AFI 100 Review: #50 Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid

My original intent was to approach this list counting down from 100. That was back when I still got discs from Netflix. But now it's a little harder to catch these movies in the order that they were ranked, and I don't want to go broke buying them to watch them.

This week I actually had the opportunity to see Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid in the theatre as part of the TCM year long film festival. Last summer we saw Jaws in the theatre, and I have to admit it was a different experience seeing it on the big screen. Louder. Bigger. And this one was similar. As many times as I've seen it, it was different seeing it in the theatre.

Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid

1969

Directed By: George Roy Hill

Written By: William Goldman

Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross, and Strother Martin

The Acting: I've always thought the ultimate compliment you can give any actor would be to question whether they were actually acting or not. Everyone here seems effortless. Newman, of course, is spectacular. This is a part made for him. He's got the swagger, the charm, and a hefty amount of the great lines in the movie. There's absolutely nothing for me to complain about him here.

Redford is just as suited for this role. He's great here, and it really pains me to say that. You see, I'm not a Robert Redford fan. That's an opinion of mine earned by Mr. Redford over the years and years after this movie where he has refused to come to terms with the fact that he is getting older. Like Butch tells Sundance in the film, "Every day you get older. Now that's just a law!"

Redford built a career on this role, and has spent the rest of his days stuck in it. Even at 70 years old, he still sees himself as a romantic leading man whereas Newman embraced the autumn of his years. Newman grew older and played older characters. Imagine Redford in Road To Perdition instead of Newman. It makes me shudder to think about it. Actually, if Redford had been in Road To Perdition, he would have insisted on playing the Tom Hanks part. Anyway, as much as I don't care for Redford, he's really, really good here. This is literally him at the top of his game.

A  lot of the strength of this film comes from the fact that the smaller parts are played just as well. Katharine Ross is breathtakingly beautiful and somewhat heartbreaking as Sundance's girlfriend. As she says, "I'm 26, and I'm single, and a school teacher, and that's pretty much the bottom of the pit." She knows none of this will end well, but is along for the ride. Her strength in this role comes from the fact that she plays it as though she is in love with both Sundance and Butch. The character alludes to it at one point, but she brings it to life in every scene she's in. And really, the audience is pretty much in love with them too.

Strother Martin turns a bit part, as miner Percy Garris, into another memorable character ("What we have here is...failure to communicate.") He really has very limited screen time, but makes the most of it. Like his character says, he's "colorful." A friend of mine at work loves this movie as much as I do, and we often end up using Percy Garris quotes while at work. "Don't you wanna know why?" and "Morons, I've got morons on my team" are favorites. He's a very likable character thanks to Mr. Martin, and his death marks the first real regret that Butch and Sundance feel about the path they've chosen. Bingo.

The death of Percy Garris and the subsequent deaths of the men who killed him at the hands of Butch and Sundance, actually leads to my favorite moment in the film. As the men lay dead, the dust slowly blowing over their bodies, Butch and Sundance remain motionless, surveying the scene. This is the result of their trying to get real jobs and stop their lives of being outlaws. Butch moments before had never shot a man, and these are the first men that are harmed by either Butch or Sundance's guns in the entire film. The dead men are definitely bad guys, but it's the moment in the film when our main characters, as well as the audience, realize they're on their way down a path which can only end one way. Redford quietly delivers what is one of my favorite lines: "Well, we've tried going straight. Now what?"

Interesting: What's interesting to me about this movie is the use of montages and the soundtrack accompanying them. Twice during the film we go to a very sepia toned series of still pictures depicting a passage of time. They are set to music that's almost comical. It's like the music that parodies would play set to "old timey" pictures. Maybe music from a nickelodeon. Here it kind of works for me, but there's no denying that it really brings you out of the film. You are almost purposefully reminded that you are watching a movie. I don't know that it's a good thing, but I accept it as part of this movie's charm.

There's also another sequence that is set to "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head." In it, Paul Newman performs tricks on a bicycle. The scene is kind of legend due to the story that a stuntman was given days and days to develop tricks to perform on the bicycle, but showed up to set with nothing. Paul Newman on the spot made up and performed all of the tricks (except riding backwards which was performed by the cinematographer). The whole thing is kind of fun, but I don't really care for the song. I think you could take that scene out of the movie, and you wouldn't lose anything. I don't mind that it's in there, but if it wasn't I wouldn't miss it.

