FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A gangster (James Fox) on the run from his boss (Johnny Shannon) seeks refuge in a boarding room inhabited by a former rock star named Turner (Mick Jagger) and his two female companions — Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and Lucy (Michele Breton) — and quickly becomes caught up in their counterculture lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Counterculture
• Fugitives
• Gangsters
• Gender Bending
• James Fox Films
• Nicolas Roeg Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is not at all a fan of this directorial debut by Nicolas Roeg (with screenwriter and co-director Donald Cammell), noting that “from the first frame, one feels [they] are resting their dirtiest fingers at the backs of our throats,” bombarding “us with brutal images — a forced head-shaving that’s like an amputation” (I see it as more of a humiliating and ritualized rape):

… “a whipping, a beating, a bullet entering a skull — [all of which] seem designed to make us nauseous.” He argues that while “their film may be a personally successful rendering of a personal vision… it’s no labor of love” but rather “an arrogant, needless slap at our viewing sensibilities” and “an odious, amoral work,” with “its oozing decadence… as manifest behind the camera as it is on the screen.”

He describes the essence of the film as “Jagger becom[ing] fascinated with [Fox], want[ing] to get into his brain to see what makes him tick and perhaps to be a gangster like him”:

… and “the four [central] characters start to blend together [and] become interchangeable.”

He asserts that “the ‘straight’ Fox adapts to a house of love and perversion by uncovering and activating previously latent aspects of his personality and discovering his true self (for example, he has homosexual tendencies” — but I don’t agree with this analysis. Instead, it makes more sense to me that “savage Fox and Jagger are” (in this admittedly wild-ride, perspective-bending adventure) able to merge together because, according to the filmmakers, everyone is part violent and part gentle, part male and part female, part ‘normal’ and part ‘perverted’, part of each other.”

Peary points out that “as in other Roeg films, there are trick shots, wild cross-cutting, quick transitions, sexual activity… and a strong emphasis on color”:

… but meanwhile, he also notes that “every image causes [him] to recall a familiar odor.”

Peary elaborates upon his negative take on the film in his Cult Movies essay, asserting that Jagger never clicked well with the movie camera because “he is withdrawn, awkward, [and] restricted so much that he sings his only song while behind a desk.” (But he gets up and walks around while singing!)

Peary is more a fan of Fox’s performance, noting that he “exhibits a kind of Michael Caine blue-collar toughness” early on, “but later, when he reaches Turner’s town house, he looks stranded among amateurs.” He adds, “It’s one thing to have pros Dirk Bogarde and Sarah Miles emasculate Fox in The Servant (1963), but he is too strong to succumb to neophytes Jagger and Pallenberg.” Again, I disagree; neither is a neophyte, and Pallenberg actually has a pretty strong acting presence (she had been in several films before this).

Here is my overall take on Performance: it’s extremely brutal and hard-to-watch during its first half hour, as we see a violence-filled Cockney gangster scenario playing out in no-holds-barred fashion. It’s rough, and not helped by the fact that Fox comes across in the opening scenes as a narcissistic sociopath (perfectly suited as a “murderous London protection-racket hood”) without much hope of redemption.

However, things shift once Fox goes undercover and is clever enough (or so he thinks) to take advantage of an opportunity to go where surely no one will be looking for him. As Peary notes, “in the films of Roeg it is essential for man to adapt to new environments,” and that’s exactly what Fox does — except, he no longer has the upper hand. Jagger actually doesn’t want him to stay there, and Fox is forced to plead his case, eventually admitting his real intention of simply hiding out for the night.

From there, what happens in Jagger’s house is — perhaps appropriately — beyond comprehension; and once hallucinogenic mushrooms are introduced and fed to Fox, the transformations begin in earnest. Fox is no longer in control, no longer a threat in terms of violence — which allowed me, personally, to finally relax into the storyline with curiosity.

The screenplay intersperses enough brief scenes of Fox reconnecting with people from his previous life as he finalizes his getaway plans that we don’t feel we’ve been irretrievably immersed in a surreal fantasy; this is still reality, and we wonder how things will play out for him. (And given that his bosses are even more vicious than he is, he’s almost semi-sympathetic.) The final moments of the film are indeed challenging to parse, but that was apparently precisely the goal of its makers. While this is not a movie I plan to return to (I’ve now seen it twice, and I think that’s enough), I can see how and why it developed a cult following when it did.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• James Fox as Chas
  
• Fine supporting performances across the cast
  
  
• Atmospheric cinematography, direction, and sets
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
When an alien (David Bowie) arrives on Earth in search of a way to transport water back to his desert-like home planet, he befriends a patent lawyer (Buck Henry) eager to make money with him, a people-pleasing maid (Candy Clark) who falls in love with him, and a scientist (Rip Torn) willing to help him build his space ship; but Bowie quickly descends into a world of addictions and vices, making his chances of returning home ever slimmer as time passes.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
• Aliens
• Candy Clark Films
• David Bowie Films
• Mental Breakdown
• Nicolas Roeg Films
• Rip Torn Films
• Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “flawed but fascinating science-fiction film” by Nicolas Roeg, “adapted by Paul Mayersburg from Walter Tevis’s novel,” is “a variation on The Wizard of Oz; like another variation, E.T., it’s about how three people — Farnsworth [Henry], scientist Nathan Bryce (Rip Torn), and Newton’s [Bowie’s] lover-companion, Mary-Lou (well played by quirky Candy Clark) — try to help a stranded alien return home.

