MovieChat Forums > Sunday in New York (1964) Discussion > Always felt uncomfortable with this genr...

Always felt uncomfortable with this genre/period of film


I don't like the arch, coy interactions between the sexes in films of this period where neither one says what they really think and they are playing a big, unspoken game with each other. Both are making one liners and references to "the opposite sex" and talking to each other as if they were archetypes of their gender. And I get the feeling the producers thought they were making a "fresh, young, hip film for the new age of youth culture."

reply

Then, you'd better watch the nasty, crude, filthy "romcoms" so popular today instead while the rest of us appreciate something that rises far above that miasma. Today's movies far surpass tacky. When I try to watch one, I end up despising all involved and switch channels in hopes of finding a film such as this, including the Doris Day/Rock Hudson ones. At least they show people with some self-respect who aren't constantly prepared to "diss" someone.

I'll stick with this nimble use of language and "arch, coy interactions". I'll keep dreaming of a time when a first date or even casual meeting wasn't seen as a step to bedhopping or wherever convenient. People were eloquent, without an "f-bomb" or vulgarism to be heard. They take pride in their appearance and in themselves and actually have crises of conscience.

BTW,the "youth culture" really hadn't built up yet. This isn't "the new age" quite yet. Heck! The Beatles haven't exploded onto the scene yet! This is before London swings, Carnaby Street, Peter Max, and the rest. Peter Nero definitely would not be "youth culture"!

Put on the scales this one film and a stack of all the romcoms. At least for me, this one would outweigh the pile of nasty, vulgar escapades.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

reply

I hate modern Romcoms. My favorite films are from the 1930s and 1940s when dialogue was infinitely wittier and more sophisticated and they weren't trying so hard to be "shocking" in a silly 1963 way.

reply

Those films do exactly the same thing! If they're pre-code, they're very naughty. Even after, they were implying as much as possible. I watch them, too, and I know they're skilled with arch glances, wry remarks and a lot of double entendre. This carries through the Fifties and Sixties till near the end of that decade, when there was very little of the talking-around-the-topic as had been done till then. Check out Ernst Lubitsch's works, just to name one director of "naughty" romantic comedies.

"Breezy" and other films about relationships pretty much put an end to the playful language~spoken and bodywise~of older films.

Doris Day said in an interview once that, by the time she did "Where Were You When the Lights Went Out?", she realized where movies were headed and was uncomfortable with the bluntness. Even those movies were quite distant from the stuff produced nowadays.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

reply

[deleted]

I agree that in real life you want to know what you are getting. But comedies are comedies because the make light of relationships. What I like least are slapstick comedies, where the boy and girl sabotage each other relationships because they won't admit they love each other. This movie was good to me because it highlighted the double standard people lived. I was surprised who the sister ended up with, but it said that honest, non-judgmental people can win. A battle we were losing in real life.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

I wasn't surprised at who the sister ended up marrying. To me, it was obvious from the start that she was involved with a real jerk, and that she met a decent fellow on the bus. That fiance was such a shmuck.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen

reply

Russ wasn't a "real jerk".

reply