7 Women

Note: this review is a contribution to the John Ford Blogathon hosted by the great folks over at Krell Laboratories and Bemused and Nonplussed.


7 Women (John Ford, 1966)

Of the bunch of John Ford films that I've seen, a total of sixteen, I tend to prefer the tone of his non-Westerns because it takes him out of his "comfort zone" of the American myth and get him into the world of the likes of Tom Joad, Ireland, and in this case Northern China. Ford's final film to the silver screen was 7 Women, a lesser known entry in his oeuvre that was much more celebrated in Europe especially in France with Les Cahiers du Cinema highly praising it and its auteur. While being a catastrophic commercial and critical event in North America it forced him to retire from film making.

This being his last picture in 1966, the Film industry was on the eve of one of its greatest revolutions with the coming of Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Riders, and the revitalization of the 1970's that let much more space for the director as the creative force of the movie they are directing. One could say that it was a more European approach to the seventh art. But I digress, Ford was working with smaller budgets and less freedom over his work during the shooting of his last films. 
However he managed to have a script that was carrying many elements that were dear to him when telling a story. The Catholic mission being the setting of the story, the dedication to a moral duty by the women, the hard headed Dr. Cartwright (Anne Bancroft) that represents contrarity in this balanced world by the strong and very strict Agatha Andrews (Margaret Leighton), the head of the mission, the younger of the women, Emma (Sue Lyon), looking for a role model and flinching between the two "mothers" aforementioned. Are the most forefront characters of this almost entirely female cast. Except for Charles Pether (Eddie Albert) the mission teacher that dreamed to be a reverend and that brought along his middle aged pregnant wife in this far country.

Much like his position on racism that he tries to finally solve with Cheyenne Autumn, 7 Women seems to be his redemption with his projection of the Woman in society. While in his Westerns they are more related to supporting roles. With this film, he makes them the stars of his swan song. This is almost unexpected but also very revealing of the aging master's late redemption with his earlier detractors.

The film has this Fordian dilemma between moral values and moral dedication, it also shows much like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance how words don't compensate for actions. He also believes in the theory of every one's role in a closeted society. 

When talking about Catholicism, there's a great debate about the level of sacrifice and how one must sin to achieve to help others. No human is a Saint until he dies. This is illustrated in many ways by the most human characters of the movie but also the negative aspects of the purist spirit that put into the action are completely wasted. 

This is an intriguing and also quite enjoyable entry into Ford's filmography even if more than far from his habitual films. The presence of The Graduate's Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) and Lolita's Lolita (Sue Lyon) also brings an interesting aspect because they were actress not remembered for many roles. 

This might appeal more to John Ford enthusiasts, sure because its unique but also because it brings an important aspect of the director and the man sitting in this chair.

The Fortune Cookie

The Fortune Cookie (Billy Wilder, 1966)

CBS cameraman Harry Hinkle (Jack Lemmon) gets injured when football player Luther "Boom Boom" Jackson (Ron Rich) runs into him while he is covering a Browns game at Cleveland Stadium. Harry's injuries are minor, but his conniving lawyer brother-in-law William H. "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich (Walter Matthau) convinces him to pretend that his leg and hand have been partially paralyzed. This way, they can receive a huge indemnity from the insurance company. Harry reluctantly goes along with the scheme because he is still in love with his ex-wife, Sandy (Judi West), and it might win her back.

Seconds

Seconds (John Frankenheimer, 1966)

What would you do if you were given a second chance to do things right in your life? This is what banker Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph) is given when he becomes the painter Tony Wilson (Rock Hudson). Having the opportunity to go back to his thirties with a different appearance since his first life was wasted. His wife (Frances Reid) and him were not close anymore and his daughter was living far away with her husband. An old friend calls him and convinces him to go to the Company and use their business. This is where his transformation takes place. Once he is Wilson, he realizes that he didn’t really is what he really wanted.

