Hollywood: The Shock of Freedom in Films

Two girls embrace, then enjoy a long, lingering kiss that ends only when a male intruder appears.

A vulpine criminal in a sumptuous penthouse pulls aside a window curtain to look down at the street. When he releases the curtain, he is abruptly in another apartment. He crosses the thickly carpeted living room to peer into a bedroom; when he turns back, the living room is empty and bare-floored.

(See pictures of Hollywood’s women-in-prison movies.)

In the midst of an uproariously funny bank robbery, a country-boy hoodlum fires his pistol; the tone of the scene shifts in a split second from humor to horror as the bloodied victim dies.

At first viewing, these scenes would appear to be photomontages from an underground-film festival. But The Fox, based on a D.H. Lawrence story with a lesbian theme, is soon to be released nationally, starring Sandy Dennis. Point Blank, with Lee Marvin, is in its plot an old-fashioned shoot-em-down but in its technique a catalogue of the latest razzle-dazzle cinematography. Bonnie and Clyde is not only the sleeper of the decade but also, to a growing consensus of audiences and critics, the best movie of the year.

Differing widely in subject and style, the films have several things in common. They are not what U.S. movies used to be like. They enjoy a heady new freedom from formula, convention and censorship. And they are all from Hollywood.

Poetry and Rhythm
Hollywood was once described as the only asylum run by its inmates. It was the town where, as George Jean Nathan said, “ten million dollars’ worth of machinery functions elaborately to put skin on baloney.” There is still plenty of machinery out there putting skin on baloney. But the most important fact about the screen in 1967 is that Hollywood has at long last become part of what the French film journal Cahiers du Cinema calls” the furious springtime of world cin ema,” and is producing a new kind of movie.

(See pictures from the life of Dennis Hopper.)

Newness is not merely a matter of time but of attitude. Despite the legacy of such rare masters as D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein, the vast majority of films a decade ago were little more than pale reflections of the the ater or the novel. The New Cinema has developed a poetry and rhythm all its own. Traditionally, says Cahiers editor Jean-Louis Comolli, “a film was a form of amusement — a distraction. It told a story. Today, fewer and fewer films aim to distract. They have be come not a means of escape but a means of approaching a problem. The cinema is no longer enslaved to a plot. The story becomes simply a pretext.”

Whether or not filmmakers want to tell a story, they no longer need adhere to the convention that a movie should have a beginning, middle and end. Chronological sequence is not so much a necessity as a luxury. The slow, logical flashback has given way to the abrupt shift in scene. Time can be jumbled on the screen — its foreground and background as mixed as they are in the human mind. Plot can diminish in a forest of effects and accidents; motivations can be done away with, loose ends ignored, as the audience, in effect, is invited to become the scenarist’s collaborator, filling in the gaps he left out. The purposeful camera can speed up action or slow it down; the sound track can muddle a conversation or overamplify it to incoherence. Black-and-white sequences intermingle with color.

See TIME’s movie covers.

Comedy and tragedy are no longer separate masks; they have become interchangeable, just as heroes and villains are frequently indistinguishable. Movies still make moral points, but the points are rarely driven home in the heavy-hammered old way. And like some of the most provocative literature, the film now is apt to be amoral, casting a coolly neutral eye on life and death and on humanity’s most perverse moods and modes.

Proust Is Possible
The New Cinema has been displayed on U.S. screens recently with astonishing variety and virtuosity. Michelangelo Antonioni parodied the modish artsiness of fashion photography to help create the swinging London mood of Blow-Up. Italy’s Gillo Pontecorvo faithfully reproduced the grainy style of newsreel footage to restage The Battle of Algiers — a pictorially harrowing exposition of war as an extension of politics. Czech director Jiff Menzel leaped from tears to laughter in quick sequence to create the moody turmoil of Closely Watched Trains. The “undoable” film can now be done, as shown by the creditable and convincing movie versions of Joyce’s Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. Even Proust is possible — if anyone wants to try.

(See the top 10 actor-director pairings.)

