The Classic Movie Club: First Film-ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968)

[DAR]

Well I'm not sure if I can give as eloquent a review as Spottswoode, but here goes.I somewhat agree on the surface it is a rather silly premise for a film especially when I couldn't see the armed forces going for something like this. And it seemed weird to me that Sgt Bowren would go on the mission. And while I thought the characterization overall was solid, I do agree that some of the characters were generally forgettable.That being said I still love this movie. I think that Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, John Cassavettes and my favorite performance came from Clint Walker who was the gentle giant Posey. And Telly Savalas' Maggot was a fuckwit, but he played it extremely well and was the actual villain of the film. Also sometimes older movies have a tendency to feel slow, but this film actually moves quite well. Despite it's influence on other films from Inglorious Basterds to even Armageddon this is still the best, often imitated never bettered. A

[DAR]

Once I'm done with my exam tomorrow, then I'll take a look. We still have till Friday, so let's not completely give up hope. Clearly, though, I need to figure out how to get the word out better. If you have any suggestions, message me.

Are you wanting to get more members involved? I can always give a little shout out in the weekend thread.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

That'd be cool. We have enough members, but I need more participation.

[AndyLL]

Finally saw it.  Took a while because because my wife wanted to see it also and it took a few days to find a time both of us could spare the 2 1/2 hours this movie runs.

 

We both enjoyed the movie. I skimmed some reviews and was a little worried about how violent it would be ( my 11 year old was in the room) but in reality there was little gratuitous violence.  

 

I grew up reading war & spy stories and the theme of  misfits, screwballs or in this case criminals, redeeming themselves through valorous acts is fairly common.  I found it interesting that while 12 men in the team redeemed themselves ( I include the major ) 1 reverted to what he was... a woman hating psychopath.  Perhaps trying to make the point that not everyone is redeemable when given a 2nd chance?

 

Like Spottswoode I agree that the individual characters were not developed well.  I disagree that it was because of the number of them.  Stripes did a better job at it. It was 2 1/2 hours long and the 1st act was way too long for what was achieved.  It dragged and I was bored at times. They should have cut the selection time in half and devoted it to the training.

 

Act II, the training wasn't too bad.  A little choppy but got across the point that the individuals became a team.  Way too much time was spent with Breed.  It really didn't make much sense.  If you really had a team training for a behind the lines mission the General would have ensured that their training would proceed without issues like they had with Breed.

 

The 3rd act was the mission and in my opinion to best part of the film.  I can't say I really grasped the original plan... not sure it mattered since Maggott flipped.  Many of the reviews (more on them later ) talked about the brutality of the mission.  Misplaced in my opinion.  The whole mission was to kill in cold blood the 100s of German officers... hard to come up with a force of 13 men that's not fairly cold blooded.  

 

Spottswoode mentioned the killing of the surrendered soldiers... That brutal act was tempered by the fact that they allowed the non-German servants to leave unharmed.  

 

As the dirty dozen were killed off 1 by 1 it was hard to feel much emotion for them... they just were not developed enough as individuals.  Contrast that to the Magnificent Seven from the same era.

 

I was actually more interested by a couple of the reviews of the movie written in the 60s.

 

Ebert - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-dirty-dozen-1967

 

The New York TImes - http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173DE267BC4E52DFB066838C679EDE&partner=Rotten%2520Tomatoes

 

 

Ebert's opening paragraph:

 

Remember a couple of years ago when some kids out East thought up a great game? They'd go down to the nearest Skid Row, find some wino sleeping off his drunk, pour gasoline on him and set him afire. The police finally caught the kids and ended the fun. But they were only 11 or 12 years old anyway -- small-time operators. Now you can see "The Dirty Dozen" and thrill to hundreds of men and women burned to death at once.

 

 

and Crowther:

 

A raw and preposterous glorification of a group of criminal soldiers who are trained to kill and who then go about this brutal business with hot, sadistic zeal is advanced in The Dirty Dozen, an astonishingly wanton war film,  ...

 

 

Finally, to put them to blasting and butchering a château filled with Nazi staff officers and their women, upon whom they parachute a few nights before D-Day, shooting and stabbing and setting fire to a lot of them locked in an air-raid shelter, and then carrying it on to interminable length, is a studied indulgence of sadism that is morbid and disgusting beyond words.

 

 

Both these reviews, and several other I read,  so missed the point of the movie I was amazed.

 

There was nothing 'sadistic' about the killing of the Germans.  Most of the dirty dozen were uncomfortable about the killings but that was their mission and they carried it out with skill and as a team.

 

Ebert & Crowther seem to forgot their history. WWII was brutal to civilians.  Over 50 million were killed.  And it was just the Axis powers that did so.  The Allies bombed the Axis cities into submission... not to mention the 2 atomic bombs that were used.

 

The attacking of civilian populations as a war tactic in WWII is one of the reasons the Geneva  Conventions were created.

