Watching 'The Graduate' Makes Brad Wonder…
...how was this ever considered a classic?
I recently received a galley copy of David Thomson's "Have You Seen…?" (preorder here) a book taking a look at a selection of 1,000 films Thomson deems important to the world of film. They aren't necessarily the films he considers to be the 1,000 greatest films as some are considered masterpieces while others are considered downright disasters. For those that aren't familiar with Thomson he wrote the bestselling "The New Biographical Dictionary of Film" in 2004 as well as its original in 1994. "Have You Seen…?" hits shelves in October and I will talk more about it down the line, but right now I have been going through some of its titles to get a better understanding of where he is coming from and right now I want to talk
To Thomson's credit he seems to go against convention and isn't willing to say The Graduate is anything more than a "mess" while still saying it is "one of everyone's favorites." He is right about one thing, The Graduate is a complete mess and it is a bad movie because of it. However, there are about 10 seconds of this 105 minute film that are worth watching.
Is it the rebellious nature of the sex between Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) and Ben (Dustin Hoffman) that caused the hype when in fact only 6 years separated the two in age in real life? Then again was it the age or the adulterous nature of the affair that was so scandalous? Either way, this is a film built on the idea that an older woman is having an affair with a younger man. Are we expected to find this all that surprising, or is it that it was surprisingly seedy when it was released in 1967 that makes the difference? If it’s a generational thing then have at it, it's just not for me, but if it is something else I don't see how this film managed to win over so many, including seven Oscar nominations and a win for director Mike Nichols.
To the point, Mrs. Robinson is a disturbed woman and Ben is a socially retarded psychotic that needs to be committed. Seriously, there is something deeply disturbing about this kid that leads me to believe he could go on a killing spree at any moment and yet the disturbed nature of Mrs. Robinson and the complete lunatic that is Ben are never dealt with, not once.
As we follow the path of destruction resulting from the adulterous affair we find Mr. and Mrs. Robinson getting a divorce and Ben stalking their daughter, Elaine (Katharine Ross) (whom he had a brief love affair with despite Mrs. Robinson's protests) as she heads to college where the affair picks up once again before it too is undermined by Elaine's parents and a quick wedding is put in motion to guarantee Elaine and Ben will never be together even though Elaine obviously loves Ben and his stalker ways. You see how screwy this is?
This then moves everything to a church for the final showdown and as the wedding ceremony takes place Ben crashes it, causes a fight, locks everyone inside the church using a cross no less, and Elaine and Ben escape by boarding a bus. After all this time and all this insanity it is here that we get the scene you see in the picture at the beginning of this article and just above. After seemingly getting what they wanted and defying their parents and any and all rational thinking the two have a look that says, "Oh shit, what did we just fucking do?"
On the commentary track with Mike Nichols and Steven Soderbergh it is Soderbergh that says how the scene wouldn't have worked without that look and I disagree, the entire movie wouldn't have worked without that look, and considering that to be true the entire movie is a waste if I have to wait until the final moment to get any kind of intelligence out of anyone in this picture. These are two people that defy logic for the entire film and to give them a moment of clarity in the film's final moments is to cheat the audience entirely. Just keep them as lovestruck loons and end it, since that is clearly what they are.
Did audiences and critics simply overlook the fact that everyone in this movie was insane or do ten seconds at the end of a 1 hour and 45 minute film make up for everything that happened before it?
How a movie like this is considered AFI's #7 American movie of all-time just proves to me their list is one of the most thoughtless lists ever devised.
Showing 24 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I find it hard to believe that any professed movie buff could not appreciate this film. It's one thing to say you don't personally like it, but another thing altogether to say that it's "bad". On top of that there is nothing in this article or your criticism that suggests anything other than the fact that you clearly do not understand what The Graduate is about. If you're going to publicly lambast an iconic film such as this (or any film other for that matter), at least have the analytical chops to back up your assertions. Otherwise you just look like a giant clown.
Other than calling me names you have done nothing to further the argument. Care to enlighten us all or is that all you have. I did more than explain why I thought the movie was bad and you don't seem to have the reading comprehension to follow what I said. Enjoy Swing Vote.