However, unlike the two other titles, “this is an unhappy film, an old-fashioned fairytale for those adults who read Jonathan Swift and believe that our world, and those who run it, can be cold, cruel, and unfair.” It’s also “for those who remember the Grimm stories about characters who fall from grace (Newton’s ‘fall’ to earth signifies his descent into purgatory) and are punished (how Newton suffers).” Sadly, Bowie’s Newton becomes “a man in exile”: he is “infected by the earthlings he feels superior to and starts acting like [a] depressed, unfulfilled, heavy-drinking, domesticated [human].”

In his Cult Movies 2 essay, Peary points out that “as in other Roeg films — Walkabout (1971), Performance (1970), Don’t Look Now (1973), Bad Timing (1980), [and] eureka! (1983) — we have a character who finds himself in a completely strange environment/situation;” and “by casting singers like Mick Jagger, Art Garfunkel, and David Bowie, Roeg figured their discomfort from moving from the stage to the screen would transfer to their characters.” To that end, “Bowie gives an appropriately subdued, sympathetic performance”: “with his orange hair, great height, and anemic look, [he] does indeed seem like an alien” — and his “birdlike features actually contribute to our empathy for Newton, who, unlike the muscular Atlas, must bear the weight of his world on shoulders that are brittle.”

This is most definitely an enigmatic and sobering film, yet a surprisingly absorbing one as well. While it’s slow-moving at times and leaves one despairing for the protagonist, we remain authentically curious to see what might happen next. I won’t be watching this one again (at least not any time soon), but I think it should be seen once by all film fanatics. (Note that the novel was just remade into a T.V. series co-starring Chiwetel Ejiofor and Bill Nighy, which I haven’t seen.)

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• David Bowie as Newton
  
• Candy Clark as Mary-Lou
  
• Buck Henry as Oliver Farnsworth
  
• Anthony B. Richmond’s cinematography
  
  
• Other-worldly costumes and special effects
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite and a unique sci-fi flick.

Categories

• Cult Movie

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review (spoiler alert)
• Moria Review
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Just prior to the end of World War I, photographer E.J. Bellocq (Keith Carradine) visits a New Orleans whorehouse run by an aging madame (Frances Faye), and takes artistic portraits of a mother (Susan Sarandon) whose virginal 12-year-old daughter Violet (Brooke Shields) will soon be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Steele Films
• Deep South
• Historical Drama
• Keith Carradine Films
• Louis Malle Films
• Photographers
• Prostitutes and Gigolos
• Single Mothers
• Susan Sarandon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In GFTFF, Peary gives away narrative spoilers for “Louis Malle’s first American film” — released “during a peak period for public outrage over child abuse, child pornography, and child prostitution” — so I will tread carefully. He writes that this film’s “critics were right to be disappointed that Malle refused to portray Violet’s life in a brothel in a negative light,” instead taking “a polite view of prostitution,” with Nell’s (Faye’s) whores “well paid, well fed, healthy, and cheerful.”

He adds that while it’s possible “the real Violet (whose story is told in Al Rose’s nonfiction work Storyville, New Orleans) didn’t consider herself victimized when a child” (and neither does Shields herself, for having been allowed to play the role), it was nonetheless “irresponsible on Malle’s part to use her as his central character” and ignore “countless other ex-child prostitutes’… tales of horror.” He writes, “The sledgehammer ‘selling of Brooke Shields as pubescent sex symbol,’ which gained momentum because of this film, was truly tasteless” and these days wouldn’t be tolerated for a second; as DVD Savant writes in his review:

“Anybody asking why the 1970s were so liberated should check out this film, a mainstream studio release that not only couldn’t get made today, its makers would be arrested if they even tried to film it. I’m actually surprised by Paramount’s [DVD] release; if the bluenoses were properly on guard this picture would have been labeled kiddie porn by now.”

Exactly. Be forewarned. Meanwhile, Peary writes that “Shields gives the one impressive performance in the film”:

… but “Sarandon’s role is too brief”:

… “Carradine is badly miscast” (not to mention his character being poorly developed):

… “and Faye is so atrocious” (I disagree) “that if she mangled the word monsieur one more time, [he’s] sure someone in the crew would have strangled her.”

