Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by sdcinerama
Cinema '62: The Greatest Year at the Movies by Stephen Farber, Michael McClellan
5.0
Quick, what's the best year for movies?
There's almost no right answer, my generation can point to 1984, 1987, or 1999. Younger viewers will state the best year has been 2007. When I was growing up, the answer was 1939.
The book CINEMA '62 by Stephen Farber and Michael McClellan is an overview of the films of 1962 and an attempt to make the case that 1962 is the best year for movies. So how did they do?
The authors divide their book into chapters focusing on aspects of the year that manifested in the films. One chapter covered social and sexual themes, another covers emerging foreign masters, emerging younger talents (John Frankenheimer and Stanley Kubrick in particular) and yet another covers notable entries in established genres like musicals and westerns. From out of these chapters, the authors then proceed to examine the notable films of these areas. They cover the genesis and production of the films and their eventual release and reception.
Their descriptions along these lines are concise and satisfying. While entire books have been written about just one of the films at hand, their ability to summarize all the major events and import into a handful of pages is impressive. You may find yourself wanting to seek out some of these films yourself, or at least peruse assorted internet articles for further background. Building that desire is probably the surest sign of success on an endeavor like CINEMA '62.
If there is any criticism, it might be that for as expansive as it is, there will always be some entries that haven't been discussed. For myself, I was disappointed that WALTZ OF THE TOREADORS wasn't mentioned even though Peter Sellers received a lot of examination in the section on LOLITA (film) and there is no mention of Frank Tashlin's film BACHELOR FLAT. When you read this, and I hope you do, you'll have your other omissions to complain about.
These are mitigated by the substantive discussion some other lesser known titles like THE INTRUDER, LONELY ARE THE BRAVE and WAR HUNT are given.
The book is US centric and titles from other countries that never made it to US shores receive almost no mention. The appendices are however very useful as they cover a lot of topics one might have yearned for while reading the main text. For instance, almost every one of the highest grossing pictures of 1962 gets adequate discussion save for… the Walt Disney Production IN SEARCH OF THE CASTAWAYS. I know, I don't think I've heard of it either and I'm kind of surprised Disney hasn't remade it because, Disney. This is quickly dealt with in a couple of paragraphs at the end.
The only point that I'll really argue with, is a quote in the chapter on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA that suggests the Iraq War might have been avoided had a teenaged George Bush watched THE THREE STOOGES IN SPACE instead of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 1962. Well, it's a great line but it's wrong. A number of the guys involved in planning OIF were huge fans of LAWRENCE… They just took the wrong lessons from it. I don't throw this entirely at the feet of the authors, but the supposition gnaws at me.
For all this, CINEMA '62 should be read. It's a great argument in support of 1962 and will lead you to a bunch of great titles to watch. As I write this, we're about six months from the 60th Anniversary of this great year. More than enough time to plan the appropriate festivals, retrospectives, and media releases to commemorate it. So for the handful of film programmers out there… get to work.
There's almost no right answer, my generation can point to 1984, 1987, or 1999. Younger viewers will state the best year has been 2007. When I was growing up, the answer was 1939.
The book CINEMA '62 by Stephen Farber and Michael McClellan is an overview of the films of 1962 and an attempt to make the case that 1962 is the best year for movies. So how did they do?
The authors divide their book into chapters focusing on aspects of the year that manifested in the films. One chapter covered social and sexual themes, another covers emerging foreign masters, emerging younger talents (John Frankenheimer and Stanley Kubrick in particular) and yet another covers notable entries in established genres like musicals and westerns. From out of these chapters, the authors then proceed to examine the notable films of these areas. They cover the genesis and production of the films and their eventual release and reception.
Their descriptions along these lines are concise and satisfying. While entire books have been written about just one of the films at hand, their ability to summarize all the major events and import into a handful of pages is impressive. You may find yourself wanting to seek out some of these films yourself, or at least peruse assorted internet articles for further background. Building that desire is probably the surest sign of success on an endeavor like CINEMA '62.
If there is any criticism, it might be that for as expansive as it is, there will always be some entries that haven't been discussed. For myself, I was disappointed that WALTZ OF THE TOREADORS wasn't mentioned even though Peter Sellers received a lot of examination in the section on LOLITA (film) and there is no mention of Frank Tashlin's film BACHELOR FLAT. When you read this, and I hope you do, you'll have your other omissions to complain about.
These are mitigated by the substantive discussion some other lesser known titles like THE INTRUDER, LONELY ARE THE BRAVE and WAR HUNT are given.
The book is US centric and titles from other countries that never made it to US shores receive almost no mention. The appendices are however very useful as they cover a lot of topics one might have yearned for while reading the main text. For instance, almost every one of the highest grossing pictures of 1962 gets adequate discussion save for… the Walt Disney Production IN SEARCH OF THE CASTAWAYS. I know, I don't think I've heard of it either and I'm kind of surprised Disney hasn't remade it because, Disney. This is quickly dealt with in a couple of paragraphs at the end.
The only point that I'll really argue with, is a quote in the chapter on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA that suggests the Iraq War might have been avoided had a teenaged George Bush watched THE THREE STOOGES IN SPACE instead of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 1962. Well, it's a great line but it's wrong. A number of the guys involved in planning OIF were huge fans of LAWRENCE… They just took the wrong lessons from it. I don't throw this entirely at the feet of the authors, but the supposition gnaws at me.
For all this, CINEMA '62 should be read. It's a great argument in support of 1962 and will lead you to a bunch of great titles to watch. As I write this, we're about six months from the 60th Anniversary of this great year. More than enough time to plan the appropriate festivals, retrospectives, and media releases to commemorate it. So for the handful of film programmers out there… get to work.