Maybe it's just me, but I can think of only three films from this era worth seeing: Bonnie & Clyde, Rosemary's Baby & Planet of the Apes. Point out some ohers. Was it the "Summer of love?" that made everything else seem hopelessly old fashioned?
Dale
HELLO DOLLY was nominated in 1969 for Best Picture, along with MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Z, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID and ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS. Those five are a real sampling of good/superior films from a year of excellence. All of these have stood the test of time, save for Z, which is completely forgotten (very sad, for it was a very good political thriller, but in a FOREIGN LANGUAGE forcing most Americans to READ the film). I remember at the time (I was 17) being surprised that MIDNIGHT COWBOY won...that was the fault of the "summer of love" and everyone in the Academy voting AGAINST type...except in the choice of John Wayne and Maggie Smith for top acting honors. At the time, BUTCH and ANNE were the odds-on favorites. I just watched DOLLY on TCM...great film...one of MANY from the late 60's! Your choices were VERY popular, as I recall. Our local Catholic church prevented ALL THREE from coming to town!!!! How scary is that?
share
I don't agree with either of you. To the OP, there are tons of films
that came out around this period that stand the test of time. Besides
the films already mentioned by the above respondent, there is "In Cold
Blood", "In The Heat Of The Night", "Oliver", "Funny Girl", "Who's
Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?"
As for the respondent, "Midnight Cowboy" DESERVED its Oscar. It was
a ground-breaking movie and is still a great piece of film to watch.
As for "Hello Dolly!", I, too, just finished watching it for the first
time in years. It was a trouble-plagued production due to Streisand's
miscasting, temperament, WM's frustration with both, Kelly's uninspired
direction, Kidd's lively, but hopelessly overblown choreography, and
countless other problems. The end result is a colorful, expensive
musical which is totally hollow. Despite all the gorgeous singing
and dancing, one is left wanting at the end. Badly. It's like having
bakery goods rolled by you, one by one, as you sit there starving. Pretty
to look at, but you're still hungry by the movie's end. It didn't
help that Streisand really had no character development (WHY does this
young "widow" want "Horace" for herself? Money? Gee, that's an
attractive quality for the audience to root for). The final nail in
the coffin is that WM and BS loathed each other. And it shows.
Hi! I read the interesting comments about DOLLY. Now granted, I'm a huge fan of this film, and I take immense pleasure in watching it. I do know it has been a center of controversy for almost 40 years! I just think it's a very "happy" film - very similar to the colorful MGM films of the 40's (and no wonder, considering that Roger Edens, Gene, and Michael Kidd were involved). I though Streisand looked a bit older than 26 (closer to mid-30's) so the age issue never really bothered me. Also, I felt that by adding the song LOVE IS ONLY LOVE made her character seem less like she was after his money and more that she was interested in him for himself. The song states that she does indeed love Horace, cranky though he is.
I think the film didn't live up to financial expectations perhaps because of the sheer amount of money that it cost. I read in a biography of Streisand (by James Spada) that it made around the same amount of money that ROSEMARY's BABY made, and of course THAT was considered a big hit. After all, other musicals of the same troubled era did extremely well - OLIVER and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF come immediately to mind, and they were also huge movies of long-running Broadway shows.
I don't hate the movie - I enjoy the spectacle and actually adore the
supporting players, particularly E.J. Peaker and Danny Lockin, who
were terrific dancers. But to compare this uninspired fluff to the great
MGM musicals is absurd at best. This film comes nowhere near "Meet Me
In St. Louis", "The Pirate", "Easter Parade", "On The Town", "Singin' In
The Rain", and countless others. The difference here is that all of
the numbers in these films are INSPIRED. It seems natural when people
sing and dance, whereas in HD, one gets the feeling that the cast has
suddenly been possessed. After two spins of a music lesson, suddenly the
entire world - tennis players included - are now hopping over benches,
hopping side-to-side on bicycles, etc. Again, it's pretty to look at,
but it's hopelessly forced and we can see the wheels turning in Kelly's
head. As for "Put On Your Sunday Clothes", again, families blocks away
are suddenly dancing and singing, even though they have nothing to do
with the immediate action. They are simply dancing for the sake of
the FILM, not the story. It looks ridiculous. As for the title number,
they sure are making a big deal out of a widow ("this old girl!"). I
wish I got service like that - for NO reason. Streisand's "Dolly" is
too young to have the legacy worthy of this kind of worship.
The film is gorgeous, expensive and entertaining, but incredibly empty
in the end. All one needs to do is watch 1974's "That's Entetainment"
to understand the difference. Or better yet, just watch "Funny Girl",
Steisand's film debut from the year before. This film is SOLID. Big
difference in the quality of Streisand's character and performance.
