I mean, top 100, really?? - The Apartment (1960) Discussion

[–] hoochiemoochie 10 years ago

This is one of the few times I've watched an older movie and said: so what??

This rarely happens. It happened before but it's extremely rare. Even though I'm in my 20's I've loved old films since I was young. Some of my favorite movies are old and my favorite actress of all time is Katharine Hepburn.

This movie, though, was nothing to write home about. Sure, it's worth seeing and it's sweet at times but for the most part it's just not the tops. I actually quite enjoyed it for the first half but the rest was lazy.

Worthy of the top 100 movies of all time? I think not.

----------------------------------------
Sir Ian McKellen? That dude must be knee-deep in boob.

reply

[–] laxlon 10 years ago

It is a good movie but it is too long.

reply

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

Explain? Sure: you are a dim wit. This film should be in the top ten.

reply

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

Yes, the frequent use of adding wise to words (business wise,corporation wise,etc) became annoying. It's still a good film

reply

[–] vishal8492 10 years ago

It's just almost always impossible to tell someone why you like something you do ; you see fact-wise .There aren't always differential elements associated with something you like ; it's just infinitely oscillating like exponential function in terms of power series , math-wise.I'm bit confused why you're so convinced if remake exists for this "Brilliant" movie , it somehow proves it's not that "great" , I know I'm using quotes almost laughably ,improper way - stupidity-wise (Yes nodding to overdoing this bit ; but can't help it , sarcasm-wise ).

reply

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

Yes, the gimmick of adding "wise", to create phrases such as "business wise", corporation wise",etc, becomes annoying. They overdid it. I still feel it's a good movie.

reply

[–] Rizzyay 10 years ago

The comedy is more satirical than straight-out farsch. It isn't supposed to make you laugh, it's supposed to make you think. Which, of course, is something people hate, so I'm also VERY surprised it has made the Top 100.

It might be a bit predictable as a romantic film, I'll grant you that, but unlike ALL OTHER romantic films EVER made in the history of all history, this movie has some social commentary, satirical levels, and other layers of depth which have not been seen in Hollywood films for decades anymore.

Also it is perhaps the most well-written and well-directed romantic movie ever made. The acting was also just spectacular compared to ANY romantic comedy made in the 2000s.

All in all, it's a 9/10. If it was a bit less predictable, I'd give it a full 10.

reply

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

This film was well ahead of its time with regard to the satirical and other elements you've enumerated. It was a biting, quite adult comedy-drama back in 1960.

Many people, watching it for the first time now will probably find it neither biting nor adult. So, in a sense it can be argued that the film is dated. However, personally I think it holds up well enough for a 7.5.

reply

[–] jjmn 10 years ago

Yeah, Really.

reply

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

Top Ten in my book. You just don 't get it, and sadly, you never will.

reply

[–] wdpool 10 years ago

Agreed, aciolino. Top five even. It's wrong to think of this movie as a comedy though. It has excellent writing which is sometimes clever, witty and even funny in an ironic way, but this one does not belong in the comedy genre. It's a drama w/o melodrama. I rewatch this one again every year about New Year's time, never get tired of it.

reply

[–] aciolino 10 years ago

Quite right. This is not a "comedy" in the classic sense at all. If anything it can be categorized as, "Black" comedy. It is a serious drama that has comic elements to it and because it has Lemmon doing his brilliant "every man" thing. But most of all because no one dances on the line between high comedy and high tragedy better than Wilder. He achieves this in so many of his films but never with the note for note success that he does here.

You can never get tired of a classic.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

Maybe it was funny 50 years ago. I could image that.
Now that fun is sad or bitter for most of the time. The remaining rest doesnt qualify the comedy tag as major category. Too light. Too subtle.

It's wrong to think of this movie as a comedy though.

Agreed. Its comedy doesnt work anymore as well as years ago. I could image the guys with their women problems were funnier.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] aceventura2013 9 years ago

That's funny I laughed several times because of the lines and the characters. In modern movies it's just set up jokes, penis and fart jokes, sandlers sticks and slap stick.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 9 years ago

You are aware that youve Ace Ventura as avatar, arent you? ^^

Sure comedy from 50 years ago is different from today (although slapstick and set up comedy has always been present)... I dont find old movies unfunny in general but this one doesnt deserve the comedy tag.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) has good old fashioned humor I appreciated.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] aceventura2013 9 years ago

Ace Ventura is an awesome character. Without Jim Carrey's performance all will just feel flat.

This do not deserve the comedy tag, but Grown Ups do?