A film exists within the context of when it was made, and within the context of the late Sixties THE GRADUATE makes all kind of sense. Those of us who were kids then approached adulthood with the sneaky sense that a lot of the stuff that was presented to us as the rules were in fact ex post facto rationalizations by grown-ups who had fucked up pretty seriously and were trying to justify bullshit. Benjamin is just as that point, though he doesn't have much of a positive sense of where to go. This is not a film about a revolutionary. It's a film about a kid who is confused and directionless but knows he doesn't want to go where his parents went. He's probably wrong in thinking that his salvation lies with Elaine. She's just as confused and clueless as he is. But they venture off determined not to make their parents' mistakes but their own. Of course, the film ends with what is probably their first mistake together.
People who have been raised with movies and television look at CITIZEN KANE and say, "What's the big deal?" The things that were revolutionary in that film have been so assimilated into our language that it looks almost conservative to contemporary eyes. Similarly, THE GRADUATE introduced elements that have been so assimilated into subsequent films that it cannot truly be seen by people who were raised on the films made since then.
My problem is not in understanding what the film is about. This is not some deep film that people aren't going to "get". And even as a product of its time there is still one major problem, Benjamin is crazy. I understand everything he is going through and that he is directionless, but he turns into a psycho stalker. Elaine's first mistake isn't the ending, it is the moment in college that she falls for the stalker. To call this film revolutionary in comparison to Citizen Kane is a large exaggeration in my opinion.
You make a logistical mistake in suggesting I called "this film revolutionary in comparison to CITIZEN KANE." I did not. I said that just as we cannot truly see CITIZEN KANE as those who originally saw it did, some cannot see THE GRADUATE as those of us who originally saw it did. Benjamin is not "crazy." He is confused by the disconnect between the life he has been prepared to lead and what confronts him when he comes home. (Someone got major points with me by pointing out the oddness of WASP parents having a Jewish son, but that reinforces Benjamin's alienation to me.) To call him a "psycho stalker" is to trivialize what's happening. Yes, his behavior is — certainly by today's standards and values — unsupportable. But he sees Elaine as being the direction in which his idea of a non-hypocritical and potentially healthy life might lie, so he pursues her out of that motivation. She's hardly unwilling. She too senses that there is something unsupportable about her parents' life and values. The fact that these two kids share a common oppononet doesn't by any means automatically make them right for each other, and the final few seconds suggest this.
You say that Benjamin is crazy. I would suggest that the country was just about to go into a massive nervous breakdown, and this film — whether out of calculation or pure dumb luck — managed to catch some of the reasons so vividly that a generation took it as something that spoke for them. Personal crisis in film often says something about societal crisis, often makes it comprehensible.
I've heard that Nichols and Richard Lester had a meal together when they were both filming in San Francisco. Lester was working on PETULIA. The two reportedly figured out that, though their stories were different, both films were reporting on the same phenomena. They're both sharp guys and I think they're right. That you don't agree is absolutely fine, but I suggest you're missing something. But then lots of people think I'm missing something when I sleep through the Peter Jackson-Tolkein movies, which I cannot tell apart.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because I know if someone was doing the crazy things Benjamin was doing in this movie to me I would have a restraining order issued immediately.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "by today's standards and values" when referring to his actions. By any standards and values what he is doing is stalking her and just because she is confused and rebellious doesn't justify it.
This is why the film didn't work for me, because the only moment of clear sanity the two have is at the very end and it is unearned. However, I will admit it inspires conversation like this, which isn't exactly a bad thing.
"I have no idea what you mean when you say "by today's standards and values" when referring to his actions. By any standards and values what he is doing is stalking her and just because she is confused and rebellious doesn't justify it."
Well, let me give you an example. In MY FAIR LADY (and indeed, to a lesser extent in PYGMALION), Freddy also moons around Liza with no particular encouragement, yet, within the context of the times, we in the audience gave him license to do so, partly because he sang a nice song, "On the Street Where You Live." The word "stalking" only acquired the meaning it now has for us years after THE GRADUATE, so nobody at the time would have thought he was "stalking" her. It might have occurred to people that he was acting like a selfish jerk, but then this is something Boomers get called a lot, and Benjamin is nothing if he is not a Boomer.
