Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Anne Bancroft’

Are You Trying To Seduce Me?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2026| 6 Comments »

“The Graduate” (1967) — movie review
Today’s review is for the coming‑of‑age / romantic‑drama / comedy “The Graduate”, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock, the aimless recent college graduate drifting into an affair and trying to figure out what comes next;  Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson, the seductive older woman who upends Benjamin’s life and sense of direction;  Katharine Ross as Elaine Robinson, the daughter caught between expectation and rebellion;  William Daniels as Mr. Braddock, Benjamin’s well‑meaning but clueless father;  Murray Hamilton as Mr. Robinson, the husband whose world unravels;  Elizabeth Wilson as Mrs. Braddock, the socially polished mother trying to keep up appearances;  and Buck Henry as the hotel clerk, the deadpan gatekeeper of Benjamin’s double life.  The film follows a young man who doesn’t know what he wants — until he makes a series of choices that complicate everything in his life.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film in many years.  I originally saw it sometime in the 1970s on TV, but I haven’t watched it since.  Released in 1967, “The Graduate” was a major critical and cultural success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Hoffman), Best Actress (Bancroft), Best Supporting Actress (Ross), and Best Adapted Screenplay.  Mike Nichols won the Oscar for Best Director.  Historically, the film is significant for capturing the generational uncertainty of the late 1960s, for its groundbreaking use of music (Simon & Garfunkel), and for its frank (for the time) depiction of sexuality and disillusionment.  It’s also one of the films that helped define the “New Hollywood” era:  character‑driven, socially aware, and stylistically bold.  This film is often cited as a “comedy”.  I think that’s stretching the definition to include “amusing / awkward” situations more than “humorous or funny situations”.  But maybe that’s just me…
Plot:  Benjamin Braddock returns home to California after graduating from college, unsure of what he wants to do with his life.  At a party thrown by his parents, he’s cornered by Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s business partner.  She seduces him, and the two begin an affair that Benjamin drifts into more than chooses.  The relationship is secret, transactional, and emotionally confusing for him.  Things get complicated when Benjamin is pushed (by both families) to take out Elaine, Mrs. Robinson’s daughter.  He reluctantly agrees, only to genuinely fall for her.  When Elaine discovers the affair, she is furious and leaves for Berkeley.  Benjamin becomes obsessed with winning her back, chasing her across the state, confronting her parents, and trying to convince her that he’s changed.  The story builds toward the famous wedding‑crashing scene, where Benjamin interrupts Elaine’s ceremony and the two run away together — only to sit on a bus, suddenly unsure of what they’ve just done.  The ending is iconic precisely because it’s ambiguous:  freedom, rebellion, and uncertainty (again!) all at once.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  stylish and inventive;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Graduate” is one of those films that still feels fresh even though it’s almost sixty years old.  The themes (uncertainty, pressure, rebellion, and the fear of adulthood) are timeless.  The movie balances humor, awkwardness, and emotional tension in a way that feels honest rather than forced.  The pacing is deliberate, and the film trusts the audience to sit with Benjamin’s confusion instead of spelling everything out.
Acting:  Dustin Hoffman is terrific as Benjamin:  awkward, anxious, and believable in almost every scene.  He captures that mix of youthful arrogance and total cluelessness that makes the character work.  Anne Bancroft is outstanding as Mrs. Robinson:  confident, bitter, seductive, and wounded all at once.  Her performance gives the film its edge.  Katharine Ross brings warmth and intelligence to Elaine, making her more than just a plot device.  William Daniels and Elizabeth Wilson are pitch‑perfect as Benjamin’s well‑meaning but oblivious parents.  Murray Hamilton is strong as Mr. Robinson, especially when the façade cracks.  And Buck Henry’s small role as the hotel clerk adds just the right amount of dry humor.  Overall, the acting is real and memorable.
