Of War? Are you joking me? What a pile of crap. What are you gonna praise next, Jarhead?
Report comment to moderator
Fyne Jr. – Thanks for clearing that up. Now I see what you mean.
Like you, I enjoy “fun” movies for hanging out with the family, but I also enjoy movies that are deeper.
I enjoyed I Am Legend, too. Smith was surprisingly good in that.
Report comment to moderator
the moral ambiguity, the historical realism – make lord of war a good film although not the most entertaining
Report comment to moderator
“When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.”
Since when were critics in charge of culture? When was the last time a critic recommended something that was not trash? And how does a postmodern cultural critic decide what is trash or not? So who is out of touch, the culture or the critics?
If critics are no longer in charge of culture (as if they ever were), then what criteria are available to decide whether movies are good?
My criterion is whether I would be willing to buy it on DVD. It means I am willing to watch it more than once, which means it probably has some depth.
What are your most favorite purchased DVDs?
Report comment to moderator
I just saw Hancock.
I definately wouldn’t call it trash culture. It was just mindless entertainment. I thought the first half was funny and refreshing, kind of like the Incredibles. A has-been superhero needs to make a new appearance.
The second half of the story line was kind of hokey and disappointing. I thought I caught one curious reference to Hancock being one of the angels in 4 B.C. Not sure what that was about.
Otherwise it was standard summer movie fare. The language was fairly tame compared to other movies of this genre. Teen boys would love it. Silly, but entertaining.
Report comment to moderator
When was the last time a critic recommended something that was not trash?
More snobbery. Do you actually pay attention to what critics recommend? If you did, you’d know that’s not true. If you don’t, you have no call to make that judgment.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of these are on Amazon for a couple of bucks plus shipping.
Romeo + Juliet (updated or backdated Shakespeare — you decide)
Motorcycle Diaries (David Lynch never filmed anything this cool)
The Aviator
Farewell My Concubine
Cradle Will Rock
King Kong 2006 (trash culture bows to camp treasure!)
Cast Away
I [heart] Huckabees
Sideways
The Ladykillers (Alec Guiness, of course)
Chasing Amy
Midsummer Night’s Dream 1999 – (because of Bottom and his village players)
Jackie Brown — Elmore Leonard shines
Monster’s Ball (only if you’re immune to the hazard of class voyeurism)
Angels in America — No, they don’t fear to tread this ground.
The Limey
Report comment to moderator
More
Kinsey – a better “academic movie” than Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf
Babe, Pig in the City — eat your allegories
Walkabout — Didya know that Nicolas Roeg worked on Lawrence of Arabia?
Report comment to moderator
#25 When was the last time a critic recommended something that was not trash? – More snobbery.
It is the critics who are the snobs. They rave about movies like “No Country for Old Men” which was easily the WORST film made in the history of cinema. It had no plot, no climax, no resolution, horrible cinematography, gratuitous violence and every character mumbled nonsense. Then it just ended.
If Hollywood critics like it, that pretty much guarantees that it will be horrible.
Report comment to moderator
NCFOM was the funniest movie without laughs that’s ever been made, which was a trick, and not the kind of trick the Coen Bros. should try again. You can’t let trash culture make you hysterical, which is what I think happened in this movie. Of course it had a plot, climax, and resolution. A theme or two, too. And it was very well made.
Stephen Hunter didn’t like it (I liked one of his thrillers) — but talk about hysteria. He took down his own review of Brokeback Mountain because he saw how irrational his reaction to it was.
XION, did you like 3:10 to Yuma? It was better than the original in every way.
Report comment to moderator
Well Xion, if you listed ten of your favorite movies, I bet we’d find that a lot of the critics liked them too.
Which, unless I’m quite wrong about that, undoes your thesis completely.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a list of philosophical films according to one university professor.
Sorry Scroop, I don’t like any of your movies.
SteveG – You’re right. My two all time favorites won Best Picture: Forrest Gump and Gladiator, but this is very rare.
Report comment to moderator
Why isn’t NCFOM a philisophical film?
Report comment to moderator
A film exemplifying existential nihilism? I suppose that works …
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!