 

Behind the line missions always walk a very thin line in the morality of their objectives.  Their targets tend to include civilians and they rely on secrecy and stealth for their success.  What actions do you take if discovered and threatened from innocent bystanders.  I haven't seen the movie but I believe Lone Survivor deals with this topic.

 

And finally... the idea that the military would use convicts and other undesirables for this type of mission.   Certainly not 12 at once for a mission like this but there is a real dark and dirty side of war that takes a certain type of personality and I have no doubt back in the day they looked everywhere for people that would do the ugly work.  ( I know that because I read the Ludlum books  )

 

These days missions such as these are carried out by highly trained special forces who are screened for personality disorders.  

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I messaged some people, so hopefully more will see it or comment. I'll be seeing it today, and I'll probably have a review up by tomorrow. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Finally saw it.  Took a while because because my wife wanted to see it also and it took a few days to find a time both of us could spare the 2 1/2 hours this movie runs.

 

We both enjoyed the movie. I skimmed some reviews and was a little worried about how violent it would be ( my 11 year old was in the room) but in reality there was little gratuitous violence.  

 

I grew up reading war & spy stories and the theme of  misfits, screwballs or in this case criminals, redeeming themselves through valorous acts is fairly common.  I found it interesting that while 12 men in the team redeemed themselves ( I include the major ) 1 reverted to what he was... a woman hating psychopath.  Perhaps trying to make the point that not everyone is redeemable when given a 2nd chance?

 

Like Spottswoode I agree that the individual characters were not developed well.  I disagree that it was because of the number of them.  Stripes did a better job at it. It was 2 1/2 hours long and the 1st act was way too long for what was achieved.  It dragged and I was bored at times. They should have cut the selection time in half and devoted it to the training.

 

Act II, the training wasn't too bad.  A little choppy but got across the point that the individuals became a team.  Way too much time was spent with Breed.  It really didn't make much sense.  If you really had a team training for a behind the lines mission the General would have ensured that their training would proceed without issues like they had with Breed.

 

The 3rd act was the mission and in my opinion to best part of the film.  I can't say I really grasped the original plan... not sure it mattered since Maggott flipped.  Many of the reviews (more on them later ) talked about the brutality of the mission.  Misplaced in my opinion.  The whole mission was to kill in cold blood the 100s of German officers... hard to come up with a force of 13 men that's not fairly cold blooded.  

 

Spottswoode mentioned the killing of the surrendered soldiers... That brutal act was tempered by the fact that they allowed the non-German servants to leave unharmed.  

 

As the dirty dozen were killed off 1 by 1 it was hard to feel much emotion for them... they just were not developed enough as individuals.  Contrast that to the Magnificent Seven from the same era.

 

I was actually more interested by a couple of the reviews of the movie written in the 60s.

 

Ebert - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-dirty-dozen-1967

 

The New York TImes - http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173DE267BC4E52DFB066838C679EDE&partner=Rotten%2520Tomatoes

 

 

Ebert's opening paragraph:

 

 

and Crowther:

 

 

 

Both these reviews, and several other I read,  so missed the point of the movie I was amazed.

 

There was nothing 'sadistic' about the killing of the Germans.  Most of the dirty dozen were uncomfortable about the killings but that was their mission and they carried it out with skill and as a team.

 

Ebert & Crowther seem to forgot their history. WWII was brutal to civilians.  Over 50 million were killed.  And it was just the Axis powers that did so.  The Allies bombed the Axis cities into submission... not to mention the 2 atomic bombs that were used.

 

The attacking of civilian populations as a war tactic in WWII is one of the reasons the Geneva  Conventions were created.

 

Behind the line missions always walk a very thin line in the morality of their objectives.  Their targets tend to include civilians and they rely on secrecy and stealth for their success.  What actions do you take if discovered and threatened from innocent bystanders.  I haven't seen the movie but I believe Lone Survivor deals with this topic.

 

And finally... the idea that the military would use convicts and other undesirables for this type of mission.   Certainly not 12 at once for a mission like this but there is a real dark and dirty side of war that takes a certain type of personality and I have no doubt back in the day they looked everywhere for people that would do the ugly work.  ( I know that because I read the Ludlum books  )

 

These days missions such as these are carried out by highly trained special forces who are screened for personality disorders.  

I think the singling out for violence probably has to do with this time period. 1967 was a watershed year in which films challenged the status quo in terms of showing explicit material. You have Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate this year. As a result, a lot of old critics were criticizing movies for their depiction of violence without really thinking about its necessity.At the same time, though, Ebert championed Bonnie and Clyde when he saw it, so it's a little surprising to see his response. 

[Films]

I'm probably going to have to try and watch the dirty dozen during my half term [starting next Tuesday] as i'm so busy this week

[ecstasy]

I won't join because I can't commit. But this is very interesting and I will follow along and watch movies with you guys, lol.

