This is why, merely a few weeks later, I'm already back. There is something about 1967 that just won't let go of it's hold. My hypothesis to the siren-like spell 1967 has over me is just the pure excitement that can be sensed in films from the year. As you may have heard me express before, the 1950's was an abysmal decade for the advancement of film as an art. While, as always, their are exceptions, in general, the films of 1950's gave in to every negative impulse of drama. Maybe in a vain attempt to differentiate itself from the incoming threat of television, the auteur's answer to everything in the 1950's was apparently, "Let's make it bigger". The "issues" were bigger, the "emotions" were bigger, the "realism" was bigger, and sometimes the screen was just literally larger, but whatever the case, like a man with a bruised ego, it was all hot air. The only cinematic neophytes of the era who were able to cut through the hyperbole and find something meaningful were the actors James Dean and Marlon Brando, the former who would not survive the excesses of the era, and the latter who would only be able to cover up serious emotional problems (including a massive eating disorder) for about the span of the decade. By the early 1960's, the first signs of a new understanding of what cinema was and could be began to emerge, but all too commonly the films were dragged down by the left over traditions of the previous era. It was finally in 1967 though, that the break became clear. A new generation was in town and they were not at all satisfied with the way things had been. This new generation would go on to create the greatest decade in cinema history, 1970's, but it was in its roots, 1967, that you find the most excitement. The new auteurs were still honing their craft, but what they lacked in polish they made up for with an abundance of passion. This emotional devotion to creation is palpable, which is why 1967 is the brilliant year that it is.
For the most part, though probablY filled with old-timers of the Hollywood of yesteryear, the Academy did a decent job recognizing the films of the new generation. The largest glaring omission, and the film that is actually my favorite of the year (it ranked in at #5 in my all-time list), is "Cool Hand Luke". The film and the character "Cool Hand Luke" is one of the coolest creations in film history, the ultimate rebel (a much less self-aware version of " A Rebel Without a Cause"), a true existential warrior. How the Academy passed over the film, especially in favor of one miserable film I will be discussing briefly, is a mystery that I frankly don't want to uncover (or to be fair to the Academy, they did honor the film in a number of other areas). Another great American film that should have received consideration for the top prize is "The Dirty Dozen", a fun "group of men on a mission" movie that would later influence such great work as Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds". Finally, there are two films from around the era whose eligibility is questionable. The first is Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The film was first released in 1966, but did not receive an American release until 1967, so I don't know what year the Academy considered it eligible. Which ever year it fell under the proper eligibility though, it should have been nominated. Finally, the last case is "The Battle of Algiers", which is a strange case indeed. First released internationally in 1966, and receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Film in that year, the film would not receive an American release until 1967. However, somehow the film managed to receive Oscar nominations for Best Director and Screenplay in 1968, hopping over 1967. Had it been eligible though, it too should have absolutely been included into the list of the year's five best films. Now though, it's on to the actual nominees.