But there's also a big difference between William Wyler and Gene Kelly.
Hi Gbennett5! I understand the points you make - what I meant was that visually, HD is bright, colorful and pleasant, like an MGM musical. In that sense, I don't think the comparison is unwarranted. In the stage show itself, passerby start dancing and singing in "Sunday Clothes" and "Dancing" as well, and the waiters do make a big fuss when Dolly walks in. I think it sounds like you don't care for the "bigness" of the whole movie? Like, as you said, it seems like huge numbers of people appear just to create a "spectacular"? Many people said that, I wonder if the movie could have been done "smaller"? I imagine that if the film had been made at MGM in the 40's-50's, it would not have been the size that it was in 1969 - not only because of cost, but I don't think I ever saw an MGM musical that was as "huge" as HD.
Whatever the case, it has brought me much joy over the years!
I enjoy it in spots. As I said, I get a big kick out of E.J. Peaker (she's
like a blonde Marlo Thomas - same facial expressions and squeaky voice.
One almost expects her to say, "Well, Donald!"). And Danny Lockin was
also adorable. But even here there's an ugly feeling, if you're aware of
what happened to this poor young fellow that actually mars my enjoyment
of the film. It's just so awful (it's the same feeling one gets when
watching "Superman" - our hero wound up in a wheelchair).
Also the film was shot just after the murders of Martin Luther King and
Robert Kennedy. 1968 is known as the worst year of that turbulent
decade. The cast has stated numerous times that there was this awful
pall hanging over them. Plus, they shot in the horrible East Coast
heat that summer, dressed in those hot costumes. Then you add two
fueds - Streisand and WM AND Kelly and producer/screenwriter Ernest Lehman.
Lehman has gone on record that Kelly said if he even attempted to discuss
the film with his actors, Kelly would "kick" his "teeth in." Nice.
I know all this shouldn't have any bearing on the final product when one
watches the film but, to me, the piece isn't strong enough to withstand
its negative history - both in the time it was produced/released and in
terms of its production biography. 1953's "The Bandwagon" was also mired
in negativity - nobody spoke to each other off camera, the tension was
so tight. But the film belies all this and is a treasure from start
to finish. But, then again, it's also a fairly dark musical, so it
isn't trying to hide as much as "Dolly."
On balance, it's fun to peak at every few years, at least in spots.
To each his own.
Your observations are interesting!! I read about all the negativity surrounding the production. In fact, at one point Ernest Lehman said something like - "It's amazing what we went through to make something entertaining for others", or words to that effect. I also heard about a problem between Michael Kidd and Irene Sharaff about Dolly's gown in the Big Number. The train was tripping up the dancers, and a big debate started on the set, which Lehman had to get involved in. It is sad that such a "jolly" movie has so much trouble and sadness hanging over it - as you said, the RFK and MLK muders, and the sad fate of Danny Lockin (I was horrified when I read about him here on IMDB), the feuding, etc. When I watch, I have to remind myself not to think about the related unhappiness - and yet the movie thrills me.
I didn't know about THE BANDWAGON. Again, great movie, to bad about the backstory.
Yeah, Astaire's first wife was dying of cancer and his only reaction was
to shut down emotionally. Cyd Charrise felt it was her, so she got real
icy and quiet. And Oscar Levant (a legendary bully) treated co-star
Nanette Fabray horribly. To her great credit, she one day told him off
in front of the entire crew. They were said to have applauded. He didn't
dare treat her like that again.
Fabray, who's still with us, has stated many times that she was the only
one with a sunny disposition on the set and was greeted with icy rejection
every day when she said, "Good morning!." She also recounted the
premiere in Hollywood. She said watching the film for the first time,
she was stunned at the joy bouncing off the screen. She couldn't believe
a production with such negativity resulted in such a glorious, classic
musical.
Lastly, Michale Kidd also choreographed this musical. To add to the
tension, Astaire (53 years old at the time) was nervous about working
with Kidd and wasn't sure he could do the moves Kidd expected of him.
Fortunately, he did fine (what else?) and the film boasts some of
Astaire's best foot work.
Of course it all depends on personal taste, but there were many worthwhile films released in the late 60s (1967-1969), such as 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, THE GRADUATE, TWO FOR THE ROAD, OH! WHAT A LOVELY WAR, THE PASSION OF ANNA, EASY RIDER, THE LION IN WINTER, BELLE DE JOUR, RACHEL RACHEL, plus the aforementioned BONNIE AND CLYDE, ROSEMARY'S BABY, Z and MIDNIGHT COWBOY - and this is just a partial list.
