🎞️ 🍿 🎦 🎞️ 🍿 🎦 🎞️ 🍿 🎦 🎞️ 🍿 🎦 🎞️
While perusing through emails a few days ago I paid closer attention to one from Critic’s Choice Video. This notification was about a special sale with movies and tv shows that have numbers their titles. The Critic’s Choice list had musical classics such as Seven Brides For Seven Seven Brothers (1954), adventurous epics like Around The World In 80 Days (1956) and gory thrillers such as Seven (1995). I’ve watched and enjoyed these and other titles on their list. However, I’d love to expand on this since there’s a great deal Critic’s Choice didn’t include as part of their sale!
My first choice for this expanded list would be Butterfield 8 (1960). Starring Elizabeth Taylor – one of Hollywood’s classic leading ladies and two time Academy Award winner for this title and then Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966). The former was adapted from the John O’Hara novel of the same name. Tame by today’s standards, Butterfield 8 was titillating for 1960, what with Taylor’s melodramatic personal life and her movie roles started to morph together. Her notoriety greatly enhanced the box office appeal for this tale of Gloria Wandrous, the most desired high class call girl among the elite gentlemen of the Park Avenue set. Butterfield 8 totally fills the bill for glossy soap opera. Aside from winning Taylor her first Best Actress Academy Award, Dina Merrill was nominated for Best Supporting Actress as the scorned, long suffering wife of Gloria’s client/lover Weston Liggett (played by Laurence Harvey). The film was also nominated for Best Color Cinematography that year.
The second movie on my list is 55 Days At Peking (1963). The story dramatizes a real historical incident from 1900 when foreign legations belonging to eight nations including the United States were besieged during the lengthy Boxer Rebellion in China. The attacks occurred against foreign interests because the Chinese “Boxers” (a nickname coined by the British since they knew the perpetrators had extensive martial arts training) deeply resented neo-colonial influences from American, British, French, German, Japanese, Russian, and other foreign interests trying to dominate China economically and politically. The Boxers also hated the Christian missionaries who were given special treatment throughout China – trying to spread Christianity there- and wanted all of them out as well.
Although 55 Days At Peking has been criticized for lack of historical accuracy, it was still epic in scope and praised for its action sequences. At the time of its release the film was also roundly criticized by most reviewers for its shallow characterizations of both sets of antagonists and not providing enough historical relevance as to the causes of the Boxer Rebellion in the first place. With an international cast including big Hollywood star names such as Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner, 55 Days At Peking still provides grand spectacle entertainment and was nominated for two Academy Awards for Best Original Song and Best Music Score.
My third choice for the “numbers” list is Seven Days In May (1964). This film was one of three edgy, fictional accounts about the threat of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere of the 1960s. Although the screenplays for Seven Days In May, Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove (all released during 1964) were all adapted from novels, the threat of nuclear annihilation was very real at the time and created ugly political discourse between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. government and tensions with the military. Seven Days In May concerns the scheme of a joint military/political cabal which tries to take over the U.S. government in reaction to the president’s attempt to engage in nuclear disarmament with the Soviets.
The film’s plot is actually related to some events of the Kennedy presidency, making it quite relevant back then. “Cabal” just sounds like a chilling, sinister word and is perfectly descriptive of the storyline, where the viewer cannot help but wonder about what really goes on behind-the-scenes of government, the scheming and plotting that often crashes and burns – but gets covered up anyways. What doesn’t make the headlines might be more chilling than what we are actually told about volatile international events. Seven Days In May received favorable reviews from critics which was largely due to the acting abilities and appeal of such big stars as Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, Burt Lancaster, and Ava Gardner. The skillful direction by John Frankenheimer also made this story a superior thriller as he had a knack for handling prickly political material.
Choice number four is another controversial one of the turbulent 1960s era. This time it’s Fahrenheit 451 (1966) which takes totalitarianism to an extreme that neither Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin even reached during their reigns of terror in Germany or Soviet Russia, respectively. Fahrenheit 451 was adapted from the novel by Ray Bradbury who was acclaimed for his dystopian, science fiction, and supernatural mystery creations, spawned from his lively and vivid imagination. In this story, books are completely outlawed and cadres of “firemen” seek out and destroy the books of any citizens who have defied the ban and try to hide them. One of these firemen named Guy Montag, starts to feel remorse about his role in the wanton destruction of literature and also starts hiding books. Curiosity gets the better of him, and Guy starts reading them furtively to found out what he’s been missing.
Of course, the best aspect of Fahrenheit 451 is that there will always be some brave, defiant, and obstinate souls who have the wherewithal to preserve some cultural artifacts and eventually be inspired to lead the next revolution – which is, ironically what the “powers that be” in both fictional and real life dystopias try to stamp out in the first place by blotting out access to ideas which provoke thought and action. So, continuing on our “numbers in the titles” tour, we leave the sixties for Five Easy Pieces (1970). One of the quintessential films of the counterculture era, it stars Jack Nicholson who inexplicably leads a gypsy-like existence working at menial jobs on oil rigs. However, it turns out that he came from a privileged, upper middle class background and had considerable musical talent as a child. Numerous complications arise when Bobby (Nicholson) learns that his father is dying and returns to the family home in Washington state where he tries to reconnect with his family.
Among the issues that arise, are the lower class girlfriend and others that Bobby has tagging along with him on this reunion of sorts, causing tension with his high-toned family. Five Easy Pieces intrigues as a character study and to try and get some insight into family dynamics (or the lack thereof). However, considering how the story ends (which won’t be spoiled here!) it’s baffling that nothing is really learned about why Bobby chose that way of life when there was so much promise to succeed in a musical career. Of course, this is for the viewer to speculate on. My final selection here is 1984 (also theatrically released that year) based on George Orwell’s novel of the same name was possibly the most depressing and dour of any dystopian/ totalitarian film dramas created up to that point. It follows the life of an insignificant pencil pushing civil servant named Winston (played by John Hurt) struggling to exist in a cold, mega state called Oceania perpetually at war with another featureless mega state where the time period is vaguely set somewhere in the 1930s or 1940s.
The main protagonist Winston Smith tries to keep his head above water mentally without becoming a nutcase living under a bitterly harsh regime which stifles all individualism and critical thought. In this sense Winston Smith shares some similarities with Guy Montag from Fahrenheit 451. This 1980s interpretation of the fascistic, totalitarian state seems nothing like the sterile, rigid order that often comes to mind when one thinks of Hitler’s Germany or Hirohito’s Japan in the build up to World War Two. 1984 is a foul, filthy, gray, rat-infested slop hole of the first order – an unending nightmare that doesn’t even provide the rousing propaganda that Hitler’s regime excelled at, keeping the Germans in thrall and propping his regime up – almost until the end.
If anything, 1984 might be more appealing if it gleaned some inspiration from the famous Apple Macintosh tv commercial of that same period which provided some glimmer of color, some high drama of what the control state might have been able to achieve – to keep the masses engaged. 1984 gave them nothing to look forward to – nor does it provide the viewer much to look forward to either as it all seemed so pointless. However, for hardcore fans of dystopian narratives it doesn’t get more bleak than this. Also, it should never be forgotten that in dystopias like 1984 there is no escaping the all-knowing “Big Brother.”