Filming / FX:  The filming is stylish and inventive (for its day):  long takes, tight close‑ups, clever transitions, and a visual language that tries to mirror Benjamin’s emotional state.  The use of Simon & Garfunkel’s music is iconic — not just background, but part of the film’s mood and meaning.  The cinematography captures both the emptiness of suburban comfort and the energy of Berkeley.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the film’s visual choices (the scuba suit scene, the cross‑cutting during the affair, the final bus shot) are still impressive.  It’s a movie that looks simple on the surface but is carefully crafted underneath.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing slows in the middle, especially during Benjamin’s drifting phase.  Some of the characters (particularly Elaine) feel especially underwritten compared to Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson.  The film leans heavily on symbolism which rarely works (for me) and doesn’t here (for me).  And the ending, while famous, feels abrupt and unresolved / unrealistic if you’re expecting a traditional “happily ever after.”  None of these issues seriously hurt the film, but they’re particularly noticeable on re‑watch fifty years later.  And being “really” picky:  Benjamin twice takes the Bay Bridge to Berkeley, but he’s driving the wrong way (West) and going to San Francisco and not the East Bay (where Berkeley is).  Also, Ben and Elaine catch a bus to the “end-of-line” in Berkeley to visit the zoo, but the zoo they end up in is the San Francisco Zoo, not the Oakland Zoo.  And there are some other minor continuity issues, but I guess most folks will never notice them.  LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s funny (not haw-haw funny), awkward, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The performances are strong, the music is memorable, and the story still resonates.  The film’s not flashy, it’s heartfelt, and it captures a moment in life (and in American culture) that still feels relatable (at least to this dinosaur).
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Graduate” is a culturally significant, beautifully acted, and stylistically bold film that helped define a generation.  With its Academy Award recognition, iconic scenes, and lasting influence, it remains a must‑see for anyone interested in character‑driven drama, 1960s cinema, or films about the uncertainty of growing up.  Watch it for the performances, the music, and to remember that sometimes figuring out what comes next in life IS hard.
.
Click here (4 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Water, Words And Things

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 8, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Miracle Worker”  (1962)  –  movie review
Today’s review is for the historical / biographical / drama film:  “The Miracle Worker”  (1962), starring Anne Bancroft as Annie Sullivan (a fiercely determined teacher with failing eyesight and a traumatic past), Patty Duke as Helen Keller (a blind and deaf child trapped in silence and personal rage), Victor Jory as Captain Arthur Keller (Helen’s stern but emotionally distant father), Inga Swenson as Kate Keller (Helen’s mother, torn between hope and helplessness), Andrew Prine as James Keller (Helen’s half-brother, skeptical and resentful), and Kathleen Comegys as Aunt Ev (a well-meaning but ineffectual family member).
Background:  I picked this film up during a “100 films for $100” sale.  I knew the broad strokes — Helen Keller / a disabled person v. a teacher — but I have never seen the film or heard much of the actual story.  I didn’t really know what to expect from the film;  I just knew this was an “acclaimed” film back when I was young.  What we see is a psychological (and sometimes physical) cage match disguised as a domestic drama.  This isn’t a film about disability — it’s about discipline, desperation, and the honest cost of breakthrough / achievement.
Plot Summary:  Helen Keller (Duke) is blind, deaf, and mute due to an illness in infancy.  Her family, overwhelmed and indulgent (wealthy), allows her to behave like a feral child — grabbing food from plates, throwing tantrums, and manipulating her environment through narcissistic chaos.  Enter teacher / care-giver Annie Sullivan (Bancroft), a graduate of the Perkins School for the Blind, hired to teach Helen how to function in a “normal” society – or at least to the best of her (Helen’s) ability.  Annie, herself is partially blind, emotionally scarred, and she refuses to coddle Helen.  She demands discipline, structure, and isolation from the family to break Helen’s habits.  The film centers on the physical and emotional battles between Annie and Helen — most famously the extended dining room scene where Annie tries to teach Helen to fold a napkin and eat with a spoon.  The climax comes at the water pump, where Annie spells “W-A-T-E-R” into Helen’s hand and Helen finally connects the tactile sign to the concept.  The breakthrough is seismic.  Helen’s world opens.  Annie weeps.  The family watches in awe.  The film ends not with triumph, but with the beginning of understanding.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  How about the filming / FX?  Are there any problems?  And, did I like the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  minimal but effective;  dated in places;  and yes — it’s a deeply moving film.