As far as the Best Picture race of 1969 was concerned, I lived in Los Angeles at the time & knew a few Academy voters - and believe me, there was a feeling that ANY of the nominees might win. MIDNIGHT COWBOY had won the Directors Guild Award and the British Oscar for Best Film, ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS had won the Golden Globe for Best Dramatic film, Z had won the NY Film Critics Award for Best Film - and no one was counting out BUTCH CASSIDY or HELLO, DOLLY! BUTCH CASSIDY had already established a rabid fan base, and there were more than a few whispers that DOLLY would take the top prize because it was the only nominee made in Hollywood by Hollywood craftsmen - and the only nominee with a "G" rating.
John Wayne's victory was perceived as a sentimental one, but the Oscar for Maggie Smith was considered a surprise - not because anyone doubted the excellence of Smith's performance, but because the film wasn't a big box office success and was mostly forgotten when nominations were announced. The razzle-dazzle of the late entries (Jane Fonda, Genevieve Bujold and Liza Minnelli) made a lot of people forget about Smith, so her win - while somewhat unexpected - was thoroughly welcome.
DOLLY actually got off to a good start. Early box office returns were impressive, Streisand made the cover of Newsweek magazine, and there was a feeling that - with the troubled decade of the 60s now over - filmgoers might gravitate to something that was upbeat and positive. And for a few months they did; it's a forgotten factoid today, but DOLLY managed to pull in enough money to rank as the fifth-highest grossing film of the year. However, the movie needed staying power in order to pay off its tremendous investment, and (as 1970 dragged on) the reality of Kent State, an unpopular war & soldiers coming home in body bags made DOLLY's good-natured optimism seem quaint and irrelevant. Still, if the film wasn't particularly well-suited to 1970, it continued to attract fans on TV, then on VHS, and later on DVD. I only hope that those who enjoy it will one day get a chance to see it the way it was meant to be seen - widescreen, and in 70mm.
We're talking apples and oranges here. The problems with "Dolly"
weren't just its release date. It IS overblown, overdone and features
some songs that aren't much better than the glucose-coated wonders
featured in, say, "Chitty-Chitty-Bang Bang!" Sure, the title song is
a classic, but the lyrics to the number where the young fellows learn
to dance are pretty silly:
....."Make the music weave a spell; whirl away your worries.
...."Things look almost twice as swell, when they're slightly blurry!"
Ouch.
Even composer Jerry Herman has admitted this score comes nowhere near
"Mame." As for director Gene Kelly, let's just say he's a great
choreographer. His classics as a director feature Stanley Donan as
co-director; Kelly's solo directing features forgettable films. The
actors are extremely uninspired and try their best (the supporitng
players - Crawford, Lockin, Peaker, Tune, McAndrews - are wonderfully
cast. Streisand and WM are not). The main issue is it's so hard to
believe Streisand would even WANT WM. And his sudden change of mood
at the end is also difficult to swallow. Both actors have zero
chemistry and they're winding up together at the close of the picture
boasts all the earmarks of bad direction and screenwriting. It's just
impossible to buy.
Streisand was said to be difficult on this picture, as was WM. The
problem is the leads, both of whom were very intelligent, knew
instinctively that Kelly was leaving them stranded in favor of staging
ridiculously overproduced production numbers. The result is WM is
one-note and obnoxious, Streisand, in her attempt to patch together
a character, turns in a pale imitation of Mae West.
These issues were obvious to critics in 1969 and they remain so.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions about HELLO, DOLLY! But they're just your opinions, and they mean little to those who actually enjoyed the film.
You talk about the critics as though they had a uniform reaction to DOLLY - wrong. The fact is, the film received a number of favorable reviews. Variety liked it. So did the Los Angeles Times. The NY Daily News gave it 4 stars and called it a "super-musical." Pauline Kael in the New Yorker listed many things she didn't care for, but said they were all worth sitting through in order to see Barbra Streisand. And you bring up Jerry Herman without mentioning his reaction to the film (which was favorable). In a 1997 interview he said he liked the film more every time he saw it...he pointed out that Barbra Streisand found a way to play the part that's lasted, one that still works today...he also noted that she "sang the hell out of it." (You can find these comments on the DOLLY page of the Barbra Streisand Archives.)
And whatever you may have thought of Gene Kelly's work, he received a Directors Guild nomination for HELLO, DOLLY!