It remains to be seen whether the new thematic and technical freedom is a cause for unrestrained rejoicing; there is the obvious danger that it will be used excessively for the sake of gimmickry or shock. But the fact is that innovation is no longer the private preserve of the art houses but a characteristic of the main-line American movie. Two for the Road, otherwise an ordinary Audrey Hepburn vehicle, has as much back-and-forth juggling of chronology as any film made by Alain Resnais — not to mention a comic acidity about marital discord that is as candid as anything the Swedes have said. Even a conspicuous failure such as John Huston’s Reflections in a Golden Eye bleeds color images through black-and-white in a startling extension of the camera’s palette. U.S. movies are now treating once shocking themes with a maturity and candor unthinkable even five years ago: the life of drug addicts in Chappaqua, homosexuality in Reflections, racial hatred in In the Heat of the Night. And The Graduate, a new Mike Nichols film, is an alternately comic and graphic closeup of a 19-year-old boy whose sexual fantasies come terrifyingly true.

(See pictures of cinematic visions of the apocalypse.)

No More Habit
As in the days of Goldwyn and Mayer, the studio goal is to make money — but the customers are now willing to pay for a different product. “The main change has been in audience,” argues Robert Evans, head of production at Paramount. “Today, people go to see a movie; they no longer go to the movies. We can’t depend on habit anymore. We have to make ‘I’ve got to see that’ pictures.”

As the studio heads have discovered, there is not a single cinema audience today but several. There is — and perhaps always will be — an audience for banality and bathos. But a segment of the public wants the intellectually demanding, emotionally fulfilling kind of film exemplified by Bonnie and Clyde. By now, television has all but taken over Hollywood’s former function of providing placebo entertainment. Movie attendance among the middle-aged is down; yet box-office receipts are up — partly because cinema has become the favorite art form of the young.

See pictures from the career of director Ken Burns.

Paving the Way
The growing mass audience has been prepared for change and experiment both by life and art. It has seen — and accepted — the questioning of moral traditions, the demythologizing of ideals, the pulverizing of esthetic principles in abstract painting, atonal music and the experimental novel. Beyond that, oddly enough, younger moviemen credit television with a major role in paving the way for acceptance of the new in films.

“TV has changed the world by changing people’s attitudes,” says Polish director Roman Polanski (Knife in the Water). “When they are born with a TV set in their room — well — you can’t fool them anymore.” Or at least, it might be added, not in the same way. Director Richard Lester, who got his start on TV, believes that television’s abrupt leap from news about Viet Nam to Corner Pyle to toothpaste ads expands people’s vision. “TV is best at those sudden shifts of reality. TV, not Last Year at Marienbad, made the audience notice them for the first time.”

(Read TIME’s 1963 report on international cinema.)

Undeniably, part of the scandal and success of Bonnie and Clyde stems from its creative use of what has always been a good box-office draw: violence. But what matters most about Bonnie and Clyde is the new freedom of its style, expressed not so much by camera trickery as by its yoking of disparate elements into a coherent artistic whole — the creation of unity from in congruity. Blending humor and horror, it draws the audience in sympathy toward its antiheroes. It is, at the same time, a commentary on the mindless daily violence of the American ’60s and an esthetic evocation of the past. Yet it observes the ’30s not as lived but as remembered, the perspective rippled by the years to show that there are mirages of time as well as space. The nostalgic Technicolor romanticism alters reality, distorting it as a straight stick under water appears to be bent.

(See the top 100 films of all time.)

Ghoulish Curio
The story has its basis in fact. Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were two veal-faced wrongos who rode out of Texas during the Depression, killing and plundering for fun and profit. The constabulary bushwacked them in May 1934 near Arcadia, La., firing a thousand rounds into the fugitives and their 1934 Ford De Luxe, which 18 years later was still touring auto showrooms as a ghoulish curio. On their own turf, Bonnie and Clyde passed from the front page into folklore; elsewhere, they were relegated to Sunday-supplement features, colorful figures of the gangland era. It is a measure of the movie’s excellence that it has transformed those unlikely, unlikable criminals into the leading characters of an epic folk opera.

Bonnie, played by Faye Dunaway, is first glimpsed naked, a sensual Erskine Caldwell backwoods beauty imprisoned by her hot, airless room. Clyde, the jaunty, vacant car thief, played by Warren Beatty, offers her passage out of the Dust Bowl, with his gun as her ticket. To her dismay, she discovers that he is impotent. “Your advertising is just dandy,” sneers Bonnie, after their first no-love session. “Folks’d never guess you don’t have a thing to sell.” Yet Clyde does have a salable commodity: movement in a time of inertia, elation in the midst of depression.

See what we learned from a decade at the movies in the 2000s.