You can have slapstick and set up comedy but it has to steam from the characters and feel natural and it needs witty and sharp dialogue and of course good story. Story and dialogue is not at a high standard in today's comedy.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

Well, if you never explain why you like it, he certainly wont.

------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I'm not a fan of this movie either. Call it a comedy, a drama, a dram-edy, whatever; it makes no difference. I don't like the premise. I'm not amused by the movie or the least bit entertained. I don't like the characters because they all seem to be clichéd stereotypes of the time. I don't really care what happens to any of them.

I think the problem is I don't see any redeeming qualities in any of these characters. They're all willing to do anything to get ahead, whatever it is; or will help others for all the wrong reasons. In most cases, there are at least one or two voices of reason but this movie has none.

Even the doctor and his wife are willing to ignore the fact a girl tried to kill herself; all to help a neighbor, who, from what they know, is a notorious womanizing jerk. The doctor even warns that once someone tries suicide they'll likely try it again yet he doesn't take his own warning seriously.

Baxter eventually stands up to Sheldrake but so what. He does it because he has an interest in Fran. Besides, he doesn't deserve any of those promotions anyway. His big gesture is meaningless. Sheldrake and Fran are no different. She's willingly carrying on with a married man and is willing to kill herself in some stranger's apartment creating all sorts of problems for that person. Are we to feel sorry for her because Sheldrake is leading her on about his intentions to divorce his wife? That is absurd! I don't care what year the movie is based in, 1960 or today, it's been done and women should know better.

Fran decides to go to/with Baxter but it's not love. She sees he's as much a user and social climber as she is. He's unattached and cares for her so she can latch on to and use him for a while. It's out of convenience. I have no idea what he sees in her other than looks. She's a messed up ditz who's willing to cheat if she finds a worthy target. She didn't give the other guys the time of day because they weren't big enough targets but Sheldrake is so her true colors come out. When Sheldrake gives her the hundred dollars, she's all set to give him his money's worth because he's bought and paid for her; he can afford her. This shows how cheap she is and how much she lacks self worth. Need I go on?

However, I can see how this movie might have been perceived when it was originally released. Perhaps it was a bit more risqué and far different than what people were used to seeing at the time. I don't know but for me, it loses whatever appeal it may have had because I'm watching it in the present day and from a different context.

I love old movies and watch them often but this one has way too many problems. I find them too distracting and off-putting to appreciate the movie. I suspect it did well and won Oscar attention because of the people attached; namely Billy Wilder and Jack Lemon, and the success of their past collaboration, Some like it hot. That kind of stuff, big names getting more Oscar buzz than lesser known people and projects, still happens, even today.

reply

[–] wdpool 10 years ago

Dear mdonin: meaning no disrespect, but your thinking on this movie is incorrect in so, so many ways. I don't mean in that you don't like it or are not interested in the story or the people. Such opinions and reactions obviously vary widely from person to person. I am talking about your analysis of the characters and how you see their motives. I won't address all the ways you have lost your way, it would take too much time and effort and I don't think I could ever convince you anyway. But I just have to set one thing straight, this business about the $100.

Accepting the money does not show Fran as "cheap" at all. In fact, the money is ultimately what causes her suicide attempt. After all, she leaves the same $100 bill in an envelope w/Sheldrake's name on it in lieu of a suicide note, to let him know she killed herself over the way he treated her. She took the money exactly for that intended purpose. It is the moment she realized that he was using her and leading her on and never going to marry her which is what she wanted - she loved him, but he was just fooling around and she did not figure that out until he gave her the money. The money was the last straw for her, it made her feel she was being treated like a whore and/or fool and made her hate herself. Arguing that she should have known better and avoided being taken-in by the smooth-talker is pretty hardhearted, I think, and unfair to her since we all are susceptible to believing what we want to believe at some point.

I wish you would watch this movie again, with an open mind, give it another chance. There are always multiple layers of subtlety in Billy Wilder movies and I can watch almost all his movies many times and still pick up something new out of them. And this one is my favorites of all his movies, I think.

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

wdpool says >your thinking on this movie is incorrect in so, so many ways... you have lost your way... hardhearted

Dear wdpool, it's clear this movie, The Apartment, means a lot to you. You say you watch it regularly and it's one of your favorite Billy Wilder movies. You're even trying to defend it but I still haven't figured out exactly what you like so much about it. Of that, you've said little but you seem to have plenty to say about me, someone you don't know. How's that possible? Maybe I touched a nerve or dulled the shine on your beloved movie.

If that's the case I apologize but I just talked about how I feel about a movie. I wasn't trying to ruin it for a fan. You must have known not everyone on the boards was going to have glowing reviews for your movie. Ah, but maybe you did. I guess you couldn't imagine anyone feeling differently than you. In any case, you raised some issues about the money so I'll respond. Read on at your own risk.

She took the money... It is the moment she realized he was using her

She doesn't react with indignation or shock; doesn't throw it in his face, slap him, or storm out. That's the reaction consistent with realizing she's being used. Instead, she starts to undress, ready to use the one skill she has. I don't remember if Sheldrake's secretary talks to Fran before this or after but either way, why is it a sudden revelation? Using your theory, either she already knew he's using her because of the $100 or, as I say, she already knew. Even if you're right, you can't learn something for the first time twice.

Accepting the money does not show Fran as "cheap"

$100 was worth more in those days than now; probably more than a month's wages for Fran but it's not what makes her cheap. Everything about her life; the situation she's in; how she's living; being quick to throw her life away... All those things make her cheap. She doesn't value herself. Sheldrake also doesn't value her and treats her accordingly. This may be when she can't keep lying to herself but she's always known.

the money is ultimately what causes her suicide attempt.

Ludicrous! It's not the money. She tries to kill herself because she's failing. She can't snag the old, rich, fool she's 'dating'. She's upset, angry and has no prospects (at that moment she hasn't yet realized Baxter's a worthwhile proxy.) She's depressed and doesn't know what else to do.

she leaves the same $100 bill in an envelope w/Sheldrake's name on it in lieu of a suicide note

Ridiculous! She does it to inflict pain; make him feel guilty, blame himself, and suffer but, ha ha, the jokes on her, he doesn't care!

It is the moment she realized that he was using her and leading her on and never going to marry her which is what she wanted - she loved him, but he was just fooling around and she did not figure that out until he gave her the money.

Again, absurd!Fran's no victim; she isn't being coerced. She's using Sheldrake as much as he's using her. If she wants marriage, find a single guy. It's why I say 'she should have known better'. This is a self-sabotaging game some people play; the people who don't feel good about themselves. They set up a competition to get someone to 'prove' their love. How can you say she doesn't know? Please! She knows exactly what she's doing to herself, to his family and she doesn't care one bit.

The money was the last straw for her, it made her feel she was being treated like a whore and/or fool and made her hate herself.

NOT! It's one of your favorites so you should remember Fran continued to say she loves Sheldrake AFTER the money and after the suicide attempt. She also asks Baxter about him, talks to him, hopes he'll come running to her side AND goes back to him when she recovers. None of that screams 'last straw' to me.

If the money opens her eyes why would she go right back to a man who treats her so poorly? You believe Sheldrake leads her to where she is. I, on the other hand, believe strongly she was already damaged goods. She had to be; if not she would never have been with someone like Sheldrake in the first place. It's who she's always been. As time went on it got harder to lie to herself; that's all.

As a husband or a man, Sheldrake is a creep; but in regards to his relationship with Fran, it's mutual, they're the same so why is he, alone, the bad guy? They're both taking advantage of the situation and each other; facts are what they are.

--

Remember, Baxter's no prize either. He's fully aware of everything but does he do anything to help the person he claims to care about? Nope, he continues to help Sheldrake. Isn't that odd to you? Baxter's willing to 'take Fran off Sheldrake's hands' like a hand-me-down t-shirt because he figures Sheldrake's done with her and ready for fresh meat. Baxter knows what he'll get from Fran.

Knowing all this, we're now supposed to root for these two to get together? We know it's not love; two seconds ago she was saying she loved Sheldrake. It's co-dependency, again. That's why Fran won't say she loves Baxter. From this we get a happy ending? I think not. Fran’s just moving from one bad relationship and rebounding into another, equally bad one.

reply

[–] wdpool 10 years ago

Wow! You didn't touch a nerve, but I must have, judging by your outsized response. You are quite sarcastic as well as defensive, and unnecessarily so as I meant you no offense. But I am not going to get into a long discussion since it is obvious I will never win you over on this one. I will say your response quite convincingly demonstrates that you just don't understand the characters in this movie. However, it is not my job to straighten you out, I recognize that. So, I will just accept your apology and bid you adieu.

reply

[–] daviskingg 10 years ago

Wow - I saw this at the cinema recently and had an extremely negative reaction to it. The dialogue is so cute it's unbearable and Jack Lemmon's performance made my heart sink with his overbearing schtick - the scene where he's ringing up his various superiors to rearrange the use of his apartment with a sniffly nose is absolutely wretched. It's a rehashing of most of the elements from The Shop Around the Corner for the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit era, but with a fraction of the delicacy and heart (and laughs) of Lubitsch's masterpiece.

