My Films – the 1960s
David Lean, Lawrence of Arabia
Columbia 1962
216′ / RT: 98% / Oscars 7/10
Lawrence of Arabia defines the genre of epic. Based of the life of Englishman T. E. Lawrence, it shows his extraordinary mobilizing of the Arab tribes on behalf of the British against the Turks in the 1914-18 Great War. Roger Ebert says, “It is about spectacle and experience…. about things you can see or feel, not things you can say. Much of its appeal is based on the fact that it does not contain a complex story with lots of dialogue; we remember the quiet, empty passages, the sun rising across the desert, the intricate lines traced by the wind in the sand” (Chicago Sun-Times, 2001).
- Lawrence of Arabia won seven Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director – but not Best Actor for O’Toole. In the history of film, and in world cinema, it remains an enormously influential film.
- I was seventeen when I first saw Lawrence of Arabia. The film made a deep impression on me, as did David Lean’s earlier film, The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and his later Doctor Zhivago (1965). Any of the three could make my list, but I chose Lawrence of Arabia because of its vast scope as a film, the superb acting of Peter O’Toole (Lawrence), Alec Guinness (Prince Faisal), Jack Hawkins (General Allenby), & Omar Sharif (Sherif Ali), but above all for the complex, mysterious character that was T. E. Lawrence.
-
As Roger Ebert explains, “Using O’Toole’s peculiar speech and manner as their instrument, [Lean & writer Robert Bolt] created a character who combined charisma and craziness, who was so different from conventional military heroes that he could inspire the Arabs to follow him in a mad march across the desert…. What Lean, Bolt and O’Toole create is a sexually and socially unconventional man who is simply presented as what he is, without labels or comment” (Chicago Sun-Times, 2001).
An epic between war film & biography, this is a superb film. In 2012, Sony Pictures did a major 4k digital restoration, ready for the 50th Anniversary showing in cinemas, which will be on October 4th, 2o12. I already have my ticket. This is a masterpiece of world cinema.
John Schlesinger
Far From the Madding Crowd
Warner-Pathe 1967
168′ / RT: None / Oscars: 0/1
-
This film was popular in England, but far less so in the United States. Based on the 1874 novel by Thomas Hardy and set in the County of Dorset, it tells the story of headstrong Bathsheba (Julie Christie), who inherits her uncle’s farm, and her three suitors – her shepherd Gabriel (Alan Bates), lonely famer William Boldwood (Peter Finch), and handsome soldier Francis Troy (Terrence Stamp).
- I saw this film at age twenty-two, loving Bathsheba’s stubborness (reminiscent of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, which I read in 1960), and also, no doubt, Julie Christie’s beauty. But the novel, not for the first time, is more complex and satisfying than the film. As Roger Ebert explains, “Thomas Hardy’s novel told of a 19th Century rural England in which class distinctions and unyielding social codes surrounded his characters. They were far from the madding crowd … because there was nowhere else to turn…. Schlesinger seems to shy away from this kind of social approach, preferring to supply a picturesque and charming (but aimless) movie about life down on the farm” (Chicago Sun-Times, 1968). This is a fair evaluation by Ebert. But, at the time, the film made an impression upon me.
Stanley Kubrick
2001: A Space Odyssey
MGM 1968
142′ / RT: 96% / Oscars: 1/4
-
Another film that deserves the term epic, and not only because of allusions to Homer’s Odyssey. Originally a cult movie, over the years it has grown in stature. Michael Wimington called it “an extraordinary, obsessive, beautiful work of art” (Chicago Tribune). The 2002 Sight & Sound poll ranked 2001: A Space Odyssey among the top ten films of all time. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, the film was co-written by Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke, based in part on Clarke’s short story, “The Sentinel” (1951).
- This remains a strange, paradoxical film. We forget the actors (can you remember who played the two astronauts?), yet we remember the slow dance of the spaceships, the Blue Danube by Johann Strauss II, and Also sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss. We remember the sinister, controlling voice of the HAL 9000 computer. By the way, the two astronauts were played by Keith Dullea (Dave) & Gary Lockwood (Frank), but is it not HAL who is more memorable? As many know, HAL is one digit from IBM, although Clarke claimed this was coincidence. Yet, it is not the cold perfection of HAL that we are left with, but his “nervous breakdown,” and his very human fear of memory removal & computer death.
- Early in the process, Stanley Kubrick knew the film would be largely a non-verbal experience. Both image & music would be crucial to that aim. Thus, the film breaks away from normal narrative development, “About half the music in the film appears either before the first line of dialogue or after the final line. Almost no music is heard during any scenes with dialogue” (Wikipedia). This is a film to think deeply about. We reflect upon man’s place in a vast universe. Not all current audiences may not be prepared for that. Yet, the literature on the ambiguity & interpretation of 2001:A Space Odyssey is vast and continues to grow.
- It is, perhaps, in the conclusion that this film make its greatest impact. As Roger Ebert writes, “all the machines and computers are forgotten in this astonishing last half-hour of this film, and man somehow comes back into his own….. a universe where time and space are twisted. What Kubrick is saying, in the final sequence, apparently, is that man will eventually outgrow his machines, or be drawn beyond them by some cosmic awareness. He will then become a child again, but a child of an infinitely more advanced, more ancient race, just as apes once became, to their own dismay, the infant stage of man” (1968 Review). An amazing film.
