27. Bonnie & Clyde 1967
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/
Bonnie and Clyde was not initially received well by most film critics, but the public response to the film was so overwhelming that many critics were forced to change their tune. When faced with this fact, the question is posed: What was it that made it so popular with the public? The answer is the groundbreaking format, the fact that it no longer had to follow the rules of the production code, the opportunity which it afforded its actors, and the stunning costumes.
The film itself does not follow the typical “protagonist versus antagonist” format which had been the format for so many films of that time. Rather, this film followed an “antagonist versus antagonist” format. The actual protagonists in the story were not Bonnie and Clyde, but the victims of their crimes. Bonnie’s mother and the establishment (for example: banks and big corporations) were among the victims in the film. Bonnie’s mother, however, was only offered a bit of screen time and the actress who portrayed her was not a star. Also, since the dawn of anti-establishment thinking was at hand, the public had no sympathy for the banks and big corporations. Additionally, the fact that the time period of the story was the Great Depression, where people were doing anything they could to survive, helped to promote Bonnie and Clyde’s cause. This was portrayed by the scene where Clyde goes in to rob the bank which went under just days prior to the robbery. Additionally, there were parts of the film which portrayed Bonnie and Clyde in a martyr-like light, almost demanding that the public join the side of the criminals. These scenes included the sequence with Gene Wilder and the scene in the bank where Clyde tells the man to put his money in his pocket, followed by that man being interviewed. By using these scenes, the public is almost convinced that Bonnie and Clyde are “Robin Hoods” of their time, save for the fact that they do not give any of the money away. Subsequently, since the real protagonists were not glorified, the antagonists in the film were portrayed by degrees; since the “cops” were “worse” than the “robbers”, the public sided with the lesser of the two evils.
In 1967, at the dawn of the new wave of cinema and anti-establishment train of thought, this film no longer had to follow the guidelines of the production code, which specifically stated that, “No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.” Now that this regulation was lifted, the story could be told in the way it was meant to be told. Since the public was not used to this kind of plot, it became a novel idea which the public respected.
The acting in this film afforded Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder a chance to spread their proverbial artistic wings. It became a launching pad for all of its stars and was a reinvention role for Warren Beatty. Although he had been on the Hollywood scene for a while, he had never been allowed to play the “bad” guy because of his good looks. He struggled to get this film made the way he wanted. This film offered Faye Dunaway unparalleled opportunity. Prior to this film, she was relatively unknown to the public. After this film, she went on to make such films as Chinatown, Network, and Mommie Dearest. Gene Hackman was once again paired with his Lilith costar, Beatty, and largely due to his portrayal of Buck, his career shot upwards. For Gene Wilder, a television actor, this was his first foray into film, and afterwards, he was offered the role of Leo Bloom in Mel Brooks’ The Producers, which helped to project him into stardom.
However, more than the story itself, it was the costumes which affected popular culture. In the same way that Clark Gable’s lack of an undershirt in It Happened One Night caused sales of undershirts to plummet, the sales of outfits similar to those worn in the film skyrocketed. Berets, below the knee length skirts, culottes, and roaring twenties gangster outfits came back in to style with a vengeance. Because Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty looked so glamorous in these outfits, the style shook the foundation of the fashion industry.
Eventually, film critics were forced to reevaluate their opposition to this film and recognize it as an important part of popular culture, if only for the aforementioned reasons. Regardless of how the critics felt about the film’s plot or characterizations, there was no denying that it was one of the most ground-breaking films of its time.
Bonnie and Clyde was not initially received well by most film critics, but the public response to the film was so overwhelming that many critics were forced to change their tune. When faced with this fact, the question is posed: What was it that made it so popular with the public? The answer is the groundbreaking format, the fact that it no longer had to follow the rules of the production code, the opportunity which it afforded its actors, and the stunning costumes.
The film itself does not follow the typical “protagonist versus antagonist” format which had been the format for so many films of that time. Rather, this film followed an “antagonist versus antagonist” format. The actual protagonists in the story were not Bonnie and Clyde, but the victims of their crimes. Bonnie’s mother and the establishment (for example: banks and big corporations) were among the victims in the film. Bonnie’s mother, however, was only offered a bit of screen time and the actress who portrayed her was not a star. Also, since the dawn of anti-establishment thinking was at hand, the public had no sympathy for the banks and big corporations. Additionally, the fact that the time period of the story was the Great Depression, where people were doing anything they could to survive, helped to promote Bonnie and Clyde’s cause. This was portrayed by the scene where Clyde goes in to rob the bank which went under just days prior to the robbery. Additionally, there were parts of the film which portrayed Bonnie and Clyde in a martyr-like light, almost demanding that the public join the side of the criminals. These scenes included the sequence with Gene Wilder and the scene in the bank where Clyde tells the man to put his money in his pocket, followed by that man being interviewed. By using these scenes, the public is almost convinced that Bonnie and Clyde are “Robin Hoods” of their time, save for the fact that they do not give any of the money away. Subsequently, since the real protagonists were not glorified, the antagonists in the film were portrayed by degrees; since the “cops” were “worse” than the “robbers”, the public sided with the lesser of the two evils.
In 1967, at the dawn of the new wave of cinema and anti-establishment train of thought, this film no longer had to follow the guidelines of the production code, which specifically stated that, “No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.” Now that this regulation was lifted, the story could be told in the way it was meant to be told. Since the public was not used to this kind of plot, it became a novel idea which the public respected.
The acting in this film afforded Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder a chance to spread their proverbial artistic wings. It became a launching pad for all of its stars and was a reinvention role for Warren Beatty. Although he had been on the Hollywood scene for a while, he had never been allowed to play the “bad” guy because of his good looks. He struggled to get this film made the way he wanted. This film offered Faye Dunaway unparalleled opportunity. Prior to this film, she was relatively unknown to the public. After this film, she went on to make such films as Chinatown, Network, and Mommie Dearest. Gene Hackman was once again paired with his Lilith costar, Beatty, and largely due to his portrayal of Buck, his career shot upwards. For Gene Wilder, a television actor, this was his first foray into film, and afterwards, he was offered the role of Leo Bloom in Mel Brooks’ The Producers, which helped to project him into stardom.
However, more than the story itself, it was the costumes which affected popular culture. In the same way that Clark Gable’s lack of an undershirt in It Happened One Night caused sales of undershirts to plummet, the sales of outfits similar to those worn in the film skyrocketed. Berets, below the knee length skirts, culottes, and roaring twenties gangster outfits came back in to style with a vengeance. Because Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty looked so glamorous in these outfits, the style shook the foundation of the fashion industry.
Eventually, film critics were forced to reevaluate their opposition to this film and recognize it as an important part of popular culture, if only for the aforementioned reasons. Regardless of how the critics felt about the film’s plot or characterizations, there was no denying that it was one of the most ground-breaking films of its time.
posted by Susan @ 3:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home