Although Clyde is a murderous ex-convict and Bonnie is his willing, amoral moll, they are essentially innocents: violence is something they can neither comprehend nor manage, and their dreams are always of settling down somewhere when hard times are over. When the two take up their aimless career as thieves, they try to see themselves as striking back at the haves on behalf of the have-nots — although there is no hint of ideology or social protest in their actions.

For a time they are cheered on by starving drifters who vicariously enjoy the cocky resume: “I’m Clyde Barrow, and this is Miss Bonnie Parker. We rob banks.” In an episode at once poignant and wonderfully funny, Clyde lends his .45 to a Texas-gothic farmer, who shoots his deserted farmhouse, repossessed by the bank. They speed away from their jobs in a succession of stolen cars — their Ford coupes, Essex tourer and Marmon Saloon are virtually living members of the cast. The sound track adds a further fillip to the humor; the exuberant banjo picking of Earl Scruggs playing Foggy Mountain Breakdown suggests a comedy chase.

(See photos the the brief and violent life of John Dillinger.)

“Though the boys throw stones at the frogs in sport,” wrote an ancient Greek poet,” the frogs do not die in sport but in earnest.” The Barrow gang — Bonnie and Clyde, his brother Buck and wife Blanche, their goofy, moonfaced driver, C.W. Moss — proves the truth of that maxim with its targets. At first, the shots are scattered in the air, like careless shouts. Then one lands point-blank in the face of a bank clerk. Blood hurts onto the screen, and from that instant, the audience is torn between horror and glee.

Life for a Death
The police pursue them relentlessly and, during one ambush, Buck’s skull is split open by bullets. Blanche, wounded in one eye, turns into a shrill animal, incoherently rending the air with screams. Buck thrashes in agony, like a blind bull pierced with sword thrusts. Pain becomes palpable, and the actors became horribly real as the screen turns as bloody as a slaughterhouse floor.

(See the top 10 ridiculously violent movies.)

The comedy is completely eroded now. Badly wounded themselves, Bonnie and Clyde escape to the sanctuary of C.W. Moss’s home. C.W.’s father puts on a smarmy smile for the couple, but then arranges their execution by trading with the police: his son’s life for the couple’s death. The police arrange the ambush; and in what may be the most remarkable use of slow motion in cinema history, the bodies of Bonnie and Clyde writhe to earth in a quarter-time choreography of death.

The bloody ending is as inevitable as the climax of a Greek tragedy; yet to most audiences it comes as a shock, and there is usually a hushed, shaken silence to the crowds that trail out of the theaters. The reason is not simply the cinematic perfection of the death scene. It is also caused by the fact that Bonnie and Clyde are what Warren Beatty calls “ordinary people,” whose curiously appealing lower-middle-class normality emerges between crimes — Bonnie’s perpetual avian bickering with Buck’s wife, the Barrow brothers’ spirited roughhouse chaff. They kill and rob banks; but they share the common concerns of common men.

See TIME’s guide to 1950s sci-fi movies.

Dramatic Irony
In portraying the archcriminal as the boy next door, Bonnie and Clyde displays a dramatic irony that gives the picture much of its vitality and stature. It is the irony that weds laughter and horror, belly laughs and bullets in the face, life and death. Clyde holds up a bank — which has failed three weeks previously. C.W. Moss’s father belts him across the mouth, not for consorting with murderers but because he has got himself tattooed. Bonnie ex presses her wish to settle down near her mother. “You try to live three miles from me,” says the mother mordantly, “and you won’t live long, honey.”

There are maudlin flaws in the film, however, and the gore sometimes flows in almost absurd, Grand Guignol quantities. Buck’s death goes on and on, long after the audience is fully aware of his agonies. One scene of an Okie auto camp, where the dispossessed farmers huddle together in the humiliating dawn, is posed with a self-consciousness that elicits admiration for the masterly photography but no emotion for the wretchedness of the humans within the picture frame. Yet many other passages could hardly have been bettered: the vaporous, honey-colored scene in which the movie enters Bonnie’s simple, sentimental mind as she visits her mother for the last time; the low comedy of the first successful heist; the slow dance on the killing ground that ends the film.

(See the top 10 disappointing blockbusters.)

Like, Wow
It is little wonder that the picture has shaken up not only audiences but Hollywood as well, and elevated its principals to genuine star stature. Warren Beatty, a boyish 30, used to be known mostly as Shirley MacLaine’s brother, an off-again-on-again actor who moonlighted as global escort of Natalie Wood, Leslie Caron, Julie Christie and Barbara Harris. A Mondo movie all by himself, he was like, wow, to the starlets but something else to the studios, which doubted his ability to produce the film. The studios now concede that as a producer Beatty was like, wow. He brought in the film on time and at its modest budget ($2,500,000). As for his acting future, he can pretty much name his own price and project.

(Read TIME’s 1978 cover story on Warren Beatty.)

Faye Dunaway, 26, the Florida-born daughter of a U.S. Army master sergeant, was an original member of Elia Kazan’s Lincoln Center Repertory Company, and brought her special brand of sparkle to the off-Broadway hit Hogan’s Goat. But in Hollywood Faye was indistinguishable from the rest of the bleachers in the crowd. One of 100 girls considered for Bonnie, she got the part a few days before shooting began.

Today she is a suddenly recognizable presence as she strides through the fashion pages in the suddenly popular ’30s-style dresses and suits like the ones she wore in the film. The supporting players were even more obscure than the stars. Michael J. Pollard, 28, had a few minor parts to his credit before Bonnie and Clyde, usually playing an ungainly amalgam of chagrin and Silly Putty; he is almost certain to get an Oscar nomination for his slobbery, hound-dog portrayal of C.W. Moss.

See portraits of the great British thespians of Harry Potter.

Bonnie and Clyde has also brought the metamorphosis of success to its scenarists, Robert Benton and David Newman. They began thinking about the movie four years ago in New York City, after mulling over the films of Francois Truffaut — Jules and Jim and Shoot the Piano Player. At the time, Benton and Newman were house satirists at Esquire, writing sophomoric advice to college boys like how to fake mononucleosis. The Dillinger Days, a book about crime in the ’30s, crossed their desk. The way they like to tell it, a figurative light bulb appeared over their heads when they came to the section on Clyde Barrow.

Yelling Thirties
Benton and Newman were not the first to see the cinematic potential of Bonnie and Clyde. Back in 1937 the gangster couple inspired Fritz Lang’s You Only Live Once, a fictionalized treatment of a man ruined by a prison sentence, starring Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sydney. As recently as 1958, The Bonnie Parker Story starred Dorothy Provine, a veteran of TV’s Roaring Twenties turned into a Yelling Thirties girl.

(See the 25 most important films of race.)

None of these earlier reincarnations bore much relation to the true Bonnie and Clyde story, and they did not bother Benton and Newman. Frankly imitating the juxtaposition of dulcet tragedy and saline comedy that characterizes the work of France’s François Truffaut, the two writers decided to write a script for him — even though they had never met him. In their original version, Clyde was a homosexual; he and Bonnie shared the favors of C.W. Moss in a weird ménage à trois. At the time, Truffaut was working on Farenheit 451, but he took a week off to teach the writers the grammar of filmmaking, what the camera could see and say. After turning them loose, he then turned them clown because he was still too involved in Farenheit to do the movie with them.

(See the 10 worst video game movies.)

Do It Now
The script next went to Jean-Luc Godard. “He came over and said, ‘Great, let’s do it now,’ ” recalls Newman. “He wanted to leave right away for Texas and do the movie in two weeks.” But the producers — two friends of Benton and Newman who had never done a movie before — procrastinated. The film was supposed to take place in summer, they argued, and this was winter. Godard abruptly cooled on the subject. “All they can think of is meteorology,” he complained, and flew back to Paris. Exit Godard.

Enter Beatty, who had heard about the script in a Paris conversation with Truffaut. Beatty found Benton and Newman in New York City, liked their work enough to wait out the original producers’ option, then bought the property for $75,000, intending to produce as well as direct under a contract with Warner Bros. Sister Shirley was to star as Bonnie. Eventually, he decided that he ought to play Clyde, which meant that Shirley had to go; after all, the picture featured more than enough gore and transgressions without seeming to add incest to injury.

(See pictures from the career of Francis Ford Coppola.

As director, Beatty signed up Arthur Penn, 45, a narrow, sparrowish Broadway veteran (Two for the Seesaw), whose Hollywood record included a few hits (The Miracle Worker), several flops (The Chase, Mickey One). Penn wanted the film edited in Manhattan, which meant that the choice of which scenes would end up on the cutting-room floor would take place 2,500 miles from the home base of Warner Bros. To Jack Warner, 75, who liked to make his own pick of the rushes, everything but salami should be cut in the studio. More problems were to follow — arguments about sound, music, casting, script, going on location in Texas. To solve them, Beatty poured on the charm and indulged in some mock histrionics.

During one argument with Warner, Beatty prostrated himself before the old man, dug his nose in the rug, and moaned: “Look, Jack, please do what I say. I won’t waste your money.” Warner looked down and grunted: “Get up off the floor, kid, you’re embarrassing me.” Beatty got his way.

(See pictures of the movies’ best-loved costumes.)

No Tramps
Most of the film was shot on location around Dallas. It was in a motel there that Beatty felt the first trickle of the torrent of controversy that would follow the film. “A huge waiter came in,” he recalls, “and said to me, ‘Hey Warren, ‘at trew yew gone play Clahd Barra? Sheee! I knowed Clahd Barra, and he wuz much better lookin’ than yew are.’ ” As it happens, Clyde Barrow was not much better looking than Mr. Hyde. The encounter was simply an initial indication that Texas folk heroes are never to be taken lightly — and that the story of Bonnie and Clyde had the power to shock and disturb anyone anywhere, from the simple to the most sophisticated.

(See pictures of Susan Sarandon’s life and career.)

It may have shocked audiences, but it brought them to the box office in record numbers. Bonnie and Clyde also stirred up a battle among movie critics that seemed to be almost as violent as the film itself. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times was so offended by it that he reviewed it — negatively — three times. “This blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste,” he wrote. TIME’s review made the mistake of comparing the fictional and real Bonnie and Clyde, a totally irrelevant exercise. Newsweek panned the film, but the following week returned to praise it.

The New Yorker ran a respectful appreciation by guest critic Penelope Gilliatt, followed nine weeks later with an ecstatic 9,000-word analysis by another guest critic, Pauline Kael. In Chicago, the Tribune‘s reviewer sided with the naysayers. He called it “stomach churning”: the American said it was “unappetizing.” But the Daily News acclaimed it as one of the most significant motion pictures of the decade; the Sun-Times said it was “astonishingly beautiful.” It seemed as if two different Bonnie and Clydes were slipping into towns simultaneously.

See pictures from the career of Alec Baldwin.

Nymphet-Mania
One reason for some of the harsh reviews may have been that the critics were too aware of the movie’s American origin. The homegrown skill displayed in Bonnie and Clyde may seem strange to Americans; it is no surprise to Europeans. To an extent, the American film was discovered by the French, who see things in U.S. movies no one else saw before. The directors who created France’s New Wave openly imitated such films from the American past as the westerns of John Ford, the adventure flicks of Howard Hawks, and B-level gangster fray-for-alls of the ’30s, like Scarface. French critics who have seen Bonnie and Clyde praised it enthusiastically — an American movie that started out as a film for a French director whose best works were echoes of American movies.

In both conception and execution, Bonnie and Clyde is a watershed picture, the kind that signals a new style, a new trend. An early example of this was Birth of a Nation, which still stands alone; it gave American cinema an epic sense of the nation’s history. Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane was another watershed film, with its stunning use of deep-focus photography and its merciless character analysis of that special U.S. phenomenon, the self-made mogul. John Ford’s Stagecoach brought the western up from the dwarfed adolescence of cowboy-and-Injun adventures to the maturity and stature of a legend. Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen’s Singin’ in the Rain proved again the ingenuity of U.S. moviemakers to bring fresh style to the format of musical comedy, which, like jazz, remains an authentically American art form.

(See pictures of 75 years of drive-ins.)

Even during the past decade, when the creative impulse in film has seemed to be the province of European directors, Hollywood has turned out movies that at least in retrospect, have the qualities of classics. Hitchcock’s Psycho inaugurated America’s cinema of cruelty, with a demonic amalgam of bloodshed and violence that was not equaled until Bonnie and Clyde. Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita treated the forbidden subject of nymphet-mania with cool humor; his Dr. Strangelove demonstrated that the biliousness of black comedy was as American as the H-bomb. John Frankenheimer’s The Manchurian Candidate was a flawed murder drama that explored the mind of a brainwashed assassin with psychological depth and technical brilliance.

(See how Star Wars changed movies.)

