FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
When Erica (Jill Clayburgh) is told by her husband (Michael Murphy) that he’s leaving her for a younger woman, she and her daughter (Lisa Lucas) both experience shock and anger — but once Erica begins seeing a therapist (Penelope Russianoff) and ventures out to have affairs of her own, she starts to view her new life in a different light.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alan Bates Films
• Divorce
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Jill Clayburgh Films
• Michael Murphy Films
• Paul Mazursky Films
• Sexuality
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Paul Mazursky’s seriocomedy about a woman in her thirties… who must put her life back together after her husband… suddenly dumps her” was “hailed as a ground-breaking feminist film, but, considering that the women’s movement had been going strong for a good eight years, it was long overdue and daring only by Hollywood standards.”

He adds that “nevertheless, it is an interesting film, sensitively made by a male director-screenwriter who obviously feels compassion for his female lead and disappointment in the man who let her down.” He asserts that “Clayburgh should have won an Oscar playing Erica” — and in Alternate Oscars, he gives her this award, noting that Clayburgh “makes us feel [Erica’s] confusion and humiliation; her initial hatred for and distrust of all men”:

… “her jealousy toward her teenage daughter for having a boyfriend, and her worry that her ‘baby’ is getting too involved with someone of the heartless gender; her desperate need to pull herself out of the dark abyss when she sees a psychiatrist”:

… “her timidity around new men, curiosity about them and how she’ll respond toward them sexually, and her improved self-image when she does herself proud during a one-night stand (with Cliff Gorman).”

We also see “her realization that she is a desirable woman because of her mutually satisfying relationship with a friendly, handsome artist, Saul (Alan Bates)”:

SPOILER ALERT

… “and her final delighted discovery that she has gained control of her life for the first time and that being alone and single is scary but exciting.” He adds that “many viewers couldn’t understand why Erica wouldn’t marry Saul, when he (as played by Bates) seems like the man of most women’s dreams” — but “we agree with her decision to be independent because we see she has blossomed while alone.”

Peary argues that “while this film may have gotten its landmark status by default, it is a perceptive portrait of a woman who becomes more interesting by the moment” — and for the most part, I would agree. Mazursky’s film has held up well, and continues to offer a compelling look at the turmoil and triumph that emerge from something as awful as being duped and dumped by your life partner. (To that end, Murphy’s character is truly despicable — so it’s especially gratifying to see Clayburgh staying strong around him.)

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Jill Clayburgh as Erica
  
• Good use of New York City location shooting
  

Must See?
Yes, for Clayburgh’s performance.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
In 1950s New York, aspiring actor Larry Lapinsky (Lenny Baker) leaves his father (Mike Kellin) and overbearing mother (Shelley Winters) to go live in Greenwich Village, where he works for a deli owner (Lou Jacobi) and spends time with his girlfriend (Ellen Greene) and circle of bohemian friends — including Connie (Dori Brenner), Bernstein (Antonio Fargas), Anita (Lois Smith), and Robert (Chrisopher Walken).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Aspiring Stars
• Christopher Walken Films
• Coming of Age
• Historical Dramas
• Jeff Goldblum Films
• Lois Smith Films
• New York City
• Paul Mazursky Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, in this “seriocomic autobiographical piece” “writer-director Paul Mazursky takes us back to 1953,” where we follow the travails of a young man hoping “to make it as an actor in Greenwich Village.” Larry “has troubles with his girlfriend”:

… “falls in with a group of young eccentrics”:

… “and tries repeatedly “to break free from his grasping, often hysterical Jewish mother (Shelley Winters), whose goals in life seem to be to stock her son’s refrigerator and make him feel guilty.”

Peary points out that “not everything works” in this film — for instance, “talented Baker is not always appealing”:

… “but Mazursky beautifully creates a fifties ambience, populates his film with real characters, effectively blends humor and tragic elements,” and “has included several stunning scenes.”

He notes that his “favorite moment has Winters, who has been hysterical throughout, sitting in her son’s apartment and, like a sweet schoolgirl with a crush on a singer, tearfully listening to an opera record” — at which “point we can perceive the beauty and depth of emotion in this woman.”

