Bye Bye Birdie (1963)
A silly, colorful, overlong, upbeat, and, yes, silly musical. Some of it has worn well, like the one really famous song, "Put on a Happy Face," and some of it looks like plain old awkwardness, as with Dick Van Dyke, who was a paradigm of charm and humor in his day.
It's certainly not a bad movie. Like many musicals this follows a general formula, including the songwriter on the skids. It adds a couple of fun twists, like the Flubber-like invention of a chemical that changes a person's behavior. (Flubber debuts in the original movie "The Absent Minded Professor in 1961 and if you haven't seen it, it takes silliness much farther.)
The main event here is the parody of Elvis in the guise of Conrad Birdie, who drives high school girls wild (and in one scene sends the whole town into a kind of rock and roll love stupor). And of course there is one girl in particular who is drawn into his sway. Kind of. In fact, the problem with the movie throughout is a "kind of sort of" mediocrity. Even the love stupor scene, which might have expanded into something hilarious, is cut short and left to fizzle. The Ed Sullivan show segment (with the real Ed Sullivan) is fun but filmed with deadening rigidity.
The one near-exception to all this is the sped up Moscow Ballet sequence, which is quite long, and which is hilarious. It includes a few references to Cold War tensions, even with one Russian onlooker banging on his head with his shoe. You don't get it? Exactly. If you don't remember (or haven't heard about) Khruschev and his shoe, it's a subtlety lost.
Next to Van Dyke is a whipped up Janet Leigh--quite the opposite of the Leigh now legendary for being slashed in the show of a Hitchcock thriller, or for being tortured in an earlier Welles noir. Yes, a good pedigree, even just finishing the archetypal version of "The Manchurian Candidate" the year before. I like her more and more as I see her less pigeon-holed, and she holds up her part well as the hopeful bride-to-be.
The music? The choreography? The dancing and singing? It's mostly fair to middling stuff. Enjoyable to a point (depending on your leanings) but it falls short compared to other musicals of the time. It apparently fell far short of the Broadway version it was modeled after, too, getting panned for its lame choreography by critics in 1963. So why see it? Well, for one thing, the sheer nutty, Technicolor artificiality of it all--it's like entering another world. It's not reality--not a minority in sight, no hints of the real 1960s starting to unravel. This is already a slightly nostalgic look at an Elvis kind of 1957 universe, six years after it was over. Weird.
A silly, colorful, overlong, upbeat, and, yes, silly musical. Some of it has worn well, like the one really famous song, "Put on a Happy Face," and some of it looks like plain old awkwardness, as with Dick Van Dyke, who was a paradigm of charm and humor in his day.
It's certainly not a bad movie. Like many musicals this follows a general formula, including the songwriter on the skids. It adds a couple of fun twists, like the Flubber-like invention of a chemical that changes a person's behavior. (Flubber debuts in the original movie "The Absent Minded Professor in 1961 and if you haven't seen it, it takes silliness much farther.)
The main event here is the parody of Elvis in the guise of Conrad Birdie, who drives high school girls wild (and in one scene sends the whole town into a kind of rock and roll love stupor). And of course there is one girl in particular who is drawn into his sway. Kind of. In fact, the problem with the movie throughout is a "kind of sort of" mediocrity. Even the love stupor scene, which might have expanded into something hilarious, is cut short and left to fizzle. The Ed Sullivan show segment (with the real Ed Sullivan) is fun but filmed with deadening rigidity.
The one near-exception to all this is the sped up Moscow Ballet sequence, which is quite long, and which is hilarious. It includes a few references to Cold War tensions, even with one Russian onlooker banging on his head with his shoe. You don't get it? Exactly. If you don't remember (or haven't heard about) Khruschev and his shoe, it's a subtlety lost.
Next to Van Dyke is a whipped up Janet Leigh--quite the opposite of the Leigh now legendary for being slashed in the show of a Hitchcock thriller, or for being tortured in an earlier Welles noir. Yes, a good pedigree, even just finishing the archetypal version of "The Manchurian Candidate" the year before. I like her more and more as I see her less pigeon-holed, and she holds up her part well as the hopeful bride-to-be.
The music? The choreography? The dancing and singing? It's mostly fair to middling stuff. Enjoyable to a point (depending on your leanings) but it falls short compared to other musicals of the time. It apparently fell far short of the Broadway version it was modeled after, too, getting panned for its lame choreography by critics in 1963. So why see it? Well, for one thing, the sheer nutty, Technicolor artificiality of it all--it's like entering another world. It's not reality--not a minority in sight, no hints of the real 1960s starting to unravel. This is already a slightly nostalgic look at an Elvis kind of 1957 universe, six years after it was over. Weird.