Fahrenheit 451

Fahrenheit 451 (François Truffaut, 1966)

Set in the future of an imaginary country, this tale of a dystopian future was originally written by Ray Bradbury in his novel of the same name. Starring Oskar Werner and Julie Christie this film directed by François Truffaut was one of the films I wanted to watch for a long time since I discovered the films of this auteur. Since he did not make a lot of genre films, and the ones he directed were very unique like his Vivement Dimanche! which is an ode to Hitchcock’s thrillers or Le dernier métro a film on the German occupation in France. Fahrenheit 451 is his sole entry in the Sci-Fi genre and I was intrigued to find what he did with the great novel of Bradbury.

Daisies

Daisies aka Sedmikráski (Vera Chytilová, 1966)
This Czech film, banished by the government when it came out, might be one of the most interesting experimental feminist farce I've ever seen. It is about two girls, Marie I and Marie II and they decided that in this world of conventions, routine, work, they will destroy everything that stands in their way and do everything the way they want it. Breaking up conventions, etiquette, and the whole way the society works. They choose to be "bad" and to only listen to themselves. At one point, it does a certain critique to the teenage girls that want to do nothing and that only live for empty things like clothing, food, getting everything they want from elder men, etc. However, after a while the message of the film unravels slowly and demonstrate how this is a critique towards the things that are regulate but rules or morals. The duo might look like if those two girls were little brats, in many ways they are, but they also represents a wind of freshness and social satire.

This is also a movie about excesses, so much food is wasted and so much alcohol is drank it is almost intoxicating for the viewer. Personal note, if you are a sweet tooth like I am, be sure to watch this after a nice meal otherwise you'll be having a hard time not to get hungry... Daisies is also a direct punch to the Social Republic of Czechoslovakia by displaying two women being individual and doing their own things out of the social conventions. One of them is not even registered, so she is living clandestinely and she doesn't work either.

Chytilová's film is about freedom of speech in the characters she presents in her film but also in the way she makes her film. By breaking barriers and the rules she accomplishes a film reminiscent of Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow Up released the same year that exploited the period of the 1960's. Both films reflect the essence of the decade and their creators denounced different problems. Nevertheless, the core of their films cries out loud 1960's and the climate of revolutions of the ending of this decade.

Finally, Daisies is a cute little (72 minutes) film of weirdness and in your face provocation to the government of its country of origin. Far from being a masterpiece it sure has a potential at being a cult classic. Not for everyone but worth the look.

Persona

Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)

Considering my eternal admiration towards the great master that is Ingmar Bergman, I've decided to treat myself with this review of his most experimental film: Persona. Frankly, my "fanophilia" isn't the main reason why I decided to review this extraordinary masterpiece, it is reaction to the entry of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die Blog Club on December 22nd: The Seventh Seal. Don't worry, I'm not doing Persona instead of The Seventh Seal, the review is already written it is just waiting to be released on the day of the assignment. By the way, if anyone wants to join the club you are all welcome to! Follow the link aforementionned and write to my great friend Squish and he will be more than happy to include you into our active reviewers!

Most of Bergman's films don't feel contemporary, they have this unaged and unaltered by time touch. The Bergman touch, well few filmmakers had the gift to make such rich and strong films. But Bergman is one of the perfect examples, the settings and simple mise en scène lets the story and the emotions take all the space and the viewers' attention. What is more important is that the stories and feelings portrayed and displayed are more often than not universal even if it is a Swedish film about the bourgeoisie or medieval characters. Persona takes a step away from these patterns in many ways but it is this exception that's makes it a film even more interesting than most of the rest of his films. Clearly set in contemporary times, the 1960's with the news footage of the beginning of the film, we are set up in a world where everything is in complete change, mutation, morphosis, even in revolution. Bibi Anderson and Liv Ullman, two of the most beautiful women of the 1960's by the way, are in a cabin where Ullman portrays an actress who stopped talking on the stage and never did since. Bibi, is the nurse who's taknig care of Ullman, she represents innocence and the fact that she always talks about all and anything shows how shallow she is. On the contrary, Ullman who is pratically playing the mute watches and listens to her with contempt and severity while seing clearly through Bibi.

The film brings many questions on the modern society and the many perceptions we have of our world. The title of the film Persona, resumes the central scene of the film that is doubled when the two main characters trade their personalities with a split screen imagined by Bergman himself. It looks like a reflection on the fact that when two people are almost isolated together that they kind of begin to look alike. There is also the effect of the character mix where each one gets more and more intertwined with the other one. It is kind of a reaction of their relationship that feels like the younger sister who's taking care of the oldest which should be the other way around. Whatever someone finds as the meaning of the film it is a psychological and philosophical charged film.

The major deception I have with this film it is its release on DVD, done by MGM in a Bergman Boxset that doesn't really live up to the quality of the films. I hope someday Criterion will acquire the rights to make a proper release of this amazing masterpiece.

The Battle of Algiers

The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
Frankly, my dear readers I don’t give a damn about politics and I don’t naturally go to the films that matter about this subject. It was more a mandatory exercise than an actual act of lovemaking towards this renowned film. Even if it was crafted during the great years of the French New Wave and that it influenced Steven Soderbergh on his Che, I had to try three times to actually watch the entire thing. Enough about me and let's discuss the film now.

The chronicle that is the reconstitution of the events that leaded to the independence of Algeria is a solid example of a scientifically and historically documented work of fiction. Almost shot like a documentary and loaning the narratives of the genre, The Battle of Algiers witnesses the revolution of a country that had enough for over 130 years of French wardship. The objective point of view of the narration delivers a strong untainted message that this was a war, or should I say a guerrilla, that marked the world of the 1960’s in its politics and Cinema. The movements of protests of May 68 in France and in many places in the world were influenced by the techniques shown in The Battle of Algiers. A nation that has been occupied for more than a century that could get his freedom was more than inspiring to the young revolutionaries. Many cinephiles of the time recall that these people used to bring paper and pen to the presentations of The Battle of Algiers taking notes on how to start a revolution. The realism of the actions displayed and the natural acting of those non professional actors was a big factor that made this film so unique and powerful.

On a historical value, Pontecorvo directed a very rich depiction of events that occurred less than a decade before the film was shot. It has two historical ways to analyze this complexity. First, the subject is still hot and the memory of the witness and participants of these events is still fresh and uncompromised by the time and the nostalgia or the retreat. It is almost as if Pontecorvo got in the street and shot images while the events actually occurred. A lot like Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center made shortly after the sad events of September 9/11. In the case of The Battle of Algiers, it was clear that the side of the revolutionaries was the side of the heroes and that the Independence of Algeria was the ultimate ending to the film.

Nevertheless, this case of documenting a fresh event like this doesn’t let the test of time and the step back we normally would take to analyze and fully understand the effects of the events displayed. In both cases of The Battle of Algiers and World Trade Center, what counts is the demonstration of how the events occurred in a certain gaze. A great case of Historical study and step back would be the dual films of Clint Eastwood; Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima displaying the two opponents, the two sides, and how they were involved in History.
Meanwhile, The Battle of Algiers has a strong historical value even if it’s a fictional film displaying events in an Algerian “partisanery”. Take the time to discover the wonderful Blu-Ray treatment of the film by Criterion Collection, it is worth the look.

Made in U.S.A

Made in U.S.A (Jean-Luc Godard, 1966)

All you need to make a film is a girl and a gun. – Jean-Luc Godard

With his Made in U.S.A, Godard has literally taken this concept and put it in his film. Anna Karina plays a woman who needs to find the murderer of her fiancé. Ironically Made in U.S.A has never been released in theatres in the US until 2009, or so, because it was adapted from Donald E.Westlake(aka Richard Stark)’s novel that Godard didn’t owned the rights. So the author of the novel has always opposed himself for its release in the US. With this felony apart, this minimalist, film noir inspired, with a B movie feel is somewhat uneasy but really interesting.

The minimalist aspect of Made in U.S.A is palpable in every scene and it even starts with the opening credits passing so quickly that if the viewers blinks he can miss the names of JLG (Jean-Luc Godard),LS (Laszlo Szabo), AK (Anna Karina), JPL (Jean-Pierre Léaud) and moreover the names are written with only the initials of the actors.
We also feel this aspect in the few small sets used to shot the film: a small apartment, a garage, a small garden, a gym, an office. Everything is reduced and the spaces are confined to the frames and most of the scenes are shot with only one angle giving an unidimensional feel to the film. Godard rarely use reverse/reaction shot and in Made in U.S.A he almost never did them. There are some interesting movements of camera, a travelling in the gym and a 360 degree turnaround in the garage. Otherwise, the camera is almost steady all the time with most of the time restrictive shots. The form of the film is minimalist and it’s almost a trademark for Godard to shot with the minimal equipment and to lower the costs of the films, it permits a lot of improvisation and a more flexible panel for his discours.

