FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
At an early 20th century boarding school in Austria, new arrival Thomas Törless (Mathieu Carrière) is distressed to find two classmates — Reiting (Fred Dietz) and Beineberg (Bernd Tischer) — bullying a fellow student named Basini (Marian Seidowsky), who has been caught stealing.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• Boarding School
• Bullies
• Coming of Age
• German Films
• Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “compelling adaptation of Robert Musil’s 1906 novel, written and directed by [27-year-old] Volker Schlöndorff,” “presents military academies as breeding grounds for fascists, and draws parallels between what happens in the school and the rise of Nazism in Germany in the early 1930s, [including] victimization of Jews.” He adds that even “more interestingly, it’s about how similar people can, through circumstances, go in opposite directions,” with one becoming “an oppressor and the other an outcast victim.”

Ironically, while Carrière’s Thomas detests the way Beineberg and Reiting “intellectualize that what they’re doing to Basini is an experiment in human nature (to see how much he will take),” Thomas himself could be seen as the ultimate passive intellectualizer, given his lack of willingness to step in and help Basini; which is worse?

Meanwhile, Thomas’s frustration with Basini’s “masochistic [sic] acceptance of his degradation and victimization” also seems off-base, since Basini is simply and pragmatically trying to survive. Shedding additional light on this topic, film scholar Timothy Corrigan — in an essay for Criterion on the film’s historical relevance — writes:

“Although critics of the film sometimes misread Törless’s passive and intellectual response to brutality as the message of the film, there is too much dark historical irony in this drama to be denied. Seen from Schlöndorff’s perspective in postwar Germany, this prewar tale of the Austrian upper class becomes a chilling anticipation of a culture stifled by authoritarian regimes and attitudes and secreted in the violent obsessions and weaknesses of individuals supporting those regimes.”

He continues:

“Like other films with similar boarding-school plots, such as Jean Vigo’s Zéro de Conduite (1933) and Lindsay Anderson’s If…. (1968), Young Törless investigates the social rituals that shape and repress adolescents in a rite-of-passage drama. But unlike those other two films, there is no rebellion against the institution in this German drama but instead a frighteningly stoic withdrawal.”

Striking Bernd Tischer (this is his only listed film role on IMDb) makes quite an impression as the school’s dominant bully; and in a surprising bit of casting, Barbara Steele plays a prostitute who piques Törless’s curiosity more than his lust.

On a side note, I was particularly interested in revisiting this film after learning more about Carrière through his daughter Alice’s recently released memoir, Everything Nothing Someone (2023), in which she very openly discusses the impact of his eccentric, philosophy-driven parenting style on her own fragile sense of self; one can see traces of the father she describes in this much earlier role for Carrière (his breakthrough film).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Mathieu Carrière as Törless
  
• Bernd Tischer as Beineberg
  
• Franz Rath’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful early entry in New German cinema.

Categories

• Foreign Gem

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• TCM DVD Review
• Criterion Essay
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
After being sexually abused by her father (Leonard Jackson) and giving birth to two kids who are adopted away from her, a young Black woman (Desreta Jackson) growing up with her beloved sister Nettie (Akosua Busia) in early 20th century Georgia becomes the wife (Whoopi Goldberg) of an abusive widower (Danny Glover) whose singer-lover, Shug (Margaret Avery), turns out to be an unexpected light in her life.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• African-Americans
• Child Abuse
• Deep South
• Domestic Abuse
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Steven Spielberg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of Alice Walker’s probably unfilmable Pulitzer Prize-winning [1982] novel” — which is nonetheless about to be released in a new rendition — “is a shrewdly directed, impressively acted movie,” but “it intentionally alters Walker in objectionable ways.” He asserts that “Spielberg and [white male] writer Menno Meyjes trade in Walker’s hellish, male-controlled, black world where Celie grows from an unappreciated, exploited, sexually abused, unloved daughter (Desreta Jackson)”:

… “to unappreciated, exploited, sexually and physically abused wife (Whoopi Goldberg).”

He argues that Spielberg and Meyjes “substitute [in] a fairytale world that is shot through rose-colored lenses, where Celie’s problems with [her] husband… are no worse and no more realistic than Cinderella’s when living with wicked stepsisters” while also choosing “to downplay such controversial themes as rape, incest, racism, and most significantly, lesbianism.”

