1967

Winner:

In The Heat Of The Night is a film that deals with a lot of social issues (stemming from the premise of an African-American police detective investigating a murder in small town Mississippi), at least until the end when it just kind of turns into an average television crime drama on an off week. In fact, they made a television show out of it in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I never much cared for the show but my father loved it, and I watched more episodes than I wanted growing up. The crime elements of the film are nothing better than the television show presented on a weekly basis. The racial aspects of the story give it a little bit of cultural relativity, but if it was about the same story without a racial aspect, it would be very, very average. The film was based on a novel and won the Oscar for adapted screenplay. It was directed by Norman Jewison, who was nominated for Best Director, the first of three nominations for him, in three different decades. The other Best Director nominations were for Fiddler on the Roof (1971) and Moonstruck (1987). It won Academy Awards for editing, sound, and sound effects. Surprisingly it was not even nominated for the music, which featured a score by Quincy Jones and a vocal performance by Ray Charles (though it was nominated for a Grammy). The acting was superb and Rod Steiger won Best Actor for his performance. It seems like quite the oversight that Sidney Poitier starred in two Best Picture nominees (also Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner) but didn’t receive an acting nomination this year. Technically it’s a great film, and was known as the first major color film to take into account the lighting needed to properly show African-American features. While the story isn’t as compelling as it could have been besides the premise, it was a timely release, showing a black and white detective working alongside just as the Civil Rights Movement was getting underway. It also knew how to make memorable scenes and lines, the most famous being: “They call me Mister Tibbs!” It’s no surprise it won the Academy Award for Best Picture, even if it’s not that superb of a film. It also made some of the American Film Institute lists of greatest films, though I’m not sure it would today. As we get farther and farther away from films that succeed simply by showing racial cooperation, it seems a little commonplace today and not something that would even be nominated for Best Picture (The Green Book being the most recent exception). I can see why it was successful at the time and I can also see why its importance is slowly being eroded except for the historical significance.

Nominees:

The buildup to Bonnie and Clyde was astronomical as I prepared to see it for the first time. It allegedly pushed the limits of cinema and helped start the counterculture revolution in movies and the second golden age of Hollywood in the 1970s. Watching it I could not help but think - is this it? The true story of Bonnie and Clyde is mildly interesting in the history of 20th century America, speaking as a historian. But the truth is it’s just a footnote. And when you read about the real story, it’s not so fascinating. It is sensationalism that is no longer sensational. They were small time thugs (literally - Clyde was 5’4” and Bonnie was 4’11”). I fail to see why they were so romanticized. They were not modern day Robin Hoods, meaning, they were in no way principled criminals. Sure, they didn’t rob poor people but they killed working class police officers when they stood in the way. I fail to understand why we glamorize crime, but we do. Still, these were small time, bumbling robbers who happened to be a couple. Indeed, by simplifying the story and focusing so much on shootouts, the film doesn’t take the time to present them as anything but fun loving bumpkins. The characters are almost slapstick. There was no need to dumb down the film. Perhaps the story might have been more interesting if they did more to explain their popularity. Or perhaps the story would have been better told if it was about Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger who tracked them down. Portrayed by the man who would later find fame as Uncle Jesse on The Dukes of Hazzard (Denver Pyle), he appears in the film for the first time as a captured man who is humiliated by the couple, an incident that certainly never happened and did nothing to the story. Why paint their eventual killer as an idiot when he clearly was not? If they were trying to show the couple flaunting the police, it would have been better to use a random law officer. As it was, the real Hamer sued and settled out of court. It was allegedly the most violent movie to date when released, and now it just seems frenetic. It was basically nominated for the violence, which today seems commonplace in film. It was directed by Arthur Penn who was nominated for his effort. It was his only Best Picture nominee. The production is about what you would expect for the year. The cinematography was solid and won a technical award. It was also nominated for costume design but nothing stands out. The acting, better than average, was perhaps worth the five nominations but nothing was truly outstanding, even though Estelle Parsons would win for her supporting role. I’m not a Warren Beatty fan. I don’t think he’s bad. I just think he does not deserve the accolades. His entire acting career seems to revolve around him smugly smiling and thinking that’s good enough for an acting nomination. What’s left is the story, which is not as groundbreaking as some people maintain. You want groundbreaking? You want counterculture? How about The Graduate? This is only a somewhat decent film about what should be merely a footnote in 20th century America, and easily one of the most overrated nominations in Best Picture history. It’s certainly not one of the best films in history, as some critics (including those from the American Film Institute) claim it to be.