Another interesting piece of trivia, and one that I just learned, is the fact that Sam Elliott is one of the card players at the table in the beginning of the movie. You can't really see him, but the internet says it's him.

Cultural Impact: When we saw the film this week at the theatre, there was an introduction by TCM's Ben Mankiewicz where he talked about the fact that this film, released in 1969, really spoke to the counterculture. He said it was a film about two men bucking society and convention, and going about life in their own way. I hadn't ever heard that before, and I'm not sure I see it.

Director John Boorman was apparently very critical of this film and labeled it the death of the western film genre. The funny thing is that I don't really consider it a western. Sure there are horses, six shooters, and cowboy hats, but the movie itself kind of makes the point that the "west" is dying out. The bicycle salesman actually tells his listeners they won't need horses anymore. The movie is more of a comedy to me (because I laugh through the whole thing,) and it's unconventional soundtrack keeps me from thinking "western." This movie is more about the relationship between the two main characters.

I consider Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to be one of the best buddy movies ever made. Every guy wants to be one of them, and every woman wants to be with one of them (or maybe both.) These two were just very, very likable in these roles. It was kind of the perfect storm of ingredients coming together and making a movie.

Does This Film Belong On My List: Yes. I think this movie does belong on the list. It's number 50 on the original list, and while I haven't ever really made my own list, it feels like this film would be somewhere in the middle of my top 100.

AFI 100 Review: #14 Some Like It Hot

A friend of mine, Jeremy, had previously suggested when I restarted my blog that I continue my reviewing of all 100 of the AFI Greatest Movies of All Time (1998). I got a cd of Christmas music from Jeremy today; something that Jeremy continues to do every year, even though I don't see him but once or twice a year anymore. Since he's committed to that tradition, I figure I can finish what I started with the AFI thing.

Some Like It Hot

1959

Directed By: Billy Wilder

Written By: Billy Wilder, I. A. L. Diamond

Starring: Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, Marilyn Monroe

The Acting: The stories about Marilyn Monroe's behavior on set are legendary. Stories like her needing over 30 takes to deliver lines like, "It's me, Sugar." And she apparently still needed it written down to the side of the camera before she could finally get it right. She was obviously the big star here, and if you can forget the stories about her, her performance is pretty fun. She plays ditzy convincingly and occasionally gets a laugh in. (There's the potential for an entire post devoted to her dresses that make it look like she's exposing her breasts.)

Tony Curtis has never been a real favorite of mine. I don't have any reason not to like him, but I just don't love him. Here, he gets points from me for making fun of Cary Grant; someone I really don't care for. Bonus points for the fact that Cary Grant didn't like Tony Curtis making fun of him. Curtis plays the straight man for most of this movie, but occasionally gets some solid laughs in.

Jack Lemmon is the stand out here. This wasn't his first film by any means. His biggest before this was Mister Roberts with Henry Fonda. But this was a film where he stands out head and shoulders above the other actors.

His delivery, his gestures, and his looks are golden. I find myself backing up and watching the scenes where he really shines over and over. If you want a specific example of what I'm talking about, check him out just after they get on the train, when he comments about "men" and how he does everything to avoid them. His lines are funny enough, but he sneaks a glare in right at the end that makes me cry.

Interesting: What's interesting to me about this story is the fact that it is one of the few films to have been given a "Condemned" rating from the Roman Catholic Church's Legion of Decency; an organization created in 1933 to combat objectionable content in movies. It actually still exists, but has been rolled into other organizations within the Catholic Church and doesn't really wield the power that it did when this film came out. (And before you go down that path, I was raised Catholic and have a friend who reviews movies for a Catholic website that are very much on point.)

The "Condemned" rating no doubt came from the fact that the majority of the movie is spent with two of our stars in drag, one of whom ends up engaged to a man who doesn't realize he's a man in drag. And when on the verge of marriage to Jack Lemmon in drag it is finally revealed to him that Jack Lemmon is a man, he delivers one of the classic lines in all movie history.