The reason why most of the audience accepts Benjamin's actions is because we sense — as he does — that she wants to be rescued from the coerced, approved marriage she's being rushed into.
I always thought that Mr. Robinson has a great deal of justice on his side in expressing his rage at Benjamin. And what a lot of Boomers I know now see in the film is that we view Mrs. Robinson with a great deal more sympathy. Which is a sign of how they film has grown with some of us, or maybe that we've grown some.
Even then, I thought Mrs. Robinson probably had more to offer by way of conversation and life experience than Elaine. But neither offers the prospect of something that will last.
I'm sort of sorry that nobody made the sequel that showed Benjamin turning into another version of Mrs. Robinson himself …
Dgsweet, can I just say how happy I am you tackled all this? I didn't have even remotely the energy to try and respond to Brad on this one, and you've done it so eloquently I almost can't think of anything else to add. Very, very nicely done.
What "The Graduate" proves, I guess, is that very often our own life experiences play directly into our evaluations and reactions to particular motion pictures. Having seen Nichols' film a good half-dozen or so times, I can honestly say this is one story that really spoke and affected me quite deeply, and as favorite features go this one is very near the top of my list. I understand Benjamin's alienation and respond to his search, and while much of what he does is unfocused and misdirected I don't find him to be even slightly crazy.
Again, very nicely done, Dgsweet. This debate between the two of you has been fun to read.
Just because the word stalking didn't have the same meaning in '67 as you say, doesn't mean that what he is doing isn't stalking. That is a rather odd way to present your case if I am understanding you correctly. It sure appears to me that by following a person and learning their routine is exactly what stalking is.
Benjamin creeps me out in this film and I never understood why Elaine, troubled or not, would even think about getting together with the guy that was involved in an affair with her mother. On top of that, there is never a time I see Benjamin as a stable individual, he is off from the very beginning.
He follows her, he knows her routine and she doesn't look at all happy when he confronts her on the bus. He follows her around the zoo, seemingly (to me) uninvited. The late night conversation they have in his room when they discuss marriage is creepy and the following day he begins following her around school pushing the idea of an immediate marriage on her after one conversation and waiting for her without moving after class.
You also mention how Benjamin's actions have to do with him thinking Elaine had been coerced into marriage. However, when he first begins following her he had no idea about Carl. Elaine ten tells him, "I told him I might marry him." Personally I don't see how the hell the marriage went through so quickly, it appeared out of left field.
Benjamin is a confused individual. But no more then the average teen, early twenties person in this day and age (okay, so maybe sleeping with a woman and then pursuing her daughter is a bit off). He is confused and he makes a lot of mistakes. One of his mistakes is that he gets a bit weird and starts to stalk/pursue (depends how you look at it) Elaine. But she responds at the end. Is she crazy also? And maybe that is the point. Those were weird and difficult times for many people.
dgsweet says it the best:
"To call him a "psycho stalker" is to trivialize what's happening. Yes, his behavior is — certainly by today's standards and values — unsupportable. But he sees Elaine as being the direction in which his idea of a non-hypocritical and potentially healthy life might lie, so he pursues her out of that motivation. She's hardly unwilling. She too senses that there is something unsupportable about her parents' life and values. The fact that these two kids share a common oppononet doesn't by any means automatically make them right for each other, and the final few seconds suggest this."
He does stalk/pursue Elaine to a degree that is a bit disturbing. But he thinks Elaine is his only chance for a normal and healthy life. And at the end Elaine believes that too about Benjamin. And maybe they are both wrong as suggested by the ending.
No matter what. Personally I love this film and I believe this one of Dustin Hoffman's greatest film.
lol, I love u Brad. I haven't seen this film, but I love the fact that you have the balls to say what's on your mind.
I often wonder that about many films and books.
For everyone that is defending Benjamin, are you saying you would gladly let him date your daughter?
I don't have to be able to defend a character to find some kinship with him. Though I didn't sleep with a lot of older women and their daughters in those days, I could still identify with the confusion that he felt.