He argues that this “film would work double-billed with Carl Reiner’s 1967 memory piece Enter Laughing, in which Winters played a Jewish mother to another aspiring actor” — but I recommend this film over that one. Particularly noteworthy in Mazursky’s screenplay is the complexity of Larry’s relationship with his lover, played with depth and zest by Greene (of Little Shop of Horrors fame). Film lovers will also appreciate seeing a few well-known actors in supporting roles — including Christopher Walken as a seamy lothario:

… Jeff Goldblum as a fellow aspiring actor:

… Antonio Vargas as a Black gay friend with a Jewish name:

… and Lois Smith as a young bipolar woman the group regularly cares for.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ellen Greene as Sarah
  
• Lenny Baker as Larry Lapinsky
  
• Shelley Winters as Larry’s mom
  
• Fine period sets and costumes
  
• Arthur Ornitz’s cinematography
  
• Bill Conti’s jazzy score

Must See?
Yes, as a good show, and for Greene’s performance.

Categories

• Good Show
• Noteworthy Performance

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
When the bored wife (Bulle Ogier) of a French diplomat meets a young man (Michael Gothard) in possession of some fine exotic feathers, she joins his group — including a male leader (Jean-Pierre Kalfon), two female followers (Valerie Lagrange and Monique Giraudy), and a child — through the jungles of Papua New Guinea in search of a paradisical valley.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbet Schroeder Films
• Character Arc
• Counterculture
• Explorers
• French Films
• Native Peoples

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “most unusual” film by Barbet Schroeder was “released when young people all over the world were searching for alternative lifestyles.” He points out that “in addition to being a fascinating adventure” of “a group of French [sic] men and women who journey through uncharted regions of New Guinea in search of a ‘mythical’ valley, supposedly an Eden,” it “has ethnographic interest because of scenes in which the professional actors interact with primitive Mapuga tribesmen who know nothing about films or cameras” (or so Peary assumes).

He marvels that “some of the stars even participated in tribal rituals that required them to strip and don ornamental bracelets, beaded necklaces, and weird hats” (the horrors!):

… and argues that “one always feels that the expedition is for real, and that if the valley is not found, the actors, Schroeder, and cameraman Nestor Almendros are doomed” (I didn’t sense this, but maybe I’m naive or jaded). Finally, Peary points out that “the picture is beautifully, hauntingly photographed” (true) and notes that the “original music is by Pink Floyd.”

I have mixed feelings about this cult film, which at first seems to be pushing a typically countercultural agenda that an authentic and meaningful life is to be found in breaking free from society’s dominant norms around sex and clothing and overall purpose for being.

By the end, however, the storyline has taken a reasonably nuanced arc, thus leaving one less certain.

When the film opens, we’re appropriately annoyed by Ogier’s spoiled White rich woman, who lives such a pampered life she spends her hours attemping to obtain and then sell illegally gotten plumage.

Upon arrival at Gothard’s campground, we can tell she’s intrigued by the “alternative lifestyle” on display, though most likely simply from voyeurism and excitement-seeking. Once she begins her actual trek with the motley troupe, however, we can see her opening up, both physically and spiritually:

… and while there are tensions, clearly Ogier’s character seems “meant” for this quest. (She’s never forced to come along, and in fact is advised against it.) Once they arrive deep within the jungles and interact with the Mapuga, she is eager to share her many insights — at which point we hear a refreshing counterbalance to her naive giddiness.

Viviane (Ogier): Olivier, isn’t it wonderful? We’ve become so close to them. We’re practically like them… I’m happy. We’ve found truth, you know.

Olivier (Gothard): It’s just the opposite… We’re lying. Whatever Gaetan [Kalfon] says, we’re tourists here.

Viviane: It’s disgusting, hearing you talk like that!

Olivier: Dancing’s easy. Could you work with them?

Viviane: Yes, absolutely!

Olivier: Women are even more exploited here. You know, Viviane, among [this tribe], society is bound by very strict rules.

Viviane: Same with ours!

Olivier: It’s not the same thing… We’re trying to break ours. When they dance, it’s not just for the pleasure of it, it’s to obey something… We seek after pleasure, and maybe peace. They couldn’t care less about that.