He adds that the “picture’s one strong suit is its look,” noting that “visually, the film is an homage to the impressionists of the era — just as the music is a tribute to the jazz greats of the period, like Jelly Roll Morton” (played as a slightly different but comparable character by Antonio Fargas).

Despite Shields’s easy friendship with Fargas, racial tensions of the era are present and toxic in the film, with Black characters mostly relegated to poorly treated servant or mystical roles and given little to no agency or voice. One potent scene shows that Shields flirting with a young Black boy merits her a whipping because of his skin color — not because they’re too young for this type of sexualized interaction.

Back to the film’s look, “each shot is beautifully composed, and the frame becomes a mixture of muted colors, natural light, and shadows.”

Indeed, “as long as Malle and cinematographer Sven Nykvist concentrate on visuals, things run smoothly” — but “when characters speak Polly Platt’s dialogue, we are bombarded with the cliches we’ve heard in every other bad movie set in a brothel.”

In his essay for Cult Movies 2, Peary elaborates on his disappointment with Malle for his overall (mis)handling of this film. Peary asserts that “Louis Malle is the classic voyeur among filmmakers,” with a “detached style” in which “the artist stands back from his subject” and “merely observes his characters going about their business within his created, or recreated worlds, rather than becoming involved in their lives and making judgments about them.” When it comes to a film about such a vile topic as under-aged prostitution, however, Malle’s approach of taking “a steamy, sensational subject and [striving] for artistry instead of controversy” simply doesn’t fly.

Peary asserts that he sees “less objectivity than passivity, too much artistic pretentiousness, and, worse, the lack of necessary conflicts because Malle doesn’t want to choose sides.” But should we really not feel judgmental when watching Shields paraded out on a pallet for auction to the highest bidder? This scene is beyond disturbing, rightfully so.

Perhaps worst of all is that a film this beautifully shot — on such a contentious but important historical topic — is so badly written, especially in the second half: it’s not “worth” the controversy or effort made to get past one’s disgust. Despite all my deep reservations, however, I think film fanatics should give this film a once-look simply to be familiar with its historical infamy. With that said, I don’t understand why it’s included as a cult movie; did people really go to see this again and again? And if so… that feels especially exploitative.

Note: Watch for Barbara Steele and Diana Scarwid as two of the prostitutes, the former seeming realistic and the latter giving an atrocious performance with a German accent.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Sven Nykvist’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Once, for its historical relevance.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
When a Vietnam vet (Steve Railsback) on the run from the law gets involved with a movie director (Peter O’Toole) whose stuntman Bert has just died, he agrees to take over this work, mostly to conveniently assume Bert’s identity, but also to impress a beautiful young actress (Barbara Hershey) on the set.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Allen Garfield Films
• Barbara Hershey Films
• Fugitives
• Hollywood
• Mistaken and Hidden Identities
• Movie Directors
• Peter O’Toole Films
• Ruthless Leaders
• Veterans

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this cult film by Richard Rush about a “shellshocked, paranoid young Vietnam vet” who “has been living on the edge for many years” and “has trouble distinguishing between illusion and reality” shows us what happens when such a man is conscripted by “fire-breathing, egocentric, wicked, super-intellectual director” Eli Cross (O’Toole) to work as a stuntman on a WWI movie, “where everything is faked (through makeup, stunts, doubles, editing, selective photography) to create a sense of reality.”

Peary notes that since “all is seen through [Railsback’s] eyes,” he “becomes frightened that the godlike Eli thinks his movie is so significant that even real death on film is justified” — and this drives the thrust of the narrative: is Cross homicidally driven, or is this notion merely a figment of Railsback’s paranoia?

Peary admits that he’s “not taken with” this cult movie but “can understand why it has such a devoted following,” given that “it is an extremely ambitious film, beautifully structured by [screenwriter] Lawrence B. Marcus (who moves away from Paul Brodeur‘s [1970] novel), endlessly imaginative, strikingly photographed by Mario Tosi, and marvelously played by O’Toole.”

He adds that “while it is thematically confusing (perhaps it attempts too much) and at times self-consciously directed (particularly during the comical scenes), you have to admire Rush for bravely undertaking such a multi-leveled, personal project.” Finally, he notes that it’s “full of offbeat moments and characterizations,” of which “some work, some don’t.”

Peary elaborates on his review in his Cult Movies 3 essay, explaining why it took so long for this film to get made after Rush first experienced success in Hollywood with his exploitation flicks Hells Angels on Wheels (1967), Psych-Out (1968), and The Savage Seven (1968), and then his Hollywood break-through flick Getting Straight (1970). He notes that once The Stunt Man finally got released, it “did good business in some cities and college towns but didn’t become the resounding commercial success Rush hoped it would be,” in part because “the film’s subject matter no longer seemed novel after nine years: Francois Truffaut had made his paean to filmmaking, the very popular Day for Night (1973), and … there had been a proliferation of theatrical and television films about stuntmen.” However, he adds that “certainly the major