I don't approve of the characters in GLENGARRY or THE GODFATHER. I don't approve of most of the behavior in THE APARTMENT. But my sense of identification with a character isn't based on my approving of the character's behavior. (I don't approve of much of Hamlet's behavior for that matter. I do relate to his turmoil though.)
Watching characters do things I would never do out of impulses I understand is part of what can make drama interesting. They do these things partially so I that I don't. (That's intended as half a joke.)
By the by, anybody who has kids knows that when they reach Elaine's age, you don't "let" them do anything.
Oh, Elaine is rushed into the marriage — partially, one guesses, by her parents — in order to put her (they think) beyond Benjamin's reach. The marriage is an even bigger mistake than running off with Benjamin since it's done to satisfy her parents' impulses and what would make a neat package for their social world.
So the film doesn't work for some people. Fine. There are lots of approved classics that leave me old. I'm sure that's true for everyone. But there might be something to learn about why people respond to films we don't.
I guess I should rephrase since you seem intent on definitions. For those that don't think of Ben as a stalker or a crazy person would you allow your daughter to date him? I am under the impression that you think of him as confused and not at all creepy, which is what I felt while watching. This leads me to believe you think he is normal. Am I reading this wrong?
I definitely think we can learn from other people's responses, that is actually the #1 reason I try to revisit these older films. I may not like them but it lets many people realize there are more films out there about more than just Transformers and Batman.
If you are interested you can find my other Cinematic Revival articles right here.
I don't see what "would you let Benjamin date your daughter" has to do with anything. If I understand you correctly, you don't like the film because Benjamin is a creepy freak, while all the "defenders" think he isn't. But it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the movie. There are thousands of despicable characters out there in great films. Films we love. I liked your article where you wrote about character connection. That you need to connect with at least one the characters that are driving the film. I don't disagree with you, but I also dont agree a 100%.
Benjamin is a weird guy. No doubt. Is he crazy? confused? or just a killer to be? For me, it doesn't matter because his weirdness, his problems drives the film. It makes the film great because on some level we all connect with the obvious issues he struggles with. We all want to find the idea of love and, to quote Dgsweet again, "a non-hypocritical and potentially healthy life." but he is still a messed up individual. Crazy or confused, that's up to the individual viewer.
Jules in Pulp Fiction, Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, Michael Corleone in Godfather, Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver or Joker in The Dark Knight. All despicle bastards but we love them all. And none of them can come withing a miles radius near my daughter (if I had one).
Character connection is important to feel like a part of the universe the film depicts but it's not alfa and omega when it comes to liking the film.
I was actually talking just about Benjamin in that question, not the movie itself. I think we already established I didn't like the movie but you guys like it. I was just getting the impression that some people believed Ben to be a normal guy simply lacking direction.
I am basically trying to figure out how you guys interpreted him because that is a major reason why I did not like the film, but it seems to be a reason some of you actually connected to it. I think that is interesting.
Do I think Benjamin is "normal"? No. I don't watch drama to watch the normal. I watch drama to watch people do things outside their comfort zones.
I think most people — somewhere between their early teens and when they slide exhausted into their thirties — have confused and "creepy" phases. Anybody who isn't embarrassed by the memory of something they did during those years was probably in a coma.
I do like Benjamin. I think he's without malice, for the most part. He doesn't look to chase after Mrs. Robinson, after all. She goes after him, and rather aggressively. And he keeps trying to make a human connection with her, which she rejects. Even in cheating, he's trying to make their affair be based in something human, to find something to talk about that means that their relationship isn't based just on sexual mechanics. But she has turned him into a sex object and, out of her own bitterness, tries to infect him with her cynicism and despair. He ultimately is trying to fight his way out of that, and so is Elaine. No, he and Elaine may not ultimately make it, but they will have escaped from a world that is poisonous to them. A world that a lot of us at the time thought was poisonous. I like THE APARTMENT, too, and I think they're very similar movies, except Anne Bancroft is a lot prettier than Fred McMurray as the symbol of cynicism.