Open Checkbooks
In the wake of Bonnie and Clyde, there is an almost euphoric sense in Hollywood that more such movies can and will be made. The reason is that since mid-1966, the studios have opened doors and checkbooks to innovation-minded producers and directors with a largess unseen since Biograph moved from Manhattan to Los Angeles in 1910.

See 85 years of Warner Brothers pictures.

To be sure, these are different studios from the one-man autocracies that used to welcome creative geniuses like France’s Jean Renoir with lavish contracts and then crush their talent with assembly-line production techniques. The old dinosaurs in the corner offices have finally given way to younger dinosaurs. Robert Evans of Paramount is 37. Richard Zanuck, Fox production chief, is 34. David Picker, United Artists’ vice president for production, is 36. Today the studios are frequently packagers, providing money and facilities for small, independent production teams — which naturally insist upon artistic control. These filmmakers are not necessarily American. Hollywood is bankrolling movies all over the globe, and the cast and crew of a film can sometimes read like the attendance list of a U.N. committee meeting.

Welcome to MGM
Because of Hollywood’s international outlook, Britain’s Joseph Janni, producer of Darling, now looks there rather than to England. “If I go to J. Arthur Rank with a film idea, they consider me a nuisance,” he claims. “If I go to MGM, I am welcomed.” France’s Claude Lelouch (A Man and a Woman) has been signed to a multipicture contract at United Artists, as has Polanski at Paramount. The Iron Curtain countries are a continuing source of new talent, and Hollywood studios have dangled fat contracts before Czechoslovakia’s Jan Radar, who made Shop on Main Street. Even the customarily aloof Antonioni has become part of the new Hollywood; his next film, Zabriskie Point, will be financed by MGM and shot in the Southwest. It will be, he says, about violence.

(See the top 10 movie rereleases.)

Hollywood is now so eager to experiment with young and untried directors and writers that some older, proven film makers are complaining about lack of work. Director Mark Rydell — one of a host of refugees from television — got the chance to do The Fox when a studio executive saw a segment of I Spy that impressed him. Francis Ford Coppola, 28, is a precocious graduate of the nudie industry who is now doing Finian’s Rainbow for Warner Bros. Another untried talent is Faye Dunaway’s fiancé, Jerry Schatzberg, 40, a still photographer of women’s fashions, who is doing Puzzle of a Downfall Child.

(See the top 10 newspaper movies.)

So far, the freedom given to the new film makers is being expended largely on “adult” themes—which means, of course, lots of sex. But more than nudity and frankness is involved. A proliferation of new techniques — multiscreen, three-dimensional, the 360° projection of Expo 67 — are already beginning to find their way into Hollywood productions. The Boston Strangler is being shot with multiple images. One scene shows at the left an elderly woman watching TV; at bottom center, a detective interviews a witness; on the right, the strangler drives his car slowly through the streets to the elderly woman’s house. Mary Ellen Bute’s adaptation of Thornton Wilder’s The Skin of Our Teeth will employ a wide screen, occasionally fragmented into a honeycomb of separate actions.

See the top 10 movies that mess with your mind.

Patrols at the Front
For all the new talent, new money and new freedom available, it is not certain that Hollywood can or will sustain the burden of living in a renaissance. Technical innovation does not in itself guarantee quality. There is some evidence already that the relaxation of censorship, for example, only replaces euphemistic cliches with crass clichés. Love scenes are not necessarily better because they are nuder. By getting closer to graffiti, movie dialogue does not necessarily get closer to the truth.

(See the top 10 movie franchises that won’t die.)

Nonetheless, the best directors and writers are aware that cinematic freedom is a privilege that involves responsibility. Says Italy’s Pohtecorvo of today’s filmmakers: “None of them knows where to go from here, exactly what the right direction is. They are searching, experimenting, feeling out here and there, like patrols at the front in war.”

Those patrols have been annihilated before. For every bold, experimental foray there are bound to be many ambitious failures or cold, calculated imitations. Still, occasionally, one victory can change the world — or at least the part of it that produces films. Bonnie and Clyde is a conspicuous victory. It has proved to the industry that the “new movie” and “popular success” are not antithetical terms. Hollywood has sometimes acted as if money and art were incompatible. At worst, they can come together in a marriage of convenience. At best, they may even get to like each other.

Download TIME’s iPhone, BlackBerry and Android applications.

See TIME’s Pictures of the Week.