He writes that “the book’s feminist theme — [that] Celie’s personal growth, self-respect, and rare moments of happiness are the result of being with strong women like Shug and her foolish stepson’s battling wife, Sofia ([Oscar-nominated] Oprah Winfrey) and reading the letters from her sister in Africa — is almost completely diluted.”

Peary points out that while the “picture has many big scenes from the book,” “they’ve been taken out of context so that we can’t see their thematic relevance.” For instance, “we don’t see that Sofia is gotten out of jail by her former romantic rival, Squeak (Rae Dawn Chong), so we are deprived of the significant black-female-bond theme that makes the whole sequence involving Sofia important.”

It’s been so long since I read The Color Purple that I can’t recall details of all these subplots — meaning I must judge the film on its own merits. To that end, I agree with DVD Savant’s assertion that:

The film has no appreciation of what destitute misery can be — even Harpo’s broken-down shacks look like something wonderful from Tom Sawyer’s Island. There’s never a day in Georgia that isn’t drop-dead gorgeous, even when it’s raining or a storm is brewing; everybody looks well fed, if not downright prosperous. The movie is designed within an inch of its life, and cinematographer Allen Daviau drowns the screen with pretty pictures that warp the world of poverty the film aims to depict.

Indeed, this is an overly pretty, glowing film about some of life’s most challenging topics — but to its credit, it ultimately shows that women can (and will) prevail even in the face of seemingly unbearable insults. Goldberg’s fine breakthrough performance makes this film worth a look, though I ultimately don’t consider it must-see viewing — and I’m not particularly looking forward to the remake, either; I’d rather re-read the book one day.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Whoopi Goldberg as Celie
  
• Allen Daviau’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a one-time look for Goldberg’s performance, and for its historical significance as an Oscar nominee.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
In New York City, a pair of undercover narcs — Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) — begin tracking a local shop owner (Tony Lo Bianco) who is planning a major heroin trade with a French millionaire (Fernando Rey).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat-and-Mouse
• Drug Dealers
• Gene Hackman Films
• New York City
• Police
• Rod Steiger Films
• William Friedkin Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “William Friedkin directed this Best Picture winner, a police thriller showing how a [pair] of brutal, vulgar, nattily dressed New York street cops outfox the civil, rich, well-educated international criminals who are trying to smuggle in an enormous shipment of heroin.”

He notes that “Friedkin makes great use of sight and sounds of New York, wisely chosen locations, hand-held cameras, and natural light to give authenticity to this true story” — and that the “scenes shot in France, using French subtitles, give the film class, rather than coming across as pretentious.”

He points out while the “cops are brave,” “those like Jimmy ‘Popeye’ Doyle… are too obsessive and sadistic to be considered heroes:”

… “and thus “make unique protagonists in the American cinema. We’re glad they’re tough enough for the dangerous job of narcotics investigators, but we wouldn’t want to cross the paths of these thugs.”

Peary adds that the “film has ironic humor, strong violence, [and] many exciting sequences,” with the most famous showing “Popeye racing his car after a bad guy on a subway” — which plays “like a terrific short film.”

So much has been written and produced about this award-winning picture — followed by John Frankenheimer’s non-GFTFF listed French Connection II (1975) (which I haven’t seen) — that I’ll just highlight a few more of my thoughts. While the film is a bit challenging to follow at first, this makes perfect sense given the context of undercover cops attempting to sniff out a lead without being seen; we get a strong sense of how many tedious hours they must wait while observing their suspects, without any guarantee of success.

The cat-and-mouse tensions between Hackman and Rey are especially enjoyable; their interactions on a subway car are classic.