Doctor Dolittle tells the story of a man who can converse with animals, who goes on an adventure to escape being thrown into a lunatic asylum because he can converse with them. I have never read any of the Doctor Dolittle books upon which the movie was based, nor did I know anything more about them but the name and general premise. As it turns out, Hugh Lofting, who wrote them, served in the British Army in World War I and found the conditions too dire to tell his children when he wrote them letters. So he created the fantastical stories that would become his books, and wrote to his children about them instead. Now that would be a film I would like to see, his story brought to life and combined with his writing. This is one of the worst reviewed Oscar nominees in history, and it is nowhere near a good film, allegedly only getting nominated because of a huge campaign by 20th Century Fox. There is a good story in there somewhere, and occasionally it comes out. It takes far too long to develop, however, and would have been a much better movie an hour or so shorter. The script is often forgettable, and the songs are especially so, though somehow it won Best Song for “Talk to the Animals.” The acting neither helps nor hinders the film. Rex Harrison played the title character and he was quite renowned at the time, though this was far from his best effort. The film was directed by Richard Fleischer. This was his only Best Picture nominee but he had a long career and directed some other titles that stood the test of time. The production is decent, and occasionally inventive when it deals with a unique setting or the talking animals. It did win for visual effects and that’s somewhat deserved. It was also nominated for art direction, cinematography, editing, sound, and the score, some of them deserved. It is nowhere near the worst nominee ever, as some critics suggest, though it did not remotely deserve a nod this year. The film had potential, but misfires at almost every level.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is about a young white woman bringing her African American fiancée home to meet the parents, who are liberal, but still have trouble accepting the impending marriage. The story is a little fantastical, but not for the obvious. The whirlwind romance with no objections is a little unbelievable, and not the interracial marriage, at least these days. In fact, the controversy works better when the parents are concerned about two people rushing into marriage after less than two weeks, regardless of race. It’s the head versus the heart, mothers approving and fathers disapproving. The whirlwind romance is not quite believable in part because they lack chemistry, and it would give any parent concern anyway. She’s a very naive girl, and even her parents mention this. What’s the rush, her father comments. Three of the leads gave strong performances but Katharine Hepburn was just average in her role. I find it hard to believe Sidney Poitier starred in three big films this year (also To Sir, With Love) and was not nominated for any of them. Poitier was perfectly cast for the role in that he pulled off the class necessary for the performance. On the other hand, it’s easier to spin their relationship to audiences because he’s a doctor, but what if it was just two working class young people? This was the ninth film starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, who had a lifelong affair, and he died 17 days after the filming ended. The two of them act like a married couple so well, and it’s little wonder. It’s the best chemistry of the film, and maybe the only chemistry. Both of them were solid, though not outstanding, and I wouldn’t make the case for Hepburn winning the award she did. She’s always classy and graceful, however, if nothing else. The film was directed by Stanley Kramer, who was known for making statement films like this one. He was nominated for Best Director and the film was nominated for some technical awards but didn’t win any. The opening song is mediocre, and most of the production is average overall. The song and soundtrack feel schmaltzy, like an parody of the late 1960s, and so do many aspects of the film. The cinematography is decent but not much more. It did have nice color tones to the film though. Much of the first scenes are a parade of various people making faces that they don’t know how to react to a black man and a white woman. It settles in to become a very average social drama or romantic film. The script felt quite mediocre and a little clunky, yet somehow it won an Oscar for the screenplay. Some parts of the movie are so goofy or dated they make you scratch your head. Take, for example the meat delivery man thirty-five minutes or so into the film. Or this line: “You can do the watusi, but we are the watusi.” It’s a little cringeworthy in retrospect even though it was progressive at the time. That should be a lesson for everyone. The producers and everyone else involved probably thought they were being hard hitting but the truth is different in hindsight. If it’s anything of a romantic comedy, most of the jokes fall flat or feel stiff, though they occasional hit the mark. Isabel Sanford is the funniest as the maid. When it tries to be hard hitting it feels formulaic or stiff, like a series of lectures or overly scripted conversations to tell you how to feel or ensure you feel a certain way. It doesn’t naturally tell the story and trust the audience to come to the right conclusions. The ending feels too convenient as well. They didn’t show their work. Everything magically ends up well but they don’t show enough of how it happened. It’s a little preachy at times, and a little overly sentimental. At times, however, it really comes together and makes a great film, almost. Take the line when Sidney Poitier is appealing to his father. “You think of yourself as a colored man,” he says. “I think of myself as a man.” Overall, the story works for something lightweight. It may not seem relevant today but consider the following. Six months before the film was released the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. Between the time filming began and the time the film hit theaters, seventeen states were forced to end that arcane law. Without the historical relevance it is a good but lightweight film, and worth watching, though not quite worth the nomination. The cultural significance pushes it over the bar, especially since the film was groundbreaking at the time with the issues it pushed to the mainstream. It does raise the question: should films be elevated in status for furthering a social agenda, if that social agenda is a valid one?