AK portrays a character that in the 1950’s would have been played by Humphrey Bogart or some film noir classic manly face. But in Godard, everything is different and this innovation to bring a woman character as something very interesting to the story. The detective story takes us in a whole new place and for the first act of the film the viewer is lost into the maze of it.

The content of Made in U.S.A is closer to the first films of Godard where the fresh visions of the French New Wave bringing a new Cinema and a new breath was the main concern of these cineastes. But around 1966, with Masculin-feminin and 2 ou 3 choses que je sais d’elle Jean-Luc Godard has derived into sociological studies of his generation. Shortly after, socialist concerns will be the main propos of his films, like in Tout va bien where we follow a strike of workers. For Made in U.S.A, it’s the fascist controlling aspects of our lives, and moral values that Godard targets. Unlike his more recent films, the narratives are still present and there is an actual story around the messages and the missives. But still, he cites many filmmakers that opened him the way into Cinema, naming his characters with their names: Donald Siegel, Robert Widmak, Inspector Aldrich, and Doris Mizoguchi.

Made in U.S.A marks the transition of Godard’s path into his more engaged films and his aversion towards the US government and its actions. Aside from being an uneasy film, Made in U.S.A is one of the important and interesting films of Jean-Luc Godard’s most prosperous period: the 1960’s. As They Shoot Pictures Don’t They stated this is a recommended film!

El Dorado (1966)

TSPDT Greatest Films #841 El Dorado (Howard Hawks, 1966)

"Hired gunman Cole Thornton (John Wayne) turns down a job with Bart Jason as it would mean having to fight an old sheriff friend. Some months later he finds out the lawman is on the bottle and a top gunfighter is heading his way to help Jason. Along with young Mississippi (James Caan), handy with a knife and now armed with a diabolical shotgun, Cole returns to help."

Another review of another Western. The Western genre has been one of the most popular since the early days of American films. Losing some of its glare in the 1980's and the 1990's with the financial failure of Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate in 1980 it never reached out as strong as it was in the first half of the 20th century. This failure not only scared producers to do big budget Westerns but also closed the door that auteurism American Cinema had wide open in the 1970's. Some of the greatest films of contemporary Cinema were made in the 1970's, just look at this critics' favorite picture of all time Taxi Driver.

A great cast of actors: John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, James Caan and a great director Howard Hawks makes this oftenly underapreciated film an intrying film to look forward to. I had low expectations when I sat to watch El Dorado: I never heard much praised about it and I was afraid to constantly compare it to Hawks' masterpiece, Rio Bravo. Well, both films have many similarities but which Hawks' picture hasn't some to the other? Look at the relationships between the male characters, strong friendships. The woman's names are often masculinized: Josephine is called Joey. It has John Wayne in it... Well, one can go on easily for a long time.

In a way, Hawks repeats himself and mostly retells a classic Western story with Hawksian characters in a Hawksian world. But in another way, he is one of Cinema's greatest storyteller, and this world is very interesting. Moreover, the ride may seem the same as another one but this is still a great ride. El Dorado, takes you on the path of real men, loyal men and sensible men too (talking in a very John Wayne way of things).

To understand its lack of popularity we have to look back at the context when the film came out in 1967, an Italian cult classic Western came out The Good, the Bad and the Ugly refreshing and revisionning the genre. The conservatism of El Dorado may have been a succes to older audiences but the visual extravaganza of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was very appealing and brought something new and a new star to the genre. The liberalism of the Sergio Leone picture was of its time and the right-wing El Dorado/Hawks/Wayne didn't help on a political ground. The end of the 1960's was a decade of changes, politically, socially and Cinema (the reflection of reality) changed too. The old guard was giving its last films and the new guard just wanted to take all the place on the screens all over the world. New Waves were emerging everywhere and new names like Arthur Penn, Sergio Leone, Jean-Luc Godard, Mike Nichols, Roman Polanski, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and many more were coming to remplace the old "farts"(read this with respect to all these pioneers and masters) that were losing touch gradually John Ford, Howard Hawks, Billy Wilder, Orson Welles, Nicholas Ray, Robert Wise, etc.

