#88 Bringing Up Baby
Bringing Up Baby was my introduction to Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant. I know, it’s a travesty, right? What kind of punk hasn’t seen their movies before? Agreed, I’m ashamed. Admittedly, if I have seen them before, I don’t have any recollection of the experience. My grave offense probably has to do with a reluctance to watch movies made before 1980. I really have to gird myself for the experience, which means it’s often easier to watch something more immediately desirable.
That’s one of the good things about working through the AFI Top 100, however, I have to get through them all. While there have been some clunkers, there have also been surprises challenging my bias that I cannot enjoy old movies. Bringing Up Baby falls somewhere between “okay, I’m not disappointed I watched this” and a surprise. As with other movies from the black and white era, the dialogue is fast and the acting is bombastic. Grant’s facial gesticulations are such hyperbole you would think cameras of the day were not able to capture emotional subtlety. This feels like a carryover from stage acting where viewers are not able to zoom in to see the tears forming in the corner of an actor’s eyes. While Hepburn’s character is intended to be a walking bad luck charm, the script feels like it swings too far in the direction of making women have no sense at all. Katherine Hepburn is a heralded Hollywood icon, so seeing her play a complete ninny doesn’t feel appropriate even if she does it well.
I wouldn’t say I need to watch Bringing Up Baby again, but I also don’t think I wasted my time. The film maintains visual diversity that combines with the dialogue to keep things snappy throughout. There’s also a neat twist that ties into the movie’s title. While I certainly did not see it coming (probably would have had I read the move summary), it adds complexity to the plot and places a number of the characters in entertaining predicaments. Bringing Up Baby is, what I’ll call, “Old Hollywood”, and 1930’s funny.
#87 12 Angry Men
Here’s another old movie that’s still relevant. The social injustice undertones would resonate in any decade: a minority teen is on trial for the murder of his father, the teen received a trial, but the jury makes assumptions and is prepared to deliver a verdict after minimal deliberation. There really is a study of multiple subjects at play. Aside from the racial concerns, each juror brings his own prejudices, personal dilemmas, and peccadillos to bear through debate and interpersonal conflict. How can a group of diverse people come together to make a united decision and overcome deep-rooted differences, some as strong as racism? We struggle to see it done today after decades of “progress”, so seeing a micro example of society (granted, not a racially diverse one…This is 50’s USA) is like watching the growth in a petri dish.
12 Angry Men takes place almost entirely in one room. The set is simple but dynamic. New York City is experiencing its warmest day of the year which turns the jurors’ room into an oven. The jurors have places to be and agendas to execute. There are twelve different motivations pulling the room’s inhabitants in twelve different directions. This movie is like a slow burning crime drama. There is a mystery to solve with new clues released throughout the course of the film. Strong characters all hold their respective moments in the spotlight. In the end, it’s just over and people go their separate ways. I liked this movie as another classic that’s a time warp back to a different era, and that’s really about I can say about it. 12 Angry Men is the broad spectrum of life encapsulated in a room, and it kept me entertained.
HobbyScope 