This documentary could just as easily have been called "Greenwich Village In the 50s" and lost nothing in the deal. It is a history of New York City from the vantage point of the disaffected. Those who moved to New York to get away from being the "Silent Generation" and to discover themselves artistically and culturally. Jazz music is here, writers and the founding of Village Voice newspaper is here, Kerouac, Ginsberg and the beats are here. Bob Dylan and the roots of 1960s folk in Washington Square is here. People who were there are interviewed and a lot of archival footage and music is interspersed to give a real sense of the time. With a documentary like this, lasting just about an hour and a half, there is the temptation to want more of whatever may have caught your eye while watching. The documentary does a great job in that it gives you enough to get you started on looking up these great authors and musicians on your own, it makes a point that the groundswell of the 50s in New York was books and words. To lead anywhere else but to these very writings would do an injustice.

Recommended if the whole Beat scene interests you. This would make a GREAT opening film to watch alongside another good docomentary called "Berkeley In The 60s" to see what happened when a lot of these people went west.

This documentary occupies itself with consideration of the intellectuals and artists of the time, most of whom came to New York to escape lack of stimulation in the provinces. The film is based on Dan Wakefield's book of the same name and could be more aptly titled, "Dan Wakefield's New York in the 50's," since there is no attempt to broaden the scope beyond Wakefield's milieu.

There are brief clips of documentary footage from the time punctuated by short comments from about three dozen people who were there. Cramming all this into a little over an hour is bound to result in lack of depth, but the collage presented does give a feel for the kinetic excitement of the time.

The thing that holds the film together is the recurring appearance of Dan Wakefield (who wrote the book that this was based on). Wakefield typifies many of the people who came to New York--he grew up in Indiana and came to Columbia University in the early 50's. Wakefield is engaging in his telling stories of his transformation from a rather straight-laced youth to a full participant in the culture. He is not without a sense of humor; for example, he comments, "Mailer was looking for the ultimate orgasm, I was looking for any orgasm."

There are brief reminiscences from a lot of big names, like Joan Didion, Nat Hentoff, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Redford, Gay Talese, Calvin Trillin, and so on. Two of the clips from the archival footage I found most interesting were the color clip from Steve Allen's Tonight Show of Jack Kerouac reading from "On the Road," and James Balwin talking about the plight of the black man. As an orator, I think Balwin could give Martin Luther King a run for his money.

Drinking and smoking were an integral part of the scene. Trillin noted that there were a lot of editors in the city that it was best to see in the morning, except that catching some in the afternoon when they were not sober could also be fruitful. As Wakefield commented, the predominate cultural force was the word, not the image. It was an age of writers, and psychoanalysis was the religion. Wakefield talks about his sessions with his analyst, trying to get him over his lack of sexual accomplishment; when he finally did succeed, it was after having a couple of strong drinks. His comment was that it was the alcohol that worked, not the sessions with his analyst.

A lot of what was to come about in the 60's had roots in the 50's, like the civil rights movement and sexual liberation. Trillin tells of the tiered structure at Time Magazine where, no matter what her talent, a woman could only be a researcher, never a writer. Mailer once said that all you needed to write was "blank paper and balls." Given this kind of nonsense in the 50's, you wonder why the women's movement was so long in coming.

"New York in the 50's" is a sort of single-minded documentary of narrow appeal and opinion which boils down to a drone of yammering about the experiences of a few (mostly Dan Wakefield), their subjective perceptions and opinions, etc., does not paint much of a portrait of New York or the 50's or even New York in the 50's, and is sorely lacking in objectivity. In other respects the film is quite ordinary as well. Passable stuff which somehow got a three star rating by Tivo.

I only watched about 15 minutes of this movie it's all these people you've never heard of plus Joan Didion and one or two others of that ilk saying things like, "if you could make it there you could make it anywhere and that was a big appeal. you came to new york to get out from under of the bland conformity of the midwest and you could get rid of your background. there were always parties I remember parties. maybe that's cause I mostly came on the weekends. boy greenwich village there's nothing like THAT in Indiana!" with irritating constant jazz score and a montage that is just generic that fills in the spaces between snoozing heads and I have to add writers wore things to be interviewed in like collared shirt underneath a not exactly clashing sweatshirt but a not well added one to the shirt in question. it's like. oh brother. All the women say it was "glamorous". After 15 minutes I'm thinking to myself, "I'm going to watch this? not..."

As one reviewer pointed out, this film is less a documentary about New York City and more a film about Greenwich Village and a small group of Bohemians. New Yorkers, in general, were NOT like the folks portrayed in the film. This isn't a major complaint--just a clarification.

If you watch this film, your reaction will probably have a lot to do with your values and beliefs. While so many folks looked back wistfully about the 50s in New York, to me I felt that most of the folks seemed like the most self-involved and smug individuals I have ever heard. Some, certainly not all, seemed to care mostly about feeling good through sex, smoking, psychoanalysis (which, in some ways is VERY egocentric) and drugs and you can easily see how the radical 60s truly had its roots in this New York movement. To me, these attitudes just seemed very sad and selfish.

In amazing contrast, the idealism, social consciousness and egalitarian aspects of this time I found admirable. Despite some of the incredibly "ME-oriented" people who talked in the film, a lot of good came from it as well. Its roots to the 60s civil rights movement were interesting and helped the viewer to see that racial equality didn't just "appear" in the 60s.

Overall, this is a mixed bag. The film is constructed well and has no narration--simply allowing those of the time to speak for themselves. This is the sign of an excellent and intelligent documentary. However, it's lack of balance and "wide-eyed" view of all the good of this time is disturbing--at least to this more conservative viewer. I wasn't enamored with many of these themes and felt there was a lot of negative though it all seemed to be portrayed too optimistically. To me, the good AND bad should have been explored--such as the early deaths due to substance abuse. Because of this, the film should play well to more liberal audiences and make "middle America", Muslims, and many others feel uncomfortable.