Oh yeah,
Battle of Algiers is anti-establishment and by the same director who made
Burn!, Gillo Pontecorvo. I think
Apocalypse Now is an honest movie about war, which is extremely rare, although it fails to make the connection of how the establishment uses war in order to control society, whereas I think Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" did make the connection, at least by showing the profit motive of commerce being alongside the higher motive of racism/superiority.
Dr. Strangelove is a mixed bag for me. It's a great film, but it doesn't reveal much that an observant person would have been surprised to learn at the time, although I'm not old enough to appreciate how everyone reacted. However, the film's portrayal of the top of the US and Soviet command structure is definitely anti-establishment and I can't think of any other prominent film that showed US/USSR as equally insane and incompetent. Usually it would be something like "We're great and they're the bad guys." Finally, Strangelove delivered one other message at a particularly critical time in US history that is troubling to me, but that's an involved discussion that gets off on some controversial topics.
BTW, if you like Strangelove, you need to take a quick look at the wiki page for Operation Paperclip and for Werner Braun in order to appreciate who and what that Strangelove character represents, and why he was played so well by Sellers.
And one last thing, Strangelove is a black comedy about the insane policy of mutually assured destruction, for which the acronym M.A.D. is perfectly appropriate. In the same year another film on exactly the same topic was released, but it was done as a straight thriller/drama. It's called "Fail-Safe" (1964). My favorite part is that Walter Matthau has a serious role at the film's opening.
The Graduate, IMO, is not anti-establishment. It's simply a bit comical, with enjoyable music, but overall it's demoralizing, which is the most obvious purpose of Hollywood/mainstream films, TV, media, etc. The hypocrisy-of-the-older-generation theme is just whining meant to deliver the message that you "shouldn't trust anyone over 30", which emphasizes the generation gap, separates younger people from the actual wisdom and knowledge of their elders, and helps categorize old people as useless. The isolation metaphor when Hoffman's character is forced to demonstrate his new scuba suit for the benefit of his parents' showing off to their social circle is hilarious, but it is also a way to reinforce mistrust of the older generation.
It is incorrect to blame working parents for the evils of the system simply they de facto believe in, participate in, benefit from, etc. The older generation of the film are portrayed as fools, but just because they believe in the system doesn't mean they are actually responsible for it or have any power to change it, although we see them as benefiting directly from it in their
[condescending Soviet accent = ON]
decadent, Americanisch, opulent lifestyles.
[accent = OFF}
Realistically speaking, what alternatives do they have? Colonize the island of Catalina and build a utopia? LOL The film condemns the parents from an immature and singular point of view of their spoiled kids, which is inherently more hypocritical than the behavior of the parents. It's not really an interesting or developed social commentary, IMO, which is proven by the impotence of the actual youth of that era utterly failing to change the system in real life, and most of them eventually sold out by their own standards. Should the youth of the 60's be condemned the way the movie condemns the older generation of the film?
You mention
Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, which is also directed by Mike Nichols and one I've never seen. I'll take a look because I consider his other early films "Catch-22" and "Carnal Knowledge" to be very demoralizing. Would like to see about his first film as well. My favorite film of his is "Wolf" (1994). Hmmn, a repetition of a word in a title. I think in his director commentary on "Catch-22" he tells you exactly what he thinks of morality.
I don't get
Harold and Maude the way I love all other Hal Ashby films of the 70's, "Shampoo" being least on the list of some great movies. Is H&M really anti-establishment or is it just whiny and naive? Or is Ashby making fun of naive and whiny people, especially with the over-the-top Cat Stevens soundtrack? No offense meant to Mister Islam
I would like to watch
In The Heat of the Night again. Haven't seen it in such a long time.
Sweet Smell of Success is one that I don't know about. Will check some info. Hey, Burt Lancaster, I'm there. Will see if I can get it.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one I've never seen. I get turned off by the cheesy tone of a lot of older films, but I'll give this one a try.
A Clockwork Orange is another Kubrick entry that is a great film and deserves close analysis in order to interpret the various messages. I don't consider it anti-establishment in any way, in fact I really think it's very much pro-establishment and shows what Kubrick probably thought about humanity in general. I think he comes off as an elitist.
Clockwork poses the question of how to control society: by allowing freedom of choice and individual morality as some kind of right, or by using science, such as the Ludeveko technique, to absolutely control people. It goes on to show the absurdity of the political system, but that's not exactly front page news, and it doesn't offer any solutions or important revelations, so I can't call it anti-establishment in that regard.
Considering how much screen time is devoted to demonstrating that the social problems of crime and sexual promiscuity are completely failed by the penal system, the politicians, the parents, the church, etc., I don't think the film's message is anti-establishment. On the contrary, I think it is suggesting that the establishment be given greater power to control people, but only to control certain people, in order to deal with the problem of individual choice and free will that the "wrong" people currently have.
American Beauty is probably the most demoralizing film to be praised and promoted so much. It is a perfect example of mainstream media combining a few conscious-level positive messages, especially the Happy Hollywood Ending, in this case done in a sort of necrophiliac manner, with a continuous barrage of negative and disgusting messages. It is basically a later version of
The Graduate, told from the young people's point of view, its premise revealing the changes in what is socially acceptable from 1967 to 1999. Look at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" from 1975 and something like "The Breakfast Club" from 1986 to see how the stepping stones of changing social mores seem to bridge from one decade to the next.
The gradual degradation of society is not anti-establishment. Degradation of the masses does not affect the power, influence, or prestige of those in power, those who control society, but is in fact a way for the establishment to exercise control through manipulation of society into a condition of moral ambiguity, which is done primarily via media, so that people will be more amenable to policies that take away civil rights in disregard of human dignity, allowing for greater freedom of establishment institutions, such as corporations, to maintain dominance without being inhibited by individuals asserting their rights and power to not do morally objectionable things or object to being treated as slaves and machines.
Some of the demoralizing themes of A.B. are: Sexual fantasy about young girls is the first step in changing from a loser to a winner. Drugs are the second step to becoming a winner and being happy, although in the film they're actually an example of irresponsible behavior when used as a constant escape from reality. Money you don’t earn, but steal or get through blackmail will bring the most happiness. Avoiding family responsibility and loyalty will bring happiness. Self-satisfaction is preferable to self-sacrifice (love) for family. Voyeurism is preferable to engaging in reality. Death is beautiful. Women are bad. Traditional role models are bad, from parental role models to sexual role models since the only apparently happy people are the homosexuals next door. The closet homosexual (Ricky's father) is the worst person in the film, implying that if he were honest and came out his life would be better.