While it’s most certainly not Olivier’s place to assert what the tribe’s true motivations and feelings are, his cautionary words are an important antidote, leading the film towards its appropriately ambivalent ending.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Intriguing anthropological footage
  
• Néstor Almendros’s cinematography
  
• Pink Floyd’s fragmentary score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look for its cult appeal.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
After accidentally killing his brother-in-law, a farm boy (Gary Busey) partners with an outlaw named Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) who is living life on the lam from a patriarch (Gilbert Roland) who repeatedly sends out family members to attempt to kill the legendary bandit.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feuds
• Fred Schepisi Films
• Friendship
• Gary Busey Films
• Outlaws
• Revenge
• Westerns
• Willie Nelson Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “fine western has the appropriate feel of a story passed down through many generations so that it has become impossible to distinguish between fact and legend.” He notes that “Australian director Fred Schepisi filmed Texan William D. Witliff’s flavorful script in dusty, rugged land along the Rio Grande”:

… and “it’s in this unfriendly setting that mythical middle-aged outlaw Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) and a common-folk farm boy, Carl (Gary Busey) become dear friends.” It turns out that “Barbarosa has come to be regarded by the Mexican community as a legend, a man who can’t be killed” — and when he’s joined by Busey (who is similarly the target of a family vendetta), these “alienated men become like brothers — or like a wise, teaching father and a learning, respectful son.”

Peary writes that while “the story itself is familiar,” Schepisi manages to make every scene seem offbeat but authentic”:

… and though “the ending is predictable,” it “is still exciting.” He points out that Nelson and Busey are a terrific team: each is funny, full of warmth and honesty, and has a strong screen presence.” I’m essentially in agreement with Peary’s positive review: while this quirky western was a disappointment box office-wise (how could the estimated budget have been $11 million?) it remains worth a look for those interested in the genre.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gary Busey and Willie Nelson as Carl and Barbarosa
  
• Fine location shooting (with cinematography by Ian Baker)
  

Must See?
No, but it’s well worth a one-time viewing.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A Yugoslavian-American immigrant (Craig Wasson) berated by his strict father (Miklos Simon) finds solace in lifelong friendship with his high school buddies David (Michael Huddleston), Tom (Jim Metzler), and Georgia (Jodi Thelan).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Penn Films
• Counterculture
• Friendship
• Immigrants and Immigration
• Lois Smith Films
• Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary describes this Arthur Penn-directed flick as a tale of a “young Yugoslavian immigrant” whose “only constants through” the “tumultuous sixties” are “his need for fatherly approval and the mutual love between him and his two high school chums… and the girl all three love.” He notes that “the relationship between the passive guys and the unpredictable girl whom they treat like a queen recalls Jules and Jim:”

… and adds, “In the America we see [here], everyone’s life has epic proportions: hopes and dreams result in bitter disappointment, but sadness and pain are tempered by rewarding friendships; throughout, one’s love for America never dissipates.” (Wasson’s character is obsessed with the national anthem.)

Peary argues that although “Arthur Penn’s film has the makings of a masterpiece” (I disagree), it isn’t: “while it contains many lovely moments and devastating scenes, a few important sequences fail” and “although they are talented, you don’t really care if Wasson and Thelen get together”; he rightfully points out that “Thelen’s characterization is more annoying than captivating.”

Peary ends his review by noting the “excellent” (I disagree) “autobiographical script by Steve Tesich, who won an Oscar for Breaking Away (1979).” He asserts that this flick is “better the second time around” — but I won’t be giving it another whirl.

Unfortunately, this movie is a frustrating disappointment: not only do we not care about the protagonists, but the script is poorly written, inserting new characters and scenarios at random with an assumption we’ll simply understand who they are and how they fit into the arc. We get it that pretty Georgia (whose name we will never, ever forget given that “Georgia On My Mind” is played repeatedly) is bewitching to these three men, who all want a chance to be with her in one way or another — that’s boring, but makes sense as a theme. However, things take a seriously off-kilter turn when Danilo (Wasson) falls in love with the sister (Julia Murray) of his disabled friend Louie (Reed Birney) and visits her palatial home, only to quickly learn that DEEP dysfunction lurks therein.

An ensuing scene of “epic proportions”, featuring Murray and Birney’s father (James Leo Herlihy), seems to belong in another Arthur Penn movie altogether. Poor Lois Smith — in a tiny role as Wasson’s new mother-in-law — has an awkward monologue shortly thereafter:

… at which point we shift to seeing how Wasson, Thelan, Huddleston, and Metzler make their way through the remaining years of counter-cultural unrest (Metzler goes to Vietnam) and experimentation (Thelan becomes a hippie-ish single mom, marrying Huddleston while pregnant with Metzler’s baby, and roaming on her own through some kind of punk concert at one point). Meanwhile, the ongoing topic of Danilo seeking approval from his abusive immigrant father:

… instantly hearkens back to the similar narrative thread in Tesich’s much better Breaking Away, which it seems was his one-hit wonder. While boasting impressive directorial credentials, this one isn’t must-see except for diehard Penn fans.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ghislain Cloquet’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Nope; you can safely skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
In 1908 Shanghai, a Chinese martial artist (Bruce Lee) takes swift revenge against Japanese imperialists who have killed his instructor.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Bruce Lee Films
• Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese Films
• Martial Arts
• Race Relations and Racism
• Revenge

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “if the Bruce Lee from this film had investigated Lee’s own mysterious death, then we might know how he really died.” (Update: A recent article shares a new hypothesis that Lee died from hyponatraemia through ingesting too much water.) In his brief review, Peary outlines the simple plot of this film — including the fact that in part by “employing a series of disguises, [Lee] is a one-man annihilation squad.”

Peary adds that while the “film has awful dubbing”, “who cares?” given that “there is non-stop action, and watching the remarkable Lee in beautifully choreographed fight sequences (that make intelligent use of close-ups and slow motion) is a unique, exhilarating experience. As always, he is graceful, athletic, charismatic, and in control” while also displaying true “ferocity and anger during his fights” against the “bigoted Japanese.”

In terms of this film’s title, according to Wikipedia:

Fist of Fury was accidentally released in the U.S. under the title The Chinese Connection. That title was a means of tapping the popularity of another film, The French Connection (starring Gene Hackman), released in the U.S. in 1971. That title was intended to be used for the U.S. release of another Bruce Lee film, The Big Boss, which also involved drug smuggling. However, the U.S. titles for Fist of Fury and The Big Boss were accidentally switched, resulting in Fist of Fury being released in the U.S. under the title The Chinese Connection until 2005, while The Big Boss was released as Fists of Fury.

(Whew!)

Thank you, Wikipedia! The titles of these ’70s kung fu flicks is undeniably confusing, but fans always rally to the cause.

Note: The film’s final shot seems unambiguously inspired by the last shot in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) (though who knows).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Excellent fight choreography
  
• Awesome use of nunchucks (Lee’s first on film)
  
• Lee smashing a racist sign saying “No Dogs No Chinese”
  

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended if you’re at all interested in Bruce Lee.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Asian Film Fanatic video review (a fellow FF reviewer!)

Synopsis:
A fugitive (Robert Redford) wrongly accused of murder tries to make his way back home to either his parents (Miriam Hopkins and Malcolm Atterbury) or his wife (Jane Fonda), who still loves him but has continued her affair with the married son (James Fox) of the town’s bigwig businessman (E.G. Marshall). The local sheriff (Marlon Brando) — with support from his wife (Angie Dickinson) — tries to find Redford in a lawful manner; but when other townspeople learn about his supposedly murderous act, chaos quickly ensues.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Angie Dickinson Films
• Arthur Penn Films
• Ensemble Cast
• Fugitives
• James Fox Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Janice Rule Films
• Marlon Brando Films
• Miriam Hopkins Films
• Race Relations and Racism
• Robert Duvall Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Sheriffs and Marshals
• Small Town America
• Vigilantes

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “the decline and fall of American society is the theme of Arthur Penn’s cynical cult film, which is probably why it’s more popular in Europe than in America” (I’m curious if this remains true). Peary points out that this film was “unevenly adapted by Lillian Hellman from Horton Foote’s novel and play,” telling an overly ambitious story “set in a small Texan town” where “characters… are meant to represent every segment of a sick society” — and while “many are believable,” there are also “many caricatures spouting cliches.”

Among the motley cast we see “lawmen, lawbreakers, escaped prisoners; whites and blacks; rich, middle-class, and poor; faithful and unfaithful women; old people and youths (who have learned decadence and violence from the adults in town); [and] the decent and the corrupted.”

Peary points out that the “picture starts out… slowly,” with “three dull parties going on simultaneously, meant to show how the town is divided according to wealth and age.”

(Actually, the first party doesn’t begin until 36 minutes in, and the next two at around 50 minutes.) However, he asserts that the picture “becomes extremely exciting as the violence escalates scene by scene.” He points out as “truly powerful” (not to mention notoriously violent) the “scene in which Brando is beaten up by three ‘citizens’;” his bloodied face reminds one instantly of Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront (1954).

Peary notes that the “picture has strong characters and many interesting relationships, including that between Redford, Fonda, and… Fox”:

… and he points out that among the vast cast are “Angie Dickinson (who’s at her best as Brando’s wife)”:

… “E.G. Marshall (as Fox’s father, the rich man who runs the town)”:

… and “Miriam Hopkins (as Redford’s batty, stingy mother.”

Unfortunately, there is simply too much going on in this overcooked film, which was handled by too many screenwriters (neither Hellman nor Foote were happy), and purportedly didn’t reflect Penn’s vision, either (he wasn’t involved in editing at all, given producer Sal Spiegel’s heavy-handed approach). A subplot about a Black man (Joel Fluellen) being threatened and then imprisoned for his own safety is barely given any attention:

… instead simply adding to the overall tapestry of the town. By the end, when literal flames have erupted (thanks to reckless townsfolk), we appropriately despair for the state of humanity as reflected here.

Note: Interested viewers can read more about this movie in chapter 2 of Fiasco: A History of Hollywood’s Iconic Flops (2006) by James R. Parish, available through the Internet Archive. Yay for open access! For the record, other GFTFF-listed titles discussed in this book (which I have yet to read in full) include Cleopatra (1963), Popeye (1980), and The Cotton Club (1984).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marlon Brando as Sheriff Calder
  
• Angie Dickinson as Ruby Calder
  
• Robert Duvall as Edwin Stewart
  
• Joseph LaShelle’s Panavision cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely worth a one-time look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When bank robbers Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) realize they’re being followed by a posse that will stop at nothing to kill them, they convince Redford’s girlfriend Etta (Katharine Ross) to flee with them to Bolivia.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat and Mouse
• Cloris Leachman Films
• Friendship
• George Roy Hill Films
• Katharine Ross Films
• Outlaws
• Paul Newman Films
• Robert Redford Films
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this box office hit by noting that “it’s hard not to immediately like these two legendary outlaws of the 1890s — sly, emotional, funny Butch Cassidy and the fast-drawing, deadpanned, funny Sundance Kid — especially when Paul Newman and Robert Redford are imbuing them with their own ingratiating qualities.” He writes that “their comic bantering even in the face of danger is enjoyable, delivered with the ease of a veteran comedy team”:

… and “we think this will be a delightful pair to watch as they undertake several adventures.” However, he argues that “what happens is simply that writer William Goldman and director George Roy Hill repeatedly place the duo in danger and have them react in the same exact manner.”

He asserts “there is no real story… just constant references… to a posse on their trail” — and while “we had figured that their glib humor was just a part of their personalities and we [simply needed to] wait for the characters to reveal depth,” this never happens; instead, “it turns out to be the trait that dominates all others.”

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment. Less than halfway through this film, I realized that the remainder of the storyline would simply consist of watching our protagonists attempting to escape their fate, which we know in advance (this film has one of the single most famous closing shots in cinematic history, so I’m not spoiling anything here).

Sure, Butch and Sundance made their bed (having plenty of fun doing so), and then had to lie on it — but why should viewers be asked to watch so much of their downfall? I suppose the primary point of this ultimate buddy adventure flick is to see how closely they stuck together through it all — but I found it depressing. With that said, it was nonetheless interesting and informative to listen to a featurette about the making of the film, in which George Roy Hill talks us through his experiences and decisions scene by scene; it’s highly recommended for anyone wanting an insider’s look into this movie, which was expertly crafted on every front.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Paul Newman as Butch Cassidy
  
• Robert Redford as the Sundance Kid
  
• Numerous exciting sequences
  
• Conrad Hall’s cinematography
  
  
• Fine location shooting in Durango and Silverton, Colorado; St. George and Grafton, Utah; and Cuernavaca and Taxco, Mexico (in place of Bolivia)
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance and the enjoyable chemistry between Newman and Redford.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Articles
• Movie Diva Review
• FilmSite Review

Synopsis:
121-year-old Jack Crabbe (Dustin Hoffman) tells a young historian (William Hickey) tales from his storied life, including being adopted as an orphan by a Cheyenne chief (Chief Dan George), then being “rescued” by a preacher’s wife (Faye Dunaway) before working for a snake oil salesman (Martin Balsam); sharpshooting with his long lost sister (Carole Androsky); meeting Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Corey); becoming a married storeowner; working as an Indian scout for mad General Custer (Richard Mulligan); and returning repeatedly to his adopted tribe of Cheyenne “human beings” before ending up the sole remaining White survivor at Little Big Horn.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Arthur Penn Films
• Cavalry
• Dustin Hoffman Films
• Faye Dunaway Films
• Flashback Films
• Historical Drama
• Martin Balsam Films
• Native Americans
• Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Arthur Penn’s Brechtian western, with a script by Calder Willingham, does justice to Thomas Berger’s marvelous epic tale” (a 1964 novel) of a man “who tells a skeptical interviewer his recollections of his early life.” While much has been said about the “tall tale” nature of Crabbe’s storytelling, it’s actually not hard to imagine he may have lived out the stories he tells here — especially given that he’s not self-aggrandizing by any stretch; rather, like Forrest Gump, he simply finds himself bouncing across the landscape of history and landing in different pockets time and again.

Peary argues that “While not everything Crabbe tells us is [necessarily] true, the gist of the story, about Custer and the Indians, is true. Through the horrifying scenes of the cavalry massacring Indians, Penn and Willingham obviously were trying to draw parallels to the systematic genocide being carried out by equally arrogant American soldiers on yellow-skinned villagers in Vietnam” — thus making this “a political film about the chauvanism and brutality of white American imperialists.”

Peary points out that the “portrayal of Indians” in this film “should be commended — it’s so sympathetic and insightful that it allows for some humor about Indians (i.e., Chief Running Nose; the Indian who walks backward).”

To that end, I was pleased to see Chris Eyre — director of Smoke Signals (1998), and of Cheyenne and Arapaho descent — introducing this film for the AFI Movie Club as “one of his favorites,” and to know that Chief Dan George was rightfully nominated as Best Supporting Actor (the first Native American to garner this designation).

Hoffman’s performance, meanwhile — Peary nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars — is truly impressive; this role exhausted him to the point that he took up cigarettes again after an 8-month hiatus.

Also noteworthy is Mulligan’s “bravura” portrayal as “monstrous, conceited, insane General Custer”.

While I’m not a fan of all the film’s humor:

… I can understand its inclusion, and it all comes across as part of the wacky panorama of Penn’s attempt to subvert the genre. This unsung western remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Dustin Hoffman as Jack Crabbe and Little Big Man
  
  
• Chief Dan George as Old Lodge Skins
  
• Richard Mulligan as General Custer
  
• Refreshing inclusion of a “two spirits” character (Robert Little Star)
  
• Fine production design (by Dean Tavoularis), art direction (by Angelo P. Graham), set decoration (by George R. Nelson), and costumes (by Dorothy Jeakins)
  
• Impressive aging make-up (by Dick Smith)
  
• Harry Stradling, Jr.’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual modern classic. Nominated as one of the Best Movies of the Year in Alternate Oscars, and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2014.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
Two college students — Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) — lose their virginity to the same woman (Candice Bergen), then go on to have divergent experiences with other women, including Jonathan shacking up with a buxom model (Ann-Margret) and Sandy dating a young hippie (Carol Kane).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann-Margret Films
• Art Garfunkel Films
• Candice Bergen Films
• Carol Kane Films
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Mike Nichols Films
• Rita Moreno Films
• Sexuality
• Womanizers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this fourth feature film by director Mike Nichols — after Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), The Graduate (1967), and Catch-22 (1970) — was “an ‘in’ film of the early seventies, when college-age viewers defended its sexual frankness — indeed, this was a rare film about sex — and argued about its themes.” He writes that this movie (scripted by Jules Feiffer) “about two friends… and how their attitudes toward sex and women evolve from the late forties to 1971” is “the story of men who think of women as the enemy, who [thus] can’t be treated with sincerity because they’re putting on an act themselves in order to trap a man.”

However, “it’s not women who dehumanize and emasculate these men, but their own fear of women (‘ballbreakers’ as Nicholson calls them).”

Peary asserts that “Nichols’s direction is innovative but very cold,” while “the acting is exceptional” (he nominates Nicholson as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars). I agree with Peary that the “best scene” (albeit the hardest to watch) “is the volatile argument between Nicholson and the depressed Ann-Margret, who reveals her desire for marriage.”

This film is one I resisted rewatching for as long as possible, knowing it’s a rough if distressingly honest ride — however, it remains worth a one-time look for the performances and its historical significance. Watch for Rita Moreno in a small but crucial closing scene with Nicholson.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Ann-Margret as Bobbie
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Village Voice