Bonnie and Clyde v. Public Enemies

First of all, I'd like to resend my earlier remarks about Bonnie and Clyde. When I said that I found the character development lacking and the reasons that they do things to be lacking, I wasn't slamming the movie. I was relating it to Public Enemies, which I also enjoyed, but was driven to take note of those major aspects of film that are very thin in these two movies. This leads me to the question, why would two projects with astounding direction, acting and basis for plot be so shoddy? I think that the lack of character development and the fact that "they act stupid" might be intentional, so then the question becomes -- "why?"

We know that Bonnie and Clyde did not follow the accuracy of events that happened, and that the goal was not a documentary. It was used more as a vessel for two characters that seem to embody change. The 60's were a time when young people and those with different lifestyles from the norm were screaming for change and this movie was a sort of avatar for those ideas. They were criminals, and they were anti-heroes, but we always found ourselves rooting for them in the end, why? Because they were relate-able. The major messages of the film were not to listen to authority (parents, law) and to do what makes you happy; and as those simple goals, the film is really quite noble. If it had been full of skilled robbers, and people with reasoning behind why they are the way they are, it would have been a better narrative, yes. But, it would have had less impact as a film calling attention to change.

They stay at a farm house, and when the ex owners arrive, Clyde passes his side arm over to them, encouraging them to shoot the sign. It's as if we are those Oakies, and Bonnie and Clyde are saying that "hey, you don't have to stand for this anymore. If a couple of crazy kids like us can rob banks and not get caught for half a decade, there's no reason you can't turn your life around and do what you want to -- and damn those that get in your way."

At least, that's what I thought.

Really? No, really?

Alright, I suppose that with every film I watch from an earlier era, there are some things that have to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, when we watched "Sullivan's Travels" earlier this year, I had to remind myself that certain things were funny then that aren't now -- like an African American's face covered in vanilla -- hilarious in the fifties, fairly racist by todays standards. And it was with that mentality that I went into "A Place in the Sun" with. Unfortunately, I am sad to say, my understanding can only go so far before I begin to judge something exponentially harsher and harsher.
Distraught that you are pregnant? Ok, I can get that, people react the same way today. Being abandoned by your baby daddy? Ok, I see where you're coming from - that frankly sucks, and that guy is a jerk - no question. Breaking out into tears and throwing yourself against a door because a business is closed on a national holiday? No, I'm not going to get behind that one. Seriously, what the hell girl? I suppose there are considerations to be made because it is a melodrama and the "Great American Tragedy," but come on, this movie is perpetually over the top.
There is a disgusting amount of foreshadowing. "I don't like bathing suits, I can't swim." "Oh no, we're so far out the man is going to think we've drowned." "A woman drowned in this very lake, the man was never seen again." etc etc -- I think we get the point: he is going to drown her. The movie reads as if the audience was either to simple to understand the concept of framing a plot and foreshadowing (where you have something at the start come back near the end), or it was deliberately done this way to please a target audience.
Who that audience is, I have no idea -- I assure you, it wasn't me.

I love you, too (and always will)

Honestly, I've seen Double Indemnity at least a dozen times, and it just gets better every time I watch it. Mouthing along as the movie goes -- "they'll hang ya' baby, hang ya' as fast as ten dimes will buy ya' a dollar -- and I don't want ya' to hang,"-- still wrapped up in suspense when she honks on the horn, heart beating faster as the car fails to start, even feeling that same tingle in my spine when he collapses at the end of the movie; Double Indemnity is a noir classic that seems to never loose its punctuality.

I think it's maybe the cinematic techniques, the brilliant contrast between beginning and end, between night and day. The lines from the blinds like bars in a prison, the shadows in Walter's apartment that he slinks into before opening the door, and Phylis is there. And the dialogue, "I think you're rotten! -- I think you're swell, as long as I'm not your husband," Walter's voice overs, "I tried to get it out of my mind but I couldn't, I was still thinking about her, about that anklet." Or the acting, like the slight changes in Stanwyck's face when Neff murders her husband or all of Eddy G's mannerisms, the cigars, the diction, the little man. And his immortal lines and speeches, yammering on about insurance and murder with such style and speed as only he could deliver.

Or maybe it's all of these things, the combination of the acting, writing, directing, setting and thousands of other considerations that go into producing a film that make Double Indemnity the legend it is today. I noticed in one of the books that was passed around the class, a correspondence replying to someone that believed the film would flop, because you can't have any suspense after you've committed the murder. The letter is written about five years later, 1949 I believe, and begins by matter-of-factly pointing out that the person was wrong, because not only was the movie a success, it set the conventions for how most noir films would be framed and written. And I think that is why this movie is such a personal favorite, why it's well known, with positive reviews. And why, for me, I will always love Double Indemnity.