Cultural Impact: I'm not sure that this movie has much cultural impact beyond the fact that it ranks #14 on the AFI list of best films of all time, and #1 on AFI's list of best comedies. Screenwriters might watch it as a blueprint. I might be wrong, but I don't think this movie paved the way for cross dressing being accepted. The implied possibility of a homosexual relationship didn't really lead to a flurry of similar films in 1960.

No, the only real cultural impact I can see is the fact that this film is just as funny today as it must have been in 1959. It actually gets funnier for me every time I watch it. I notice things, subtle things, that I didn't notice before each time. For instance, this last viewing I saw that Sweet Sue puts a pill in her mouth, removes it, then puts it back in. It made me laugh at how ridiculous it was, but I also admired it for how it was a very calculated move by the actress. Not done for a huge laugh, but 55 years later it still gets one.

Does This Film Belong On My List: Absolutely. It really is one of the funniest movies of all time. I don't think it belongs at the top of the list of funny films (I reserve that spot for Buster Keaton's The General) but there is no denying it's a funny as hell movie.

AFI 100 Review: #98 Unforgiven

Unforgiven

1992

Directed By: Clint Eastwood

Written By: David Webb Peoples

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, Jaimz Woolvett

The Acting: This film has some real heavy hitters and you get just what you would expect from such a lineup. Gene Hackman won an Oscar for his performance here as a real son-of-a-bitch former outlaw gunslinger turned lawman. He's as mean as a rattler and likes to have fun with his prey, but that's not really a surprise. This isn't new ground but Hackman performs well and is enjoyable in a sadistic kind of way.

Morgan Freeman also performs well. He's the former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer, as he states himself when we are first introduced to him. This part isn't really a stretch for him either. It actually reminds me of his character in Seven.

And, of course, there's Clint Eastwood as another former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer. He plays the torment well, here, as he slowly slides out of his decent life as a farmer and back into his old ways of killin'.

Richard Harris makes a brief entry into the narrative. But as one review I read commented, he really doesn't do anything to move the story along. If anything he's just enjoyable as a still son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger who espouses at length how much better the English do everything.

All the other players do well, including the one that plays the young gunslinger wannabe. But I can't remember seeing him in anything after this movie so his career must have floundered after this film.

Interesting: What's interesting to me about this story is the complete lack of discussion about a moral standard. Everyone's on the line here. The whores that band together to raise the bounty for the cowboys that cut up one of their own? They hire men to kill other men. Surely the woman was wronged, but is it deserving that the two should pay with their lives? The pair that did the cutting? Well, one of them seems like a decent boy caught up in something he wanted no part in. He is genuinely sorry and tries to make amends. The hired killers? Well, they hear it that the cowboys did much more horrible things to the prostitute than were actually committed. They know what they're doing isn't necessarily right, but this is all business so it's okay, right? The lawmen? Violent and cruel, but there is law and order in the town.

Now, we could debate all of these points and how I have simplified many of the elements of this story. But I think we can all agree that this film takes no position on right or wrong. In fact, Clint's character himself agrees with the following exchange:

The Schofield Kid: "Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming."

Will Munny: "We all got it coming, kid."

Cultural Impact: All of the reviews for this film speak of a eulogy for the Western film. That this movie was an excellent bookend for the genre. They also speak of the significance of the similarities between Eastwood's career and the arc of the character. I won't cover all of that here as you can read those reviews for yourself. But does any of that matter?

When I was in school, I had to present a short film that I had made. Prior to starting the film I stood in front of the class and began to explain what my intentions were when I set out to make this movie. The teacher stopped me mid-sentence and asked a very simple question: "Mr. Voorhies, do you intend to be in every theater in the country and explain what you intended before they show your films, should you become successful?" I immediately got his point. What I intended didn't amount to a hill of beans. The film had to stand on itself.

Now, that shouldn't be confused with anything that the audience projects on the film themselves. It's the difference between Eastwood intending this film as a eulogy for the Western genre and the audience getting to that conclusion on their own. Obviously the two can't be completely separated. The director does have some ability to imply and suggest. But all too often the audience comes to a completely different conclusion.