… and the scene in which the cops look for a very-well-hidden stash of drugs is genuinely suspenseful. This one remains well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle
  
• Roy Scheider as Buddy Russo
  
• Excellent use of location shooting throughout the film
  
• Owen Roizman’s cinematography
  
• Jerry Greenberg’s editing
  
• Don Ellis’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a classic thriller.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• DVD Talk Review

Synopsis:
After being shot as a young man by a mysterious woman (Barbara Hershey) in a hotel, baseball rookie Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford) — now in his 30s — joins a minor league team run by cantankerous Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley) and the more even-tempered Red Blow (Richard Farnsworth), both of whom are concerned about ongoing corruption by the team’s majority owner (Robert Prosky). Meanwhile, Hobbs is seduced by Brimley’s sexy niece (Kim Basinger) and visited by his small-town sweetheart (Glenn Close).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Hershey Films
• Barry Levinson Films
• Baseball Films
• Corruption
• Femmes Fatales
• Glenn Close Films
• Historical Drama
• Robert Duvall Films
• Robert Redford Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Robert Redford returned to screen acting after a four-year vacation for this pet project, an adaptation of Bernard Malamud’s superb baseball novel” (which I haven’t read). He implies that “looking fit as an athlete, displaying a convincing left-handed swing, and sporting boyish good looks:”

… Redford is well-suited to play “Roy Hobbs, an innocent country boy who has… pitching talent” but is seduced “into taking the wayward path” by a “mysterious woman in black (Barbara Hershey)” (based on the bizarre real-life star-stalking of Eddie Waitkus by Ruth Ann Steinhagen).

[POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT]

Peary argues that “in the early scenes this Barry Levinson-directed film brilliantly captures myth aspects of baseball prior to WWII, but then Levinson and Redford turn [the] picture into a schmaltzy fairytale.” He adds, “If you would have been happy if David O. Selznick decided to forget Margaret Mitchell and have Rhett stick it out with Scarlett, then you’ll accept these guys’ changing Malamud’s pessimistic ending” into a cheer-worthy one.

He points out that “Redford had early screen success playing men who sold out their convictions (i.e., The Candidate, The Way We Were) and it seemed Hobbs’ character as Malamud wrote it was ready-made for him” — but apparently “everyone wants to be a hero, especially one who seems to be more than human.”

Peary calls out the impressive atmosphere and “camera work by Caleb Deschanel” — and also notes the random distinction that Close’s character is viewed “as a symbol of purity even though she is an unwed mother.”

While I’m not a diehard baseball fan like Peary — and also not invested in how closely this film hews to its source material — I can see how viewers at the time may have been disappointed by the significant shift in the ending. Personally, I was more puzzled by the ultimate intent of the storyline, which mixes random elements of mysticism and nostalgia like nobody’s business. The shooting early on is indeed confusing (it’s apparently not explained in the book, either); what’s most clear is that we’re meant to see what happens when an older-than-typical athlete with star potential decides to finally pursue some version of his original dream. Other than that, corruption is a massive theme throughout (villainous Prosky is literally filmed in the dark):

… and the women in Hobbs’s life are either femme fatales (Hershey, Basinger) or earthly saints (Close). The biggest star of all, however, is Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography, which illuminates the period sets and actors with a gorgeous glow at all times.

Note: Robert Duvall is essentially wasted in a bit role as a sports journalist who first watches Hobbs strike out “The Whammer” (Joe Don Baker, playing a Babe Ruth-like star), then pursues him for his story throughout the rest of the film.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Joe Don Baker as “The Whammer”
  
• Fine period sets
  
• Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a one-time look as a well-crafted piece of nostalgia.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When an overly confident ad man (Albert Brooks) is denied a promotion he believes he deserves, he convinces his wife (Julie Hagerty) to quit her job and join him on a life-altering RV road trip akin to Easy Rider — but will life on the road be as liberating as they believe, especially given Haggerty’s unknown gambling issues?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Albert Brooks Films
• Comedy
• Gambling
• Living Nightmare
• Marital Problems
• Midlife Crisis
• Road Trip
• Unemployment

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “In his third comedy as director-star” — after Real Life (1979) and Modern Romance (1981) — “Albert Brooks again plays his familiar semi-obnoxious, semi-forgivable, self-absorbed young American” (a character-type I’ll fully admit to disliking). He adds that while Brooks’s David Howard is “not abrasive as we’ve seen him” in previous iterations, “he becomes just as aggravated when his schemes for the easy life go awry and his world crumbles around him.”

Meanwhile, “he still thinks himself clever enough to talk himself out of every difficulty — only to find out that no one goes along with what he says so convincingly.” (To that end, Garry Marshall is perfectly cast “as the humorless Vegas casino operator whom Brooks tries to convince to return Haggerty’s [gambling] losses in order to get good publicity for the hotel.”)

