New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Progress is a funny thing. When progress happens in front of you, you either ignore it or you champion it to the great frustration of the people who ignore it. In filmdom, this kind of dual reaction can be more and more galling. This summer has been filled with mostly unremarkable films, but two of the most popular films of the year - Toy Story 3 and Inception - have also garnered harsh and vitriolic debates about what’s good, what’s bad, what’s groundbreaking, and what’s not. Is Inception one of the best films of all time? What about Toy Story 3? What happens if you don’t like either movie? (Side note: how could a person seriously, genuinely, not like Pixar movies? I’m not saying you have to love them, but…it’s Pixar. Seriously.) The debates also bring into question our view of what a game-changing movie is.

When we look into the past, it’s interesting to consider the movies that were considered groundbreaking at the time. One example, the most often used, is the 1941 classic Citizen Kane. As I’ve mentioned in the past, Citizen Kane is a truly groundbreaking film, one that paved the way for filmmakers to use the camera in ways that no one could have imagined before. That said, when people watch it these days, they watch it through the prism of the film being considered the best ever. These people watch and are not sufficiently blown away (something Citizen Kane has spawned is a lot of copies of its structure or biographical nature), and thus are disappointed. There’s so much to consider from the technical aspect, though, so much to appreciate; I’d say the same of the dramatic side of the film, as well.

I’ve prided myself on being able, or on attempting to, separate myself from hype when reviewing some of these movies. So I was left looking for words when I finished watching, for the first time, Bonnie and Clyde. This 1967 drama about two of the most famous gangsters of the Great Depression is considered one of the best American films of the 1960s and something that brought the style of the French New Wave to our shores. Why was I left cold by this film? Part of it is that the progress that is shown off here, mostly thanks to director Arthur Penn, is so minimal that it’s unable to carry the movie. The film starred Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, and Gene Hackman, so it’s not lacking for good actors. What the movie lacks, mostly on purpose, is momentum.

For those of you who don’t know, or are only vaguely aware of the names, Bonnie and Clyde refers to Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow (Dunaway and Beatty). The movie begins with Clyde wooing Bonnie away from her boring life in Texas, partly by trying to steal her mother’s car and partly by robbing a convenience store. He’s a good-looking, daring type, and Bonnie is ready to leave her home at any cost, so he cements his status as a bad boy by holding up the local five-and-dime. From that point on, it’s the fast lane for Bonnie and Clyde; along with a few friends and family, they go around the Midwest, rob banks, kill some people recklessly, and live hard. Of course, the last part of that equation is that they must die young, and boy, do they ever.

Continued:       1       2