I just watched The Graduate for the first time in many years. Now at the age of 52, I see the movie much differently than when I first saw it in the 70s (to show how much times have changed, this was an "R" movie when released and my parents considered the material to risque for me to see it on first release).
As a child of the times, I agree with "dgsweet" that you really had to be there to get this movie. Many of the reasons have already been covered, such as the fact this movie is a metaphor for the angst the entire nation was beginning to feel with Vietnam, racial tension and a major change in social mores (from repressed emotion to the Free Love generation).
I think the title of the movie "The Graduate" is meant to be an ironic question. Graduate from what? From some Ivy League school doing what his parents wanted to a meaningless corporate life "in plastics"? Ben has big questions; Elaine has big questions; and so did we all in 1967.
The reason this film had so many Academy Award nominations is it so succinctly captured all the social currents in a way that was poetic in a Beatnik sort of way (I doubt "brad" would get Beatniks and their poetry either). It is definitely schizo and therefore, a little tough to watch. But we were all "confused" during the late 60s.
Regarding the "stalking" comments, like "dgsweet", I don't find this at all strange given the confusion of the times. Stalking is an idea borne of the death of Princess Diana, John Lennon's murder, and many more media star situations since the 70s. We weren't so security concious in the 1960s. Did anyone notice how Benjamin walked right in the unlocked backdoor of the Robinson house in the middle of the night? And this house was in Los Angeles or Belair? Would that happen today? Or how about the constant smoking by everyone in the movie not named Ben? Does that make this movie strange? Or just a movie of its time?
And finally, no one has given the Simon and Garfunkel music track in this movie any credit for its success. But for me, the music is almost better than the movie it highlights. S&G were the soul of our nation during the late 60s. The folk music sounds combined with Paul Simon's dazzling and brilliant poetry, captured the mood of our generation. S&G should not go without mention as to what makes this film one of the best of all time.
My absolute favorite movie of all time. I can't believe someone who reviews movies for a living could show such little appreciation for a classic. I think you need to watch it again and take your head out of the entertainment standards for the 21st century. Think of what this movie would be if it were made today for the first time. It would be entirely different, and (in my opinion) probably in a bad way. Definitely a great movie, without question. Rethink your opinion, please, because it doesn't sound like you've put enough thought into it and your only trying to start an angry debate.
@Joe: Why do so many people assume all people must share the same opinion when it comes to "classic" films? You say I am trying to start an angry debate, which tells me you obviously have never read anything else I have ever written. You tell me to rethink my opinion? How rude is that? You tell me to put more thought into it, yet you also make assumptions about me without – as far as I can tell based on your comment – reading more of my material.
What I can't believe is someone would presume to try and start a debate by insulting the person they are debating. This is why the Internet is slowly becoming a useless tool. I assume you may be someone I would enjoy debating with, however you have chosen the path of least resistance and told me how I should think as opposed to simply offering your opinion. Too bad, could have been fun.
Joe, even though we disagree in our analysis of the movie, I agree with you that you should not be blasted for your opinions. Sharing opinions is what makes movie reviewing fun. But most 50+ year olds are going to defend this movie as it is a statement of our time, much like, Love Story, the Woodstock movie, or Yellow Submarine, regardless of cinematic quality or importance.
Hey, I for one agree with the reviewer here. As a non-American person not born in the 50s, this film totally flew past my head. That's not to say I don't enjoy classic films per se. Some films like Casablanca, Citzen Kane or Space Odyssey transcend most boundaries.
I don't think The Graduate does that. The internal logic that fuels the character's motivation seem to be missing completely. Maybe people fell in love differently in the 70s, maybe people talk differently then. But then again maybe this movie wasn't made for people like me.
The final 5 minutes were wild though.
I just saw "The Graduate" for the first time last night. I too was amazed to find that this movie is considered a classic. I found this website while doing a search for someone that could articulate exactly the way I feel about this movie.
The entire time I was watching it, I kept thinking to myself "Is it me or is everyone in this movie completely out of touch with reality???"
I love old movies. I took into account the time period and mindset of the time but it's still just a bad movie to me. I would consider a movie like "The People Next Door" (1970) more of a classic than "The Graduate.