I knew I was in trouble when the opening started and Jack Lemmon delivers the entire concept of the film using that device that screams "can't be bothered", a voiceover. (Wilder's "What would Lubitsch do?" sign must have been stored in the garage by that stage.) I don't know what's more wearying; the score made up of a single phrase reworked over and over or the still-mystifying ending (I can't work out Shirley Maclaine's rush of feeling is triggered by that final incident instead of all the other, far more significant things that Lemmon's already done for her).

I'll give it this; I've never seen a romantic comedy whose target audience was "nice" men before, especially one which stokes their masochistic side so systematically.

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I've never seen a romantic comedy whose target audience was "nice" men before, especially one which stokes their masochistic side so systematically.

Ah, no wonder I didn't like it. I’m not in this demographic.

Thanks for mentioning two more movies I can add to my list.
-Shop around the corner
-Man in the grey flannel suit

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

wdpool said>Wow! You didn't touch a nerve, but I must have, judging by your outsized response. You are quite sarcastic as well as defensive, and unnecessarily so as I meant you no offense. But I am not going to get into a long discussion since it is obvious I will never win you over on this one. I will say your response quite convincingly demonstrates that you just don't understand the characters in this movie. However, it is not my job to straighten you out, I recognize that. So, I will just accept your apology and bid you adieu.

Oh my goodness, I get it now. I totally get it. All this time, going back and forth, I thought we were just discussing the merits of a movie. I read your words but, for the life of me, couldn't understand what you saw in it; why you liked it so much; and why you felt the need to defend it so vehemently. On your part, you probably felt the knife turn every time I talked about why I’m not a fan.

Ironically, it took this latest message; one in which you barely even mention the movie, for things to finally start to make sense. In this message, at long last, you reveal a little something about yourself. Let’s be honest, this isn’t really about a movie for you at all. It’s about how that movie affects you on a deeply personal level. Perhaps you see yourself in one of the characters or can relate to one of their stories; maybe you first saw it with a loved one or someone special; maybe it makes you happy, recalling a certain time in your life; or maybe it helped pull you out of a dark place. Who knows?

I’ve long believed we react to things, to people, to life, and, yes, to movies subjectively. That’s why we all tend to see things differently. I’m going to guess, in general, you’re a lot more of an emotional, sensitive, feelings-based kind of person than I am. By contrast, I tend to be the objective, logical, analytical type. That’s how I approach most things, including people. I say what I mean, use sarcasm as humor, and, because I don’t take things personally, almost never get offended. I tend to forget this is not the norm. I know that's why I don't like the Apartment; I can't relate. To me it makes no sense.

I don't know why you think you had to 'win me over' 'straighten me out' or fix my 'flawed thinking', as you say, but it was never going to work. I’m not wrong or mean or evil because I don’t like a certain movie you happen to love any more than you’re those things for liking something I don’t.

reply

[–] rubinek 10 years ago

@wdpool:

It's totally clear, that Fran is in love and Sheldrake wants sex and excitement. He lies to Fran about his marriage. He betrays his wife. He had have several affairs before Fran. He's a liar and a manipulative person.
Of course the 100 $ are an insult to Fran, the scene couldn't be more obviously.

Your view isn't objective at all, you don't seem to understand the characters' motivations.

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

Please explain to me how the $100 is so insulting, so upsetting to Fran when nothing else Sheldrake has done to her has managed to offend her.

She is repeatedly taken to some random person's apartment for the purpose of sex and before that Sheldrake was taking her to a leaky boat. This went on continuously for a long time. It's not like Fran was unaware of the situation until the point he tosses the money her way.

There’s also her reaction upon him giving her the money. He’s the one that stops her from ‘servicing’ him in exchange for the payment.

What's more, if the money was such an insult, so great an offense it was worth killing herself over, how is she able to put it all aside and return with the same man who thought so little of her and treated her in that way? Has she forgotten?

No. She goes back to him because his wife has left him and she now thinks she has a shot at getting what she's always wanted. Maybe you call what she has for Sheldrake love but I think she's convinced herself it's love so she doesn't have to admit to herself she's using him just as he's using her.

What exactly am I missing here? A lot of people play the victim when they are willing participants in the things that happen to them in their lives. Fran is definitely one of those people.

reply

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

Good points , all. The movie has flaws and the characters also, but Baxter and Fran are sympathetic characters.

reply

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

I think too much has been made of the $100 "Christmas gift". I think Fran attempted suicide for the reasons most do:she was depressed and didn't want to continue living.

One of the posters claimed she was using Sheldrake as much as he was using her. I don't see it that way. What was she really getting out of it? How was she was using him. It's strongly implied that Sheldrake initiated the relationship.