Is this movie any good?  Yes.  It’s an excellent character-driven story.  The film doesn’t rely on spectacle — it relies on grit (and caring).  The emotional stakes are high, but the payoff is earned by the characters and by us (the viewers).  It’s a feel-everything movie for about 90% of the film and then it blossoms into a feel-good movie at the end.  I would also mention the movie was a Broadway hit in 1959 with Bancroft and Duke reprising their stage roles for this film.  The stage version won several Tony Awards.
Acting:  Bancroft is excellent — tough, tender, and unrelenting.  Duke, at just 15, delivers a performance that’s physical and well beyond her age.  Their scenes together are mostly intense, often violent, and frequently emotionally exhausting.  Jory and Swenson provide solid support and Prine’s James adds tension as the voice of doubt.  The cast is solid but it is the chemistry between Bancroft and Duke which is what drives the film.  Bancroft won Best Actress and Duke won Best Supporting Actress for their roles.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is stark — black and white, with natural lighting.  Studios were just making the transition to “color” films in the early 1960s.  In our age of almost exclusively color movies, the lack of color enhances the emotional bleakness of the times and of the “limitations” of the two lead characters.  I don’t know if the choice of black and white was creative or driven by finance as color films were considerably more expensive back then.  The physical confrontations between Sullivan and Keller were / are surprising (to me) in their realism – particularly after watching the “fake / staged” knife fight shown in “Rebel Without A Cause” a short while ago.  There are no “real” special effects, and none are needed.  There are a few minor flashbacks of Sullivan remembering her youth and the death of her younger brother.  The film, though, is all about performance and pacing.
Problems:  A few and minor.  Some of the supporting characters are underwritten.  I would have liked to see more of the brother (James) character.  The depiction of “correcting” a disability is dated — more about taming than understanding.  Also, the film risks oversimplifying the long, ongoing process of education and adaptation for both of the main characters (and the family).  But, no movie is “perfect” and you have to get the story across in the time limits of the movie not the real-time of Helen’s growth / transition.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Though “enjoy” might not be the “perfect” word.  I was moved, impressed, and inspired.  The film is about the fight to connect as human beings, and the cost of that fight – for the family, the teacher and the student.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended to MUST see.  “The Miracle Worker” is a film that demonstrates patience and emotional commitment to the art (and science) of teaching.  If you’re interested in historical bio-drama, disability representation, or just want to see two actors go toe-to-toe in a battle of wills, this is a must-watch.  The “miracle” is Helen Keller.  The “miracle worker” is Annie Sullivan.  As an aside, this film has been selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry for its cultural and historical significance.  So, yeah, it’s THAT good!
.
Click here (8 September) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Namaste

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2023| 2 Comments »

“The Elephant Man”   (1980)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the biographic drama (shot in black and white):  “The Elephant Man” starring John Hurt as John (né: Joseph) Merrick (the “Elephant Man”), Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Frederick Treves (a doctor who seeks to help Merrick), Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Kendal (a socialite who meets and befriends  Merrick), John Gielgud as Francis Carr Gomm (the head doctor / administrator for Dr. Treves hospital), Wendy Hiller as “Mrs. Mothershead” (the “mother superior” / head nurse at the hospital), Freddie Jones as Mr. Bytes (the “hawker” showing Merrick at the “freak show”), Michael Elphick as “Jim” (a dishonest and cruel night porter who charges people to view Merrick while he’s in the hospital).
Basic Story:  In 19th century England, a pregnant woman is frightened by an elephant and the traumatic effect is that her child (J. Merrick) is born with deformities which result in his being shunned and turned into a carnival / circus act / display.
