The Graduate

[Anonymous]

Decided to start going down AFI's list of top 100 movies. Saw The Graduate starring a younger than I'm used to (but way too old for "20") Dustin Hoffman mumbling his way through a movie that had a few highlights, but draaaged on far too long in service to songs that were probably great at the time, but now drag the movie on due to being overplayed.

THis is a top 100 movie? Mrs. Robinson badgers him into screwing her (reverse the genders and imagine some man appearing naked in front of a 20 year old girl). She wants no connection with him, but gets pissed off when he goes out with her daughter (understandable). After ONE date, he decides he wants to marry her (?) and starts stalking her all over Berkeley. Then Mr. Roper shows up, screaming how he wants to kick him out.

Then her parents "force" her into getting married? And after getting married, she still leaves her new husband and runs off with some nut she barely knows (look at their faces at the end of the film)??? None of these characters is sympathetic or does anything that makes sense. This movie hasn't aged very well!

[Anonymous]

Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

You need to understand cinematography to get it.

It is not a love story... If that is what you expected.

[Anonymous]

Oh honey, you just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

What is your review of To Kill A Mockingbird (film, not book)?

[Anonymous]

You are looking at this from 2014. From here it's old hat. Back then it was as if a bomb had gone off. The plot the themes the music were all groundbreaking. Without this movie do you think the era of Doris Day would have ended?

[Anonymous]

It's bigger than the plot. You were viewing it for the first time in 2014 with a point of view that reflects that and a different context, in general.

When there's a movie that I'm surprised about that DW hasn't already seen I say, Well you can watch it now, but you won't have the same experience because you didn't see it in the 70s OR when you were 11 OR when everyone in school was talking about it OR before the Web OR whatever.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't expecting a love story. I knew the whole plot before I saw it, since it's been referenced to death in pop culture. The actions of the characters didn't make sense!

But Ebert changed his mind about the movie after time. I couldn't have seen it in the 60's because I wasn't born yet. If a movie is supposed to be great, it should transcend its time, e.g. All About Eve or It's a Wonderful Life, or the Godfather. This one doesn't make the cut.

(The last time I saw To Kill a Mockingbird, it was in high school after we'd read the book. I don't remember it standing out and it's hard to like a movie better than an iconic book.)

[Anonymous]

The film of To Kill a Mockingbird stands out as very nearly equal to the book.

[Anonymous]

I just have one word. Plastics.

Seriously, some of these movies are chosen because of their impact at the time. The Graduate made quite a splash when it appeared, in part, because it showed the younger generation's fear of getting caught up in the rat race. I'm not an expert in film but I think it was somewhat uncommon at the time to have movies that questioned the status quo -- which is why movies like The Graduate, MASH, and Easy Rider had so much of an impact.

BTW, when I was in high school I loved MASH (the film) but years later I saw it again and it struck as being mean and nasty. The tv show was much gentler. Also when I finally saw Easy Rider years after it debuted, I was underwhelmed. But they had a big impact at the time.

It's a bit like watching the Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein. It's not such a thrill in the modern age but you have to consider how it was viewed when it came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The film of To Kill a Mockingbird stands out as very nearly equal to the book.

Harper Lee was present for filming and made them stick to the book. Most authors just sell the rights.

[Anonymous]

One word: Plastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One word: Plastic.

Oh, I see 11:06 beat me to it! Sorry.

But really, that sums it up. Can you imagine a time when they thought plastic was a thing of the future? Now it is ubiquitous!

[Anonymous]

A lot of it is the cinematography, as a pp mentioned. Hoffman swimming in the pool, for example, in limbo, cut off from his parents' generation and in between lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's bigger than the plot. You were viewing it for the first time in 2014 with a point of view that reflects that and a different context, in general.

When there's a movie that I'm surprised about that DW hasn't already seen I say, Well you can watch it now, but you won't have the same experience because you didn't see it in the 70s OR when you were 11 OR when everyone in school was talking about it OR before the Web OR whatever.

This is a reasonable answer. OP, I also saw it for the first time about a year ago and thought it was pretty terrible, particularly dustin's "acting". It really surprised me, having obviously seen Rainman before this! But the PPs comments are much more reasonable than all the snobby PPs saying we don't "get it". Talk about Emperor's New Clothes...