If you think the only reason Streisand's Dolly was attracted to Matthau's Horace was money - well, once again you're entitled to your opinion. Others can't help noticing that Dolly has a genuine fondness for Horace; no, she's not passionately in love with him (she's already had that kind of relationship with Ephraim), but she senses that Horace may be a bit like herself - a lonely individual who's putting up a brave, independent front - "a fool alone" who'd rather be "a fool among fools." It's true that she plans to send his money out into the world & spread it around, "encouraging young things to grow," but that's fine because that's also what Horace wants to do with it.
And the fact is, timing WAS a problem for DOLLY; there were many young people who watched the movie's Best Picture clip on the Oscars that year, noticed all the flag-waving on 14th Street, and came to the conclusion the film was too "establishment" for them. I know, because those are the types of comments I heard at the time.
I really don't understand your hostility. In an earlier post you say "to each his own" regarding the film, but the moment I post some favorable comments, you go on the attack - as if there was only ONE way to respond to DOLLY. And this from the person who wrote "To each his own"? If that's your philosophy, then you have to practice what you preach.
Nice try. But there ARE problems with this picture that have ZERO to
do with when it was released. And you know it. Or do you?
If you can't tell the difference between this musical and, say, "The
Bandwagon", "Singin' in The Rain", "Meet Me In St. Louis", or even
more comparable fare (in terms of era) as "Funny Girl" and
"Cabaret", then there's no use arguing with you.
Anyway, what IS your point? The film was enjoyed by many Streisand fans
and liked by several critics. It was also disliked by many critics. They
feel the same way now, as they did then. Which means it's release date
has nothing whatsoever to do with the film's weak narrative and lack
of character development ("Dolly" doesn't develop at all from beginning
to end).
Streisand called this film "the biggest professional mistake of my
career." She barely acknowledges the film now.
There are countless films in all genres that were poorly received/
reviewed when first released and are now considered classics. "Hello
Dolly" isn't one of them.
You love the film? Nifty. But stop trying to change its status just
'cause it makes your day. You're only making yourself look foolish.
Have a nice life, Murph.
Once again - why the hostility?
I'm simply saying there are people out there (and they include both critics & film professionals) who enjoyed HELLO, DOLLY! - and they don't share your dismissive opinion of the film. And like it or not, their opinions are just as valid as yours.
gbennett5,
My only question to you is: Have you ever seen the stage version of "Hello, Dolly!"? If so, then you will surely know that the majority of the score ended up in the film with only slight lyrical rewrites and key changes. And Streisand's "Just Leave Everything To Me!" and "Love Is Only Love" aren't even in the stage version, thank God!
The stage version IS a piece of fluff, modern day Vaudeville, if you will. It's also a star vehicle for the leading lady. That's the style of the show, in which the film fails dreadfully. I dare say that the musical should never have gone to the big screen, but perhaps as a TV production in a sitcom style, with audience reaction included.
As far as the songs being uninspired, keep in mind what I said about the score: almost all of the songs from the stage version made it to the silver screen with very little difference in lyrics. "Hello, Dolly!" won 10 Tony Awards in it's initial Broadway run, so the score had to have struck a chord somewhere along the line.
I agree with a lot of what you've said. The production was WAY overdone, and both Streisand and Matthau were wrong for their roles (though I was pleasantly suprised that Matthau could even carry a tune), and the critics panned the film as a whole. But like the other poster, I don't understand your hostility over it. You don't like the film, we get it.
I would, however, suggest seeing a stage production of it, if you haven't. If the company is really good, you just may see why so many people fell in love with it and why it's considered to be a true stage classic.
JOE TYRIA
Creed Wolf Productions
Silver Creed Wolf Music (BMI)
[email protected]
SilverCreedWolf writes: <<As far as the songs being uninspired, keep in mind what I said about the score: almost all of the songs from the stage version made it to the silver screen with very little difference in lyrics. "Hello, Dolly!" won 10 Tony Awards in it's initial Broadway run, so the score had to have struck a chord somewhere along the line.>>
I wouldn't use the Tony Awards as a barometer for quality scores. The voters tend to go ga-ga over the season's blockbuster and throw every award they can at it (hence Mel Brooks winning Best Score for The Producers over David Yazbek for The Full Monty...utterly ridiculous). In a season that contained such excellent scores as Harvey Schmidt and Tom Jones' 110 in the Shade, Jule Styne and Bob Merrill's Funny Girl, Stephen Sondheim's Anyone Can Whistle and Jerry Bock and Sheldon Harnick's She Loves Me (a holdover from the previous season), the score for Hello, Dolly! can be seen as the pallid thing it is, enlivened only with uncredited interpolations from other songwriters and the outright plaigiarism of the score's only popular song (the title song, for which Jerry Herman was successfully sued).
"Footman...shine my shoe. Shine my shoe."