[Note:  While we now know this “traumatic effect” is nonsense, please recall that western medicine as we know it today was barely in its infancy in the mid-1800s.    —    kmab]
A doctor (Treves) sees the deformed man and seeks to discover the full nature of his deformities and help him if possible.  After some interaction, the doctor realizes the man is not (also) mentally incapable, but is, in fact, intelligent and well read (for the period).  We see a good deal of torture and humiliation Merrick must endure at the hands of his stage trainer (Bytes) and the “Night Porter” at the hospital where he (Merrick) comes to live.  Merrick meets a socialite (Mrs. Kendal) who becomes his friend and due to her position in society is a conduit for Merrick to meet other important members of the British aristocracy (including the Princess of Wales).  Merrick is treated to a night at the theater and he tries to go to bed like a normal person.  The movie implies Merrick dies from asphyxiation due to his deformities.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The special effects?  The drama?  And do I recommend it?  In order, yes;  mostly very good to excellent;  fair;  excellent;  very highly (with qualifications).
Any good:  This is an excellent movie which unfortunately is not easily viewed.  It is not the viewed deformities which are the problem.  Instead, the difficulty is caused by the horrid living conditions and inhumane treatment which Mr. Merrick must endure.  While Merrick is portrayed as wonderfully kind, intelligent and sensitive, he lives in a society which mocks any disfigurement and multiplies that with a superstructure of wealth and class which generally sees little to no need to assist others in their basic human dignity.
Acting:  Although unseen due to the masking / makeup, Hurt is powerfully convincing as the crippled and disfigured Merrick.  Hopkins and Bancroft are equally very good in their respective roles as Merrick’s doctor and as a socialite who “sees” the inner beauty and humanity of Merrick.  Gielgud is Gielgud and as far as I know, if you’ve seen him in one role, you’ve seen him in all his roles.  As for the role, Gom is hostile to the keeping Merrick at the hospital.  Over time, he softens and like Mrs. Mothershead, comes to like and respect Merrick.  Both Jones and Elphick make excellent villains in their roles.  They are thoroughly detestable individuals in their roles.
Special effects:  There are actually a few “effects” in this film other than the makeup work used to transform Hurt into Merrick.  The most obvious one is shooting the film in “black and white”.  I personally don’t like this.  I don’t know what was to be gained by not shooting in color.  This was, after all, released in 1980!  It did not take me back to simpler times and I (honestly) found it annoying.
There were other simplistic overlays like the “dreamscape” of Merrick’s mother being frightened by an elephant.  As an audience, we can see what the director is trying to make us imagine, but I just found it poorly done.  There are also a couple of other very short images like men working in grimy factories which really didn’t convey the information that at some point a crippled Merrick tried such jobs (and failed).  By the way, while the make-uping of Hurt into Merrick was unique, I did not find it “terrifying”.
Drama:  There are a half-dozen truly excellent scenes in this movie – even if some of them are not for the faint of heart.  The two “non-Merrick” scenes I liked the best were:   1) when Treves must be comforted by his wife because he has doubts if he is helping Merrick or using him to promote his (Dr. Treves’) own medical practice;  and, 2) this is actually a Merrick scene, but it’s the other actor I loved.  Bancroft / Mrs. Kendal gives Merrick a book with “Romeo and Juliet” in it.  Merrick starts to read from it and Kendal, recites back to Merrick as if they were actors in the play.  In the end, she finishes the scene with a soft kiss on Merrick’s cheek and Bancroft’s expression looks like she sees into Merrick’s soul.  Just a really good performance by Bancroft which makes me want to see if her other roles are as good.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly.  As a film depicting an individual’s ability to survive cruelty and yet retain his personal human dignity and kindness, this is an emotionally powerful movie.  If I have any qualifications in recommending this film they are all around the cruelty and de-humanization portrayed.  At several points I felt as if I were observing real-life invalid abuse and it was emotionally disturbing / upsetting.  I perfectly understood why the scenes needed to be included in the film, but I can imagine a very negative reaction by children or adults with heightened response to cruelty in any of its various forms.  It is rated “PG”.  This was my first time viewing the film – even though it’s been out over forty years – and I am well aware of the title’s use as an idiom in personal insults.  This is a powerful adult movie well worth your viewing.  It reminds me to look inside for the real person in front of me.
.
Click here (26 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started