MovieChat Forums > Casino Royale (1967) Discussion > Please!: Explain the 60s to Me

Please!: Explain the 60s to Me

posted 14 years ago by HijodelCid
17 replies | jump to latest

I was born in 1954, which means that most of my teen years were spent in the 60s. I watched such landmarks of the 60s as this movie, BATMAN and BARBARELLA when they were brand new--and now all of those shows puzzle me and fill me with ABSOLUTE BEWILDERMENT.
'tis all like a joke whose punchline I cannot understand!
So what am I missing? Obviously part of the problem is that I spent the 60s in Puerto Rico, which means that I grew up in a country that is not very much like the USA, but obviously that cannot be the entire story.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HijodelCid 14 years ago

Yes, it does; thanks for your very thoughtful reply.
I myself don't think that the Eisenhower period was as white bread as it's often made out to be; certainly the many movie versions of the plays of Tennessee Williams and the horror movies of Hammer Studios--much more explicit than had been the case before--show that the people of the time were aware of the darker side of real life, a side which in the coming years would become much more visible and more openly acknowledged.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] World_Earth 12 years ago

IMO- Saturday, December 6, 1969, at the Rolling Stones Altamont Speedway concert the thick black line was drawn that divided the 60s from the 70s.
Everything thereafter seems to be a jaded satire of the things we as children had hoped to see happen in our lifetime.
The racial equality, womens rights, the summer of love, woodstock, world peace and all the other dreams an innocent child of the 60s had were being chipped away by the assassinations, the police state, the secrets and lies and came to an abrupt end when the last event of the decade was covered in blood during an homage to Lucifer.
The 70s replaced pot with coke, love with profit, sharing with greed and music with electronics.
Movies began glorifying death and faceless slashers. It was a noticeable change.
That is my theory on the thick black line even tho the OP appears to be gone.
But anyone who had JFK as president should be able to draw a direct line from Nov 22, 1963 to Sep 11, 2001 and see that this movie we are living now has been written by the same dark forces.

BTW- Casino Royale is a cinematic time capsule, a fun moment of stars that aligned for posterity to sample and enjoy. Like the recording of Woodstock it doesnt really need to make sense, its just fun to remember the time we had.

[–] foton 12 years ago

Love your comment ...I was born in 1977 wished to have been living in the 60's ...A decade of freedom & dreams ...

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

You needed to be a bit drugged out of your mind, and somewhat into the swinging 60's groove to understand. But, seriously, even bystanders knew what was going on. How is you missed out?

[–] martinkwangju 12 years ago

If you were born in 1954, you only spent 3 of your teen years in the 60's.

[–] willjohn 9 years ago

Rubbish. I turned 13 in 1960 & never touched LSD. For that matter I never knew anybody who did.

Most people of my generation were out making a living by the time they were 17.

[–] pt100 12 years ago

Up until about the early/mid '70s, movies and TV tended to lag behind the leading edge of the culture just a bit so as not to offend the broader audience (who had the money to spend) and/or advertisers (TV). And although there is still a bit of a lag, I think it is not as much today. I was born in 1950, so I was in my late teens when this film came out. And even at that time I thought it was a cautious, watered-down imitation of the sensibilities of my Baby Boom generation. It seems even more dated today, but is an enjoyable piece of fluff if you don't compare it to serious Bond films (Sean Connery, etc.)

There is some amusing dialog and a few good double entendres (as when Deborah Kerr looks at her late husband's hairpiece (the only thing left after he explodes) when being asked if she considers it an article of apparel or an anatomical feature worthy of a Christian burial. She says, "It can only be regarded as a hair loom [heirloom]."

But as for your bewilderment, I can't help you there. I had no trouble following the plot of this film or appreciating the humor. While it's not among my favorites, by any means, it's something I'll watch w/one eye while I'm doing something else. It has some good chuckles.

As for the TV series 'Batman' or the movie 'Barbarella', I agree w/you there. I thought both were sort of dopey and were appealing either to kids (Batman) or to sex-starved teenage boys who were also fans of Flash Gordon-type movies (Barbarella).

[–] fanaticita 9 years ago

You had to have been there. . . . . .however, there are plenty of great films made during the 60s, great books describing the "scene" especially in San Francisco. You won't have any trouble finding out info about the 60s. But, I must say the 60s were very "laid back" without much action. Things didn't start moving towards real social, political action until the 70s, mainly because of the Vietnam War.

[–] pt100 9 years ago

Maybe we had different experiences, but I thought the '60s had plenty of action, especially the last half. There were several assassinations (Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, MLK); the British Invasion (Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc.), the civil rights movement (beginning in the late '50s/early '60s); the moon landing; Woodstock I; the hippies/counterculture movement; the youth backlash against the Johnson and Nixon administrations' involvement in Viet Nam; The Weathermen/Weather Underground bombings, etc. And some really great films.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A. Einstein