Peary argues that while “this is not the masterpiece that Brooks is capable of,” “it has several extremely funny scenes (particularly Brooks’s one-on-one dialogues with people in authority positions) and again Brooks reveals his unique perception of American characters.” However, he takes issue with the fact that “Brooks eventually forgives Haggerty for her gambling stupidity” given that “our opinion of her never becomes high again”:

… though I would point out that Brooks is far from admirable, and my opinion of him was never high. These boomers may be realistic in their self-absorbed foibles, but are not necessarily individuals we want to watch for an hour-and-a-half. You can skip this one.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• A few drolly amusing sequences
  

Must See?
No, though Brooks fans will of course want to see it — and I’m fully aware I’m in the minority on how I feel about his movies.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In 1954, a comedy sketch writer (Mark Linn-Baker) is charged with watching over an alcoholic former matinee star (Peter O’Toole) who is due to make a special appearance on a variety show alongside “King Kaiser” (Joseph Bologna).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Actors and Actresses
• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Cameron Mitchell Films
• Comedy
• Has-Beens
• Jessica Harper Films
• Peter O’Toole Films
• Television

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “original, pleasing, spiritedly written (by Norman Steinberg and Dennis Palumbo) and acted comedy set in 1954” features “uneven” direction by Richard Benjamin (who “has a particularly tough time with tone changes”), and wastes Jessica Harper playing “a perky, dull girl… instead of one of her kooky characters.”

However, he argues (and I agree) that “both O’Toole and Joseph Bologna (as the [Sid] Caesar-like Kaiser) are terrific.”

He points out that the “film shows how the brilliant, artistic, graceful O’Toole and the stupid, strong, instinctively hilarious Bologna — top stars from different eras — share the limelight and become unbeatable partners on live television,” thus proving “there is room in show business for great talents of all types.” He adds that “the dialogues between the show’s writers”:

… “and the scene in which O’Toole meets Linn-Baker’s unusual mother (Lainie Kazan) and uncle (Lou Jacobi) are highlights.”

I was overall disappointed with this film, which does indeed run inconsistently and seems to be missing a key opportunity. However, there are enough positive elements — including O’Toole’s no-holds-barred performance; Bologna as Kaiser (his interactions with real-life crime boss Karl Rojeck [Cameron Mitchell] are hilariously bold):

… and a delightful show-stopping ending — to recommend it for one-time viewing. Also of special note: O’Toole dancing with a smitten woman (Gloria Stuart) out celebrating her anniversary at a club.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Peter O’Toole as Alan Swann
  
• Joseph Bologna as King Kaiser
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for O’Toole’s performance, and for the satisfying ending.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

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

Synopsis:
When a trio of in-debt auto workers — Zeke (Richard Pryor), Smokey (Yaphet Kotto), and Jerry (Harvey Keitel) — conspire to rob the safe of their corrupt union, unexpected consequences quickly ensue.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ed Begley Jr. Films
• Harvey Keitel Films
• Heists
• Labor Movement
• Paul Schrader Films
• Political Corruption
• Richard Pryor Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “excellent, unusual film by Paul Schrader, which he wrote with brother Leonard” at first “threatens to become a comedy, perhaps like 9 to 5, in which three exploited employees ‘screw’ the boss.”

An early scene taking place at Pryor’s apartment — when he receives an evening visit from an IRS agent (Leonard Gaines), and quickly rallies with his wife (Chip Fields) to “produce” the additional children he has claimed on his returns:

… is definitely written with a comedic undertone, though the circumstances behind it (constant, unrelenting financial pressures) are all-too-real;” and “when the union gets serious, the comedy disappears.”

Peary notes that this “cult film is strongly written, provocative, [and] extremely well acted” — and for the time the movie was made, “Schrader’s to be commended for having two of his three leads be black.”

To that end, all three lead actors turn in impressive, believable performances — though I’ll admit it was hard to watch a scene in which the men gather at Kotto’s apartment for a coke-and-sex-fueled party, given that both Pryor and Keitel have lied to their sweet wives (Fields and Luca Saroyan) about going out.