I bet most people don’t recognize the name, but Mike Nichols won Best Director for The Graduate, his only solo Oscar win (though his films were nominated for forty-two Oscars and won seven from 1966 to 2007). This makes him one of the few EGOT winners (Emmy, Oscar, Grammy, and Tony). He has one Grammy for a comedy recording, nine Tony Awards (stretching from 1965-2012), and four Emmy Awards in the early 2000s. That’s a career! That was the only Oscar win for the film though it was nominated for plenty, although the only other technical nomination was for cinematography. I had seen The Graduate a few times before I started this quest to see every Best Picture nominee and always thought of it as a pretty good film, with some very memorable scenes, a film that was historically influential, but not something that ranked among the best films of the century. I watched it again to be able to write better about it, and came to the same conclusion, and figured out why I felt this way. The story, which was adapted from a novella and nominated for the screenplay, is good enough, though a little unbelievable at times, and ultimately a little thin and empty - just a little. It is told very well, however, and a perfectly paced and efficient film is a rarity. The production is exquisite. Some of the scenes are technically magnificent. Obviously, the shot through Anne Bancroft’s legs is one, but the truly brilliant shot happens when the daughter learns the truth and the camera focuses on her again. I have no problem with the story and production; they are both excellent. The acting is very good as well. All three nominated performers deserved their nominations, especially Katharine Ross. The problem I have with the movie is the characters. Anne Bancroft is excellent as Mrs. Robinson, but I just don’t like her character. Perhaps that was the point, to make her unlikable. I understand her pain, and that people lash out when they are hurt, but her vindictiveness did not sit well with me. I had even less love for Dustin Hoffman’s character, however. I realize he was supposed to be naive, but he was more than that. Frankly, he was dumb, and that made his character a little unbelievable as a recent college graduate. When the two characters with the most film time are unlikable, that makes the movie a little less enjoyable. In spite of that, it is the actual best film of this year, at least out of the nominated films, though it’s one that is not quite as good as history has made it out to be. It’s certainly not the seventh or seventeenth best film in American history as the American Film Institute ranked it in its two charts.

Other Notable Films - Cool Hand Luke was Paul Newman at his finest and is more of a classic than most of the nominees.

Top Five: The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke