‘Bonnie and Clyde’
In 1967, one movie changed Hollywood – and America – forever.
Warren Beatty is the key. Yes, that Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, to a lot of young people Beatty is now going to be the guy who, along with Faye Dunaway, gave the Academy Award for best picture to the wrong movie. But 50 years before “La La Land” had to hand the trophy over to “Moonlight,” Beatty and Dunaway did something far more crucial. They starred in a movie that is among the all-time greats and is also one of the most influential: “Bonnie and Clyde.”h Now that’s what they should be remembered for. Beatty is famously known as the link between old Hollywood and, with “Bonnie and Clyde,” the new. The film, which Beatty also produced, heralded a new direction for American movies, a new realism and an emphasis, however brief, of art over commerce. (Not that anyone wanted to lose money, ever, including Beatty.)
“Bonnie and Clyde” didn’t stand alone, however — 1967 was a watershed year for film, a changing of the guard that had room for the old (“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”) and the new (“The Graduate”). It may not have been the best year for movies — after all, 1939 had “Gone with the Wind,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” “Ninotchka” and “Stage Coach,” among others.
But 1967 may well be the most important.
The year in movies had one foot in the past and one in the future. It’s the bridge year, and not just for movies.
In music, the Beatles put out a little record called “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” Jimi Hendrix set his guitar ablaze at the Monterey Pop Festival. Jann Wenner started Rolling Stone magazine. Muhammad Ali was stripped of his heavyweight title after refusing to be inducted into the army. Protests against the Vietnam War increased.
In other words the country, and the world, was changing.
And so were movies. (For an excellent account of what was going on, check out Mark Harris’ book “Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood,” in which he looks at the era through the incredible variety among the five best picture nominees: “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “The Graduate,” “In the Heat of the Night” and “Doctor Doolittle.”)
It’s possible, of course, that you’ve never seen “Bonnie and Clyde.” That’s something you should take care of. For those who have, however, here’s a look at why it’s so important.
The story
Obviously Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are anti-heroes at best. They’re bank robbers and killers, on the lam, folk heroes of a sort. In this fictionalized account of their lives together, heavily influenced by the French New Wave, director Arthur Penn doesn’t quite romanticize them, but despite their chosen profession and the violence they espouse, they’re still who he makes us root for. With Bonnie and Clyde running from the law to the sounds of “Foggy Mountain Breakdown,” Penn has an almost comic touch at times.
At other times, decidedly not. There are consequences to their actions, and they will pay the ultimate price for them. Which leads to …
The violence
It’s possible ... you’ve never seen “Bonnie and Clyde.” That’s something you should take care of.
Stunning in its day. Still shocking today. On the off chance it is possible to spoil the story of a pair of violent bank robbers who lived in the early part of the 20th century, know that I’m about to say how the movie ends. Turn away if you must.
They die. Violently, in the film as in life, ambushed and gunned down. The death scene in the movie is astounding, with shot after shot tearing into their bodies. The violence is graphic, a slap in the face after the sometimes-lighter aspects of the film seen earlier.
But it’s not prurient violence. It serves a purpose. It is karmic payback, the sins of the couple visited upon them. Mainstream American film simply didn’t show this kind of thing. Some were horrified — with good reason — but this heralded a new wave of American film. It wouldn’t last long. “Jaws” and then “Star Wars” would usher the era out as quickly as “Bonnie and Clyde” ushered it in. The blockbuster took hold and hasn’t let go yet. But when the posse hunting Bonnie and Clyde opened fire, a new form of American artistry was born.
The sex
Also shocking for its time. What’s more, it’s implied that Clyde is impotent. (In early drafts, he was bisexual.) Of course, that doesn’t account for the way Bonnie holds his gun, which she does literally, with all the symbolism that implies. Sex appeal was part of the attraction of the real Bonnie and Clyde. It may come as a surprise to anyone watching them give away the wrong Oscar to learn that Beatty and Dunaway had sex appeal in spades, and the film makes the most of it.
The reaction: Of course movie critics are going to like a film whose success was due in part to, yes, movie critics. The New York Times hated the film, as did many other publications. But Pauline Kael of The New Yorker, first and foremost, loved the movie, writing an epic defense of it. Joe Morgenstern, then of Newsweek, now of the Wall Street Journal, panned it, watched it again and decided he loved it. Warner Bros. re-released the film, which was tanking, after the critical reappraisal generated buzz, and the rest is movie history.
And yet it shouldn’t be just history. When you watch “Bonnie and Clyde” now you’re struck by its vitality, how urgent and contemporary it still seems. Of course some of the technique looks a little dated, and the comic elements fall a little flatter than they probably did at the time, when the incongruity was doubtless part of the thrill.
“Bonnie and Clyde” is a movie that didn’t just matter then. It’s a movie that matters still, half a century later. In a crucial year it’s the crucial film. It’s history come to life, a look back while looking forward to the possibilities of what American film could become, and for a while, did.