I get it that the men want to let loose and relieve some tension, given the extreme frustrations of their work — but their wives don’t deserve either deception or STDs. With that caveat aside, the script is heavy-hitting in a refreshing way: we understand the massive corruption at play across all systems (including the union) right away, and how challenging these men’s choices are. There’s a particularly gruesome (and effective) murder scene that shifts the film into horror-flick territory — and things get even more harrowing from there. This isn’t an easy film to watch, but it’s a powerful and important one.

Note: Watch for Ed Begley, Jr. in a small role as a fellow employee and friend.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Yaphet Kotto as Smokey
  
• Harvey Keitel as Jerry
  
• Richard Pryor as Zeke
  
• Fine location cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful neo-realist thriller.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

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

Synopsis:
The wife (Elizabeth Hartman) of a wrestler-turned-sheriff (Joe Don Baker) is dismayed when she sees him taking on increasingly corrupt townsfolk, at the risk of his own and his family’s safety.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Corruption
• Elizabeth Hartman Films
• Phil Karlson Films
• Sheriffs and Marshalls
• Vigilantes

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “this once controversial box-office smash is a highly fictionalized account of real-life Tennessee sheriff Buford Pusser (Joe Don Baker), a former wrestler who used club (literally) and fang tactics to clean up crime and corruption.”

He notes that “Phil Karlson’s hard-hitting action film is a throwback to old-style westerns in which well-intentioned lawmen never had to make excuses for ringing up a high body count each day,” and he points out “it also recalls Karlson’s Phenix City Story, in which a crusading lawyer cleans up corruption, and vigilante-with-badges urban melodramas like The Big Heat and Dirty Harry.”

He asserts that while “initially, leftist viewers [at the time] joined the rednecks in applauding Pusser’s efforts, figuring he was a populist figure who hated corrupt authority figures as much as they,” “in retrospect this film helped start the unfortunate Hollywood trend in which thuggish lawmen who shoot first and ask questions later are presented as appealing ‘rebels’ because they’re willing to risk their jobs and promotions by circumventing the law to make our streets safer.” He points out that “nowhere to be found are the moral citizens who take a stand against vigilante justice,” and notes that this “modestly budgeted film is crude, brutal, and manipulative.”

I agree with Peary’s overall review: given that most people these days won’t have heard of Pusser, the biopic relevance of this picture is much lower, and we’re left instead with simply an action-packed vigilante flick set in the south, with plenty of violence and a sad ending (not to mention a ridiculous-looking face-cast on Baker that I just can’t imagine being a real thing).

With that said, fans of Hartman — who died by suicide 14 years later, at the age of 43 — will want to check this out for her appearance as a wife who knows her husband is playing with fire, but can’t do much to stop him.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Good use of Tennessee location shooting
  

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Village Voice Review

Synopsis:
Before enlisting in the army, a pair of brothers — Chris (Alan Vint) and Wayne (Jesse Vint) — pick up a hitchhiker (Cheryl Waters) and meet a sheriff (Max Baer, Jr.) who accidentally involves them in a vendetta with two dangerous drifters.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Road Trip
• Sheriffs and Marshalls

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, Max Baer, Jr. — primarily known as “gentle but stupid Jethro on The Beverly Hillbillies” — “wrote, produced, and played a key role in this strange, violent, low-budget film that became a surprise box-office smash and cult favorite.”

Peary asserts that this is “not a bad film,” adding that the “acting is convincing, and the script presents an original view of the militarist (fascist) mentality (as represented by Baer) and takes a strong stance against it.” Without giving away too much of the plot (which unfolds with reasonable suspense), I would agree with Peary that the “ending is like something from a horror movie.”

The majority of the film is spent following the Vints on their aborted road trip:

… which includes meeting up with an odd, suspicious gas station owner (Geoffrey Lewis) along the way:

… and, of course, some romance (along with plenty of violence). The film’s primary interest, however, is showing what happens when worlds collide, identities are mistaken, and guns (introduced early on) continue to play an outsized role.

Note: This film is known for being one of a spate of pictures at the time purportedly based on a real story, but actually purely fictional.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Daniel Lacambre’s cinematography
  

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious, given its cult status and popularity.

Links:

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

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