With a step back El Dorado is an interesting film in Howard Hawks' filmography and fits perfectly in this oeuvre watched as a whole. I still have Hatari! as one of my personal favorites but I still need to see many of his films before really stepping my foot down defenitely.

Masculin feminin

Masculin féminin (Jean-Luc Godard, 1966)

Jean-Luc Godard's oeuvre is filled with so many films all made with so many subjects and approaches that he can be compared to the Picasso of filmmaking. With À bout de souflle he made cubism Cinema with the jump cuts he dared to insert in his first film/bomb into the world. I like to call his films bombs because like Samuel Fuller he like his films to hit people right in the face, to make them feel, think, and have opinions on many subject. Most of all, Godard likes to provoke.

His use of Jean-Pierre Léaud as Paul Doinel is an open reference to Truffaut's use of the same actor as his most famous role Antoine Doinel. The main difference in the charater here is the fact that Godard's Doinel is so close to Godard himself that he made him sad and even more deseperate than Truffaut.

Left turn
Doinel is an interviewer for sociology studies. He nteracts with many young people of his generation and it gives a good idea to a young man 1983 born and post-punk era kid of consumation and television what it was in the 1960's, Yé-yé, the raise of Rock N Roll, the rise of the left/communisim/maoism and antiwar/anti-american thought. We also feel the Bob Dylan influence on Godard (Dylan was the only person Godard would have liked to be in 1966). An icon of free spirit, revolution, and leftism.

How could hell be any worse?
Masculin feminin turns around those themes and is about how the young men depicted were conscious of how the world is going straight into"hell" and how the women depicted are falling straight into the Coca-cola/Americanism/Birth control/materialism world. This is the opposition of Masculin=Marx kids who want to change the world by glueing tracts and act against the Vietnam war but also they want to fall in love with girls and get laid. And Feminin represents the kids of Oncle Sam that don't want to learn about wars and the current major issues of the world. They want to live and have fun as in the liberal meaning of it.


The film is very beautiful and instead of the sometimes raw footage Godard acquainted us to see, Masculin feminin feels soft and light like a beautiful Eric Rohmer film. This is a transitionnal film for Godard and a must see in his oeuvre.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966)

Mike Nichols' first film happened to be very popular at the time it came out. The plot of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is about a couple in their 40s (Elizabeth talyor & Richard Burton) receving a younger couple at their home in the night. The older couple is always arguying and bitter against each other. They never had a child, the spouse is always critisizing the career of her husband (a professor who wants to become the head of the History department). He himself is very bitter and negative about life in general and he thinks he can give a lesson to the younger couple about relationships since his marriage is falling apart. The more the story goes ahead the meaner they go to each other and we the viewers are like the young couple that follows them into their madness. We could leave but we want to know want happens to them, we get involved in their hysterical relationship.

The popularity of the film maybe explained in the first place, by the presence of the couple Taylor-Burton that made so many times the top of the tabloids of the time. They were married two times together and their relationship was very tormented so has their characters in this film. Their performances are amazing and especially Taylor with her manic/depressive interpretation of Martha.

On the directing side the use of black and white tend to detach the viewer from the gravity and the weight of the situations and the languages used in the film. The camera is well used from panoramic takes to close-ups to destabilize the spectator and to keep him aware of the many dialogues that carry the action. One of the best scene in the film is when Burton points a hunting gun on the head of taylor and we feel the tension and we know he's going to shoot so does George (the husband of the younger couple).

Who's Afraid of Viginia Woolf? is a good film but all its action and tension is related to the dialogues and the characters. It's mostly a film of actor performances. Indeed, it's great performances but I think it's not enough to categorize it as a great film.

A Film Retrospective by Michaël Parent