Take, for instance, The Thing From Another World and it's remake The Thing. The first was intentionally a allegory for McCarthyism. But the second became an allegory for the beginning of the AIDs epidemic when the audience noticed things about the film that the filmmakers never intended. (I wrote a blog entry on this here.)

Anyway, I don't see this film as culturally impacting. I don't consider it a eulogy for the Western since eleven years after this film was released my third favorite Western of all time was released: Open Range.

Does This Film Belong On My List: No, I don't think so. There are some really great moments here. But that doesn't make a great film.

AFI 100 Review: #99 Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

1967

Directed by: Stanley Kramer

Written by: William Rose

Starring: Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Sydney Poitier, Katherine Houghton, Cecil Kellaway, Beah Richards, Roy E. Glenn

The Acting: I've never liked Katherine Hepburn. Her voice to me is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Here, she was as close to me liking her as I've ever been. Her performance was almost understated and most of what I didn't like here could be blamed on the character of the story.

But Spencer Tracy is the real revelation for me here. I've seen him in many of his older films, but none of his later films. As this was the case, I recognized his portrayal as Karl from "Up." Even so, he really is marvelous. I like that he's surly and pragmatic. His character is sincerely concerned with the physical abuse that the couple faces. (Incidentally, this was his last as he died seventeen days after filming was completed. His health was failing and he knew he was going to die soon. So his acting here, coupled with the fact that he so clearly agrees with the film's message, takes on a heightened sense of poignancy.)

Sidney Poitier does a great job as well. I must admit my only other real exposure to him in film is in Shoot To Kill. But here, he is reserved and very in control. He plays this perfectly giving the audience and the other characters of the story no reason to object to the union other than race.

Cultural Impact: Well, this movie is designed to be culturally significant. It's the whole reason for its being. All parties set out to make a point. This movie was released in 1967 and there couldn't have been a more ripened time for it to hit the population. This film ends with a speech (a good one at that) that explains why Spencer Tracy was wrong to think as he did. And it's delivered to convince the audience as well. But I don't believe anyone went to see this film that didn't agree with it before they entered the theatre. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not giving film the power it deserves, but I've always considered film to be a medium that best nudges society in directions. There really isn't anything subtle about this film in the end.

Does It Belong On My List: I want to say "yes," based on the importance of the subject matter. But as I stated before, I don't think this movie convinced anyone that wasn't already in agreement. So how culturally significant was it? Maybe there is significance in the fact that the film was made by a major movie studio with major players. Maybe that's an accomplishment in itself. But in the end I have to say, "no."

AFI 100 Review: #100 Yankee Doodle Dandy

Yankee Doodle Dandy

1942

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Written by: Robert Buckner, Edmund Joseph, Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein

Starring: James Cagney, Joan Leslie, Walter Huston, Richard Whorf

I have to admit, I really didn't want to watch this one. I had no idea what it was about so that really doesn't make sense. It's number 100 on the American Film Institute's list of the greatest movies of all time so that is where I started with my Netflix. It arrived and then sat next to the television for over two months. Paula finally sent it back assuming that I wouldn't watch it, but I was duty bound. And as if the universe was Hell bent on helping me on my way, Turner Classic Movies featured it for July 4th this year.

What I liked: Honestly? Not much. This really isn't my kind of movie. Not that I don't like musicals, because I do. This is a biography but it seems like one that tries to include too much. What you get is almost a skimming of the story. There was a little bit of comedy that I found appealing. I can distinctly remember at one point saying "That's funny." The bad thing is that I don't remember what it was so it couldn't have been life changing or anything.

The Acting: Cagney won an Academy Award for this, but he always just seems like Cagney to me. No, he's not the gangster on top of the world, but he's still Cagney. Sometimes that works (see John Wayne) but it doesn't work for me with Cagney.

The Music: This is a musical and there are a few full music numbers featured. None of them really struck me. As it happens, I really don't like the title song.

Cultural Impact: I bet this is pretty neat stuff to anyone who wants to know more about the life of George M. Cohan. But I don't. Yeah, the movie was released in 1942 not long after the United States entered the war. But there isn't really anything patriotic about this movie for me. Perhaps it reinforces the American Dream and perhaps that's what some of us were fighting for. I guess I like my patriotism a little more blatant and over the top.

Does It Belong On My List: Nope.