[Phil in the Blank]

Personally I find it fascinating that in 1967 this was considered sadistic by many. By today's standards its positively tame in comparison. Compare it to a movie like Lone Survivor and its not even a close race as to which war film is more sadistic. 

 

As Andy said, he had absolutely no problem with his 11 year old son being in the room.

[4815162342]

The only "sadistic" thing you could really argue for is the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed soldiers/officers and their spouses.

 

 

The film takes a while to get going but it moves pretty well and tensely once it does. The chateau climax is brilliantly staged as all the pieces fall into place even as outside and internal elements progressively mount to upend it all.

[DeeCee]

I haven't seen The Dirty Dozen in years. Must watch again sometime.

[AndyLL]

The only "sadistic" thing you could really argue for is the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed soldiers/officers and their spouses.

 

 

The term 'sadistic' means deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others

 

I think one of the main points of the movie is that these 'hardened' criminals did not take pleasure in carrying out their mission.

 

The whole mission was to kill all the officers... armed or not.  Their method ended up also killing their companions in a fairly unpleasant manner because Maggott went crazy and they lost their element of surprise. 

[4815162342]

The term 'sadistic' means deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others

 

I think one of the main points of the movie is that these 'hardened' criminals did not take pleasure in carrying out their mission.

You're talking about the characters whereas I was referring to the film itself.

[DAR]

Anyone else get a chance to watch?

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Ok, time for my review:Have you ever watched a movie, and knew that your review would be insincere because you were caught up in other thoughts? That's what happened to me. This week was hectic, and so while watching this movie, I didn't pay the attention I should have. So, I won't "grade" it as much as just comment on it.So for starters, Lee Marvin is really good here. He needs to bounce around from one emotion to another. This requirement would normally produce a silly and over the top performance, but he's perfect while doing it. Second, I thought the character Marvin played was really good. A lot of you have (rightfully) complained that none of these characters were developed well enough. While I can certainly see why, I think that films like this are more about their main character, and I thought Reisman was interesting enough as a character, and Marvin did a good enough job, that I could stay invested.Also, as Phil said, when the Dirty Dozen came together, it was fun. And while that does not necessarily make up for the lack of characterization, it adds to the film.As for the violence: it was no big deal. We've gotten used to violence in films. I also think it captures the brutality of war very nicely. And while that might seem to be a typical excuse to trumpet violence, it works in this case. I do, however, find Roger Ebert's review to have a very interesting take on this: 

 

But real live people burning to death! Take my word for it, it was such a delightfully sadistic, brutal, inhuman scene that I'm glad the Chicago Police Censor Board forgot about that part of the local censorship law where it says films shall not depict the burning of the human body. If you have to censor, stick to censoring sex, I say. Censor out Hayley Mills' bare bottom, because the human body is evil and it's a sin to look at it. But leave in the mutilation, leave in the sadism, and by all means leave in the human beings burning to death. It's not obscene as long as they burn to death with their clothes on.

I think Ebert's dead wrong about using this film to explore this problem. At the same time, though, I think it's interesting to talk about the Hollywood fascination with violence and its shunning over sex/the body. I'm not saying that we ought to do it now, but it is something to consider as we move forward.But like I said, these acts of violence did capture the brutality of war. And this film did a good job with that as well.So, objectively speaking, I can tell it's a good film. Sadly, this week was draining, and I was too tired while watching this film to become completely involved. Normally, I would hold that against the film, but I suspect that with another viewing, I would enjoy it more. So for that reason, I'm going to blame myself, and exalt the film.Nice choice, DAR. Sorry for taking so long to respond. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I'm going to allow people to comment on The Dirty Dozen past this week because a lot of people said they would (through messages), but tonight, we're going to also begin talking about our second film.Hopefully next week goes better. I think that part of the issue was that word didn't get out till this actual week, so people didn't have time on their hands. Either that's a problem with the format where this idea is taking place (a forum, where there's no way to actually reach people other than private messages) or it's just an issue that can be corrected if I can get the word out sooner, so we'll see. To those that did reply, thank you. 

[Phil in the Blank]

Has the 2nd film been announced yet?

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Has the 2nd film been announced yet?

Nope. I'll update the title when it is.

[Blankments]

I'm gonna have to bow out of this until summer. As I feared, life has already become too busy for me

[mahnamahna]

All righty!! I have picked the second title - an understatedly haunting but brilliantly crafted horror film called... Rosemary's Baby (1968)!Easily my favorite horror of all time, this film gets its chilling scares from showing how ordinary evil can appear. Starring Mia Farrow, John Cassevetes, and Ruth Gordon, this horror film was cutting edge in a time where George Romero was the scariest stuff out there. I remember being sufficiently creeped out by this film in a way the gore and shock value of today simply can't compare. Directed by infamous Roman Polanski and eerily followed by the Manson debacle, Rosemary's Baby is a thinking man's horror film similar to The Shining while also being a crowd pleaser. I am proud to call it my film of choice for Classic Movie Club: 1960s