Perhaps it's implausible, but the character is shown to be genuinely in love with Sheldrake despite all she knows about his character. She at least wants to believe that he will leave his wife for her. That's why she returns to him near the end (briefly). By this time he's separated.

reply

[–] cosmicanomaly-98777 8 years ago

I agree with your impressions of the characters and that's what I like about this movie. I think it shows the emptiness of relationships, it's all about interest and convenience, we are all alone in this world but some people like to fool themselves. Though I like to think that Fran is the only one that learns something. I like to think that at the end she realizes that she deserves someone who truly "loves" her, though in this case is not love but an idealization of the pure perfect woman he has in his head (maybe she has a ressemblance with the other woman he mentions as the reason he was thinking about suicide in Cincinnati) as almost always occurs.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I'd say the passion of this thread indicates the greatness of The Apartment.

I think there are some movies out there in film history in which the characters can be quite annoying (I'll posit not only The Apartment in 1960 but Love Actually in 2003) and yet somehow we connect to their humanity and the movie as a whole delivers a major emotional experience in which the characters BEING annoying was necessary to reach the emotional payoff at the end.

Both Lemmon and MacLaine rather painfully sacrifice themselves to the authoritative, powerful MacMurray. She keeps loving him even in the face of his infidelities and returns to him AFTER her suicide attempt(she think MacMurray finally loves her back and will marry her; she doesn't know that his wife dumped him, and he's ready to marry again..and keep cheating on his new wife.)

As for Lemmon, he sucks up to MacMurray as the Top Dog of his company -- thereby deserting the four sharks who helped him out(but always had the power to take him down again. )

The Apartment is out to tell the tale of how two disreputable doormats(Lemmon and MacLaine) can save themselves and buck the Man while finding happiness.

But that's not entirely what The Apartment is about.

As Wilder told actor Paul Douglas(originally cast in the MacMurray role before dying of a heart attack): "I'm making a movie about f-ing."

And THAT's why The Apartment was a big deal in 1960, as a new decade beckoned and a generation of American directors wanted to buck the Hays Code.

Hitchcock did it bigger than Wilder with "Psycho" that year -- which featured horrific violence upon a naked woman in a shower AND an opening sexual love scene AND a toilet being flushed on screen AND more horrific violence upon a man AND a horrific final reveal involving the gutting and stuffing of a man's mother.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

But Wilder did it well enough on the sexual front with The Apartment. Consider how, in the first half hour, we clearly have two male executives DESEPERATE to have sex with their pick-ups in Lemmon's apartment. One uses the apartment for an hour too long; the other demands the apartment at 11:00 pm when Lemmon was trying to sleep. In both cases, Lemmon has to wait outside until the sex is done. The Apartment IS a movie about f'ing.

And then there's MacLaine, the "innocent" object of Lemmon's affection, but she breaks a date with him to instead go...have sex with MacMurray in Lemmon's apartment. The subject is f'ing, again...but this time with a huge dose of emotional pain.

The older bespectacled secretary outside MacMurray's office? She had sex with him too. F'ing. And kept track of all the other women who had sex with him after her. F'ing.

The married-to-a-jockey floozie who picks up Lemmon in the bar? She goes back with him to the apartment to have sex with him -- though it doesn't work out. But still...f'ing.

The Christmas party? There's a man and a woman necking away..they'll soon be f'ing. Boys and girls together dancing and drinking. MANY of them will soon be having sex. F'ing.

And when MacLaine's surly cabbie brother in law shows up to pick her up and encounters the doctor talking about an "accident" - the cabbie snarls "What KIND of accident?" and "What kind of doctor are you, anyway?" -- it is clearly implied that he's suspecting a procedure has taken place. Because of f'ing (which really didn't happen between MacLaine and Lemmon.)

I'll concede that the happy ending that arrives in the final minute of the film is about "love" and companionship and likely marriage ("We'll send him a fruitcake at Christmas" says MacLaine to Lemmon about MacMurray -- implying marriage.) But we also can take heart that it is New Year's Eve and eventually Lemmon and MacLaine will be ...f'ing.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So THAT's what made The Apartment a breakthrough film in 1960, couched within some great structural screenplay writing, brilliant set design, evocative b/w cinematography, damn good acting(I'd single out MacMurray's smiling villainy) and overall perfection of execution.

By the way, many of the arguments in this thread about whether or not The Apartment "worked," whether it was funny or not, whether the characters were good or not -- raged in 1960 critical writings, too.

One critic called it a "dirty fairy tale" and another simply didn't believe MacLaine and Lemmon as a couple at the end.

I did.

reply