Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 390457" data-attributes="member: 8">Today was a &quot;sixties babes&quot; double feature.DARLING (1965)[ATTACH=full]51346[/ATTACH]Julie Christie&#039;s character Diana Scott&nbsp;&nbsp; is a liar, a hypocrite, an opportunist and a self-indulgent, immature narcissist.But that&#039;s not saying much in a film that often caricatures the shallowness of the beau monde and the ruthlessness of the entertainment industry.It&#039;s possible that &quot;darling&quot; refers to the situation as a whole, rather than just the female protagonist.Because of its cynical approach I feel it kinda precedes VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, and without a single character to root for it gets dangerously close to being a downright unlikeable film.Thankfully it&#039;s saved by a delightfully bitchy and tongue in cheek tone, and the more straightforwardly funny stuff is hidden in the details. It&#039;s all very cleverly done, imo.It&#039;s one of those extraordinary vibrant films with a bit of voyeurism that always works best in sixties cinema (except for Peeping Tom, ironically) and just like THE SWIMMER you can play it on a continuous loop because it doesn&#039;t really matter where it begins or where it ends.Nevertheless, her last job is that of an Italian version of Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco, and since she was born as &quot;Scott&quot; I&#039;m going to fanwank her into The Colbys universe as Frankie and Sable&#039;s cousin who shoulda coulda guest-starred in the soap&#039;s third season.CANDY (1968)[ATTACH=full]51348[/ATTACH]This is an odd combination of American counterculture social commentary and the European softcore folly, a sub-genre that has aged terribly and was never any good to begin with.It also looks like a remake of ALICE IN WONDERLAND in which Candy encounters various characters of authority, celebrity or self-imposed divinity, and they&#039;re all preying on her wide-eyed naivety.One of the first scenes in DARLING tackles the subject of &quot;breaking away from the conventional&quot;, but the interviewer played by Dirk Bogarde puts such a spin on it that the &quot;breaking away&quot; itself has become a conventional thing to do (the first sign that it was going to be good film).The mockery of the establisment in CANDY is done in such an uncool and sledgehammerish way that it almost parodies the mockery.Of course it&#039;s also possible to watch the film from a completely different point of view. Candy might represent the youth who&#039;s being tricked into a war they don&#039;t understand, let alone support.Or maybe it&#039;s about a father/daughter relationship...who knows? Candy has a lot of questions and all she gets is bullshit.Never mind the &quot;how&quot; or &quot;why&quot;, CANDY has enough entertainment to put some dolce in your vita, as Walter Matthau&#039;s character would say it.I mean, just look at that cast.Richard Burton as a rockstar poet who has his own personal &quot;total eclipse of the heart&quot; wind blowing through his hair.THE Marlon Brando as the enlightened guru trucking through the nation - I think it might his best role ever - and also real life &quot;Darling&quot; Anita Pallenberg as the psycho nurse to James Coburn&#039;s matador surgeon.It&#039;s all totally camp and unabashedly chewing the scenery but the production itself looks quite lavish, something that will definitely please the fans of Ken Russell&#039;s work.And even if the film had failed in every single aspect then there&#039;s still that amazing soundtrack.The only thing that holds it back for me is that it doesn&#039;t have any serious and memorable shock value. It&#039;s feathers, instead of beans.I really wanted to double feature DARLING with WHO ARE YOU, POLLY MAGGOO? but the latter is only available as part of an expensive William Klein collection box set and I think that&#039;s too extravagant for a blind buy. Maybe later, maybe tougher.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 390457, member: 8"] Today was a "sixties babes" double feature. DARLING (1965) [ATTACH type="full"]51346[/ATTACH] Julie Christie's character [I]Diana Scott[/I] is a liar, a hypocrite, an opportunist and a self-indulgent, immature narcissist. But that's not saying much in a film that often caricatures the shallowness of the beau monde and the ruthlessness of the entertainment industry. It's possible that "darling" refers to the situation as a whole, rather than just the female protagonist. Because of its cynical approach I feel it kinda precedes VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, and without a single character to root for it gets dangerously close to being a downright unlikeable film. Thankfully it's saved by a delightfully bitchy and tongue in cheek tone, and the more straightforwardly funny stuff is hidden in the details. It's all very cleverly done, imo. It's one of those extraordinary vibrant films with a bit of voyeurism that always works best in sixties cinema (except for Peeping Tom, ironically) and just like THE SWIMMER you can play it on a continuous loop because it doesn't really matter where it begins or where it ends. Nevertheless, her last job is that of an Italian version of Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco, and since she was born as "Scott" I'm going to fanwank her into The Colbys universe as Frankie and Sable's cousin who shoulda coulda guest-starred in the soap's third season. CANDY (1968) [ATTACH type="full"]51348[/ATTACH] This is an odd combination of American counterculture social commentary and the European softcore folly, a sub-genre that has aged terribly and was never any good to begin with. It also looks like a remake of ALICE IN WONDERLAND in which Candy encounters various characters of authority, celebrity or self-imposed divinity, and they're all preying on her wide-eyed naivety. One of the first scenes in DARLING tackles the subject of "breaking away from the conventional", but the interviewer played by Dirk Bogarde puts such a spin on it that the "breaking away" itself has become a conventional thing to do (the first sign that it was going to be good film). The mockery of the establisment in CANDY is done in such an uncool and sledgehammerish way that it almost parodies the mockery. Of course it's also possible to watch the film from a completely different point of view. Candy might represent the youth who's being tricked into a war they don't understand, let alone support. Or maybe it's about a father/daughter relationship...who knows? Candy has a lot of questions and all she gets is bullshit. Never mind the "how" or "why", CANDY has enough entertainment to put some dolce in your vita, as Walter Matthau's character would say it. I mean, just look at that cast. Richard Burton as a rockstar poet who has his own personal "total eclipse of the heart" wind blowing through his hair. THE Marlon Brando as the enlightened guru trucking through the nation - I think it might his best role ever - and also real life "Darling" Anita Pallenberg as the psycho nurse to James Coburn's matador surgeon. It's all totally camp and unabashedly chewing the scenery but the production itself looks quite lavish, something that will definitely please the fans of Ken Russell's work. And even if the film had failed in every single aspect then there's still that amazing soundtrack. The only thing that holds it back for me is that it doesn't have any serious and memorable shock value. It's feathers, instead of beans. I really wanted to double feature DARLING with WHO ARE YOU, POLLY MAGGOO? but the latter is only available as part of an expensive William Klein collection box set and I think that's too extravagant for a blind buy. Maybe later, maybe tougher. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?