Candy (1968)

I first heard about this movie from a post from the blog Mike's Take On The Movies which featured a newspaper ad for this movie from December of 1968, almost 55 years ago. Check it out at the link below-

https://mikestakeonthemovies.com/2019/03/25/now-playing-december-28th-1968-at-a-theater-near-you/

The movie came out around the same time as The Odd Couple, Hellfighters, and The Lion in Winter. 

Also I Love You Alice B Toklas and Skiddoo, which were comic satires about the current drug and hippy cultures that I enjoyed and found humorous.

With its all star cast that includes James Coburn, John Huston (believe it or not), and Charles Aznavour, I thought this movie might be a fun watch like those other movies. 

But it's not. It's horrible. 

This movie is so bad. I doesn't hold up well. If I were anyone involved in it, I would be embarrassed. Ringo Starr is in it, which is cool, but he plays a Mexican gardener in brownface and a bad accent, which is not cool. Marlon Brando also appears in brownface playing an Indian love guru, similar to a character that Mike Myers created in the 2008 movie The Love Guru. It's supposed to be funny, but it's not. 

It seems like very Hollywood actor wanted to appear in a comedy that lampoons the modern culture of hippies but this movie, which makes sex the main focus, falls flat. Buck Henry wrote it, and I guess I was expecting for it to be better. But I don't know what he's trying to say in this movie - that all adult men are sex crazed, or is there something about authority figures (doctors, gurus, soldiers) that he finds ridiculous and wants to criticize? I didn't get it. 

Every adult male character in this movie is awestruck by Candy, who is a pretty blonde white girl who wears short skirts, has pretty eyes, and is rather naive. Is the character's naivete supposed to be the gag? Or the fact that she's so sexually attractive that every adult man who meets her wants to have sex with her? It gets really cringy and creepy at times. There are even some creepy incest jokes involving the dad (John Astin)  And it's really bizarre to see a military general (Walter Matthau) order her to undress for him in the cockpit of a plane, and him trying to screw her. It's also super-creepy to see a middle aged poet (Richard Burton) want to sleep with her too after he visits her school to give a poetry reading. I did like Burton's chauffeur played by Sugar Ray Robinson who winks at the camera and is in on the joke that Burton is a buffoon. That was inspired comedy. But Candy just doesn't work in a modern era. I don't think it was funny back in 1968, either. What were they thinking?  

Read another review from The Magnificent 60s

Becket (1963)

Peter O'Toole is great as King Henry II, who ruled England from 1154 to 1189.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury dies, he appoints his old drinking buddy, Thomas Becket (Richard Burton) to the post.

This is an intense, emotional drama that probes the changing relationship between two young men - between two close friends bound together by similar pride of flesh and spirit who become deadly enemies as they pursue their separate destinies: that of king, and that of saint.

Nominated for 12 Academy Awards.

In High School, I had to write a report about this film and play for extra credit.

- A post about Becket here at the Critcaretro blog 

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

This post is my contribution to Stage To Screen Blogathon hosted by The Rosebud Cinema and Rachel's Theatre Reviews. Click here for a list of all the participating blogs in the blogathon.

---

Like the two main characters in the story, I have a love-hate relationship with the movie (and play) Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Yes, our relationship goes back about 25 years, about as long as the relationship between George (Richard Burton in the film)  and Martha (Liz Taylor in the film).

Over the course of 25 years I've seen the movie version several times and also have seen the play version twice, but to this day I'm still not certain I understand all that is going on with these characters.

Each time I see the film or play I gain a little more insight and see something I hadn't seen before, even though the experience is not always pleasant - both the play and film are DOWNERS!

ORIGINS OF THE PLAY AND MOVIE
The original play by Edward Albee opened in 1962, was highly acclaimed, and won several Tonys including Best Play.  The play was revived on Broadway in 2005 and 2010 and each production won Tonys.  The only movie version was made in 1966, directed by Mike Nichols. It too was also highly acclaimed: it was a box office smash and was nominated for an astonishing 13 Oscars, some of which are questionable (Best Sound? Best Score? Best Costumes?). But that's a topic for another blog post...

When I first became familiar with the movie and the stage play it was DEFINITELY NOT love at first sight, let me tell you.....

MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE MOVIE
I first watched the movie on late-night TV (and recorded it on a VHS tape!). When it ended at 2:30 AM, I was so sleepy. I admired the look of the film and the acting of the entire cast, but I certainly could not relate to any of the characters. I didn't LOVE the movie, but I LIKED many of the scenes, including the first 20 minutes of banter with dysfunctional Martha and George before the arrival of the party guests Nick and Honey (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) especially when Martha imitates Bette Davis by exclaiming "What A Dump!"  But some scenes seemed slow and boring such as the scene with a drunk George and Nick on the swings talking about their pasts.  And the ending - how sad! How depressing!

MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE PLAY
I remember first seeing the stage play of Virginia Woolf in 1992 at the Village Players in Oak Park, IL. It started at 8 PM, and was a LONG play - the longest I've ever seen at 3 hours.  Thankfully, there were two intermissions.  I was amazed that the dialogue was the same as the movie pretty much word-for-word, although I think I was too young to grasp the depth of the dialogue.

Earlier this year, I saw the stage play again (a co-worker of mine played Martha). This time watching the play, I gained a little more insight into these characters. For example,  it occurred to me that the scene where a drunk George picks Nick's brain is the most crucial part of the play/film because - in my opinion - it shows how depraved George really is, and how he instigates all that happens in the rest of the play/film.

No matter when I watch it is still a LONG play. It's still depressing - the play and movie. And I'm still not sure I fully get it.   Who is more depraved, George or Martha? Do they love each other more than Nick and Honey? All they all hypocrites?  What happens at the end? Will Nick and Honey stay together? Will they adopt a child? Will George and Martha continue to drink?

So many unanswered questions. It's a story that can be talked about for hours, and interpreted a number of ways.  Perhaps this is why it is considered to be brilliant.

When a shirt and tie won an Oscar for Best Costume

In my opinion, a lowlight of Oscar history was when Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966) won the Oscar for Best Costume Design.

I feel it's one of the great under-achievements in the history of the Oscars, as I've observed numerous times on this blog (here) and (here).

For those of you you have never seen the film, let me explain.

Virginia Woolf is a depressing black and white picture about a deranged middle-age couple who verbally torture each other and a younger couple over the course of one night.  It's a cast of only 4 principal actors, like the stage play it is based on. No other human beings (other than a couple of restaurant employees) can claim to appear in the picture.

So let's talk about these 4 actors and their so-called costumes.

1) Richard Burton. He wears the same shirt, tie, and cardigan sweater throughout the picture.

2) George Segal. The only "costume" he dons is a gray suit and a black tie with white shirt.

3) Sandy Dennis, playing "Honey", the wife of Segal. She wears the same dress through the picture.

4) And finally, Ms Elizabeth Taylor. I counted 3 wardrobe changes. In the beginning she has a black v-neck dress on. To look sexy and appealing for Segal, she slips into a low cut blouse and tights. After the diner scene, she changes again into a light sweater and jeans.

All of these clothes could have been found in a thrift shop. I have nothing against thrift shops (I get clothes there all the time), but I mean I don't get how it won a competitive award.

In the video clip below, Robert Mitchum and Candace"Candy" Bergen reveal the winner in one of the most infamous moments in the history of the Oscars (video courtesy of The Oscars YouTube channel).






As KC of Classic Movies observed on a previous post on the subject, perhaps the clothes succeeded in making the characters look pathetic. Indeed they did.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) One of my least-favorite movies

That's right. This is one of my least-favorite movies of all time. It's mean. Manipulative. Depressing. Sad. Ugh. I've never been a fan of it, even though I have seen it several times, own a copy on DVD (!) and have seen the play at least two times. I really don't understand its appeal. This is regarded as a film classic, and even the AFI hailed it as one of the Top 100 of all time (strange choice I feel). Now I like all the actors in it - including real life husband-and-wife (at the time) Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. They play married college professors who have a passion for drinking and are constantly playing mind games with each other.

The story takes place in one night: Geroge and Martha entertain guests: new professor Geroge Segal and his wife Honey (Sandy Dennis, who won Best Supporting Actress). The guests are insulted and ridiculed, and George and Martha drink to their heart's content, slurring insults at each other.

One thing I never understood is how this movie could win an Oscar for Best Costume Design. There are only 5 costumes in the entire movie. Burton wears a cardigan sweater and a black tie. This has got to be one of the strangest Oscar wins ever. In one of my rants about this (in another post), one of my readers brought a good point in that the costume designers succeeded in making the characters look pathetic.

The film is a nearly word-for-word adaptation, and there's some great camera angles and a decent set design (the cinematography and art direction won Oscars - more deservedly than Best Costumes).  Directed by Mike Nichols, known for his comedy, this film is a 180-degree switch.