Ken Russell
Women in Love
United Artists 1969
131′ / RT: 90% / Oscars: 1/4
This Ken Russell film, based on the D. H. Lawrence novel, Women in Love (1920), tells of the complex relationship between two sisters, Gudrun Brangwen (Glenda Jackson, who received a Best Actress Oscar) and Ursula (Jennie Linden), and their men, Gerald Crich (Oliver Reed) and Rupert Birkin (Alan Bates). Gudrun & Gerald’s relationship was negative & doomed, whereas Ursula & Rupert’s relationship was more positive.
- In England, Women in Love was regarded as a very good adaptation of Lawrence’s “controversial novel about love, sex and the upper class in England” (Wikipeda). I remember seeing it while studying D. H. Lawrence for my MA degree. I found the film an emotionally powerful realization of the novel. For me, having read the book, I experienced a delicious shock of recognition.
- Vincent Canby’s 1970 review is good: “Although the novel’s ideas are necessarily simplified onscreen, the movie does capture a feeling of nature and of physical contact between people, and between people and nature, that is about as sensuous as anything you’ve probably ever seen in a film. Also faithful to Lawrence is the feeling that the relationship between the two men, though unfulfilled, is somehow cleaner, less messy, than the relationships of the men with their women. When Birkin first makes love to Ursula, a frantic assignation in the woods, it’s a sort of mad scramble of garters, buttons, and lust. When, however, he and Gerald strip to the buff to wrestle—in the movie’s loveliest sequence—there is a sense of positive grace in the eroticism” (New York Times). Among film adaptations of literary works, Women in Love is an excellent example.
My Films – the 1960s
Raymond M. Vince
© 10th September 2012
https://rayvince.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
- These are my personal lists by decade, not necessarily the greatest films of all time. They are the movies that have meant the most to me. Some are recognized as great movies: some may seem more marginal. But, to some degree, all have illuminated and interpreted my life. Most of my chosen films are American or British, but some are from other cultures. However, I have yet to see some of the greatest foreign films.
- The films are not ranked in order of merit. I have arranged them in chronological order, by decade, beginning with the 1940s. But if we were to rank them, critics have usually put Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (1941) first, describing it as the greatest of all American films. Number two are three are usually The Godfather (1972) and Casablanca (1942), in either order. Recently, in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll, Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958) was, to the surprise of many, voted number one. As time goes by, our way of viewing films, our expectations of a great film, and our evaluations of excellence, change. These are simply my choices as I see them in 2012.
- For each film, along with an image or photograph of the film, I give
Director & Title
Distributor & Year of Release
Running time in minutes / Rotten Tomatoes Rating (RT) / Oscars Won / Nominated.
- Then, I have annotated each film with comments, quotations, & evaluations. Of the film critics, I find Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) generally the most perceptive & helpful, but other critics are also cited. Quotations and information is taken from various sources, including IMDB, Filmsite.org, Rotten Tomatoes, and Wikipedia.
Raymond M. Vince
September 2012
I was twelve when this World War II film was released: at the time it impressed me greatly. David Lean’s film is set in Thailand, after the British defeat by the Japanese at the Fall of Singapore in February 1942. That defeat was the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history. The story is a work of fiction, based on a 1952 French novel. But there is no doubt that the historical setting, the forced construction of the Burma Railway in 1942-43 by British soldiers from a Japanese prison camp, was very real.
The revaluation of Vertigo in the last half-century is unparalleled. Its initial release brought mixed reviews: it received two minor Oscar nominations but no awards. But, gradually, its reputation, and that of English director Alfred Hitchcock, has grown. I saw it in 1958 or 1959: only more recently have I recognized its amazing innovation.
The masterpiece of Orson Welles, who was both director & leading actor. He was only 26 at the time. Attacked by the Hearst Newspaper empire, the film often was not exhibited by cinema owners because of intimidation and legal threats. In its initial run, therefore, the film lost money. In the 1941 Oscars, while it received nine nominations (but booed each time), it won only one Oscar (Best Writing). Gradually its reputation as a film grew. Now most critics regard Citizen Kane as the greatest American film of all time. The story is loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst (though Welles denied this), and on other people, including Welles. The film is astonishingly innovative – particularly in cinematography, music, & narrative style.
Almost certainly the best-loved film, at least in the English-speaking world. Critically, Casablanca is usually found in the top three American films. It is a classic story of love & war, with a brilliant and witty script, and characters that we care about. Almost all the film is set within Rick’s Cafe, yet somehow we are very aware of World War II, just outside the door. For that reason, I have shown it in my course War in Literature & Film at the University of Tampa. Like Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms (1929) and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940), Curtiz brought together a war film & a love story. In so doing, he created an enduring cultural masterpiece.
A masterpiece of British cinema, with the screenplay written by Graham Greene. The notorious Harry Lime, played by Orson Welles, may be based on the famous British spy & traitor, Kim Philby. Joseph Cotton is pulp writer Holly Martins, Trevor Howard plays Major Calloway, and Alida Valli is Anna Schmidt, Lime’s girlfriend. 
rayvince 