Jimmy Stewart and Shenandoah
I've said many times [1, 2, 3, 4] that movies which were made after that magical date of 1960 deteriorate in storyline, cinematography and in a deeper intellectual, poetic or aesthetic strength.
One such movie at the cusp of the cut-off date is "Shenandoah", made in 1965 and starring the indomitable Jimmy Stewart. Stewart really does try very hard to redeem the film, but it's a downhill ride.
I've never heard of a civil war-era family refusing to go to war (for either side.) Stewart says his family never earned slaves, and freeing the slaves from the South is not his business. He's an independent, self-sufficient Virginian farmer, who asks for nothing, wouldn't you know. And he has these grown sons (in their early to mid twenties) who disagree with him, but respectfully follow his orders. What grown son, who's sure of his principles, wouldn't leave home for a war, or any other endeavor, for that matter?
Totally senseless, as is the rest of the plot where:
- The daughter marries a Confederate soldier, despite the family being technically Union supporters.
- The youngest son is taken prisoner by Union soldiers for wearing accidentally a Confederate hat.
- The father and sons start out on a search for this young boy.
- The oldest son stays behind with his wife and new born daughter.
- The daughter goes with the troupe!
- Stewart and his sons never fight in the war. Their battle was to bring the young son back.
- A young black worker, who is not a slave, is told by two different people that he is free (i.e. not a slave, which is quite clear from the beginning). So he "takes" his freedom by walking down this lane, going wherever he wants, as one white woman tells him he can.
Of course, 1965 is the civil rights era, the Vietnam war, the rise of the feminist movement, and other such social turbulences in the US. So, this film was really about the 1960s, and nothing to do with the civil war.
I don't mean to write a synopsis of the story, it is available online. What struck me is how bad the storyline was, and how good the acting. In later years, though, both storyline and acting suffer considerably.
So, I have to conclude that the 1960s were terrible for American cinema. Someone has to snap that tradition out of this rut.
Of course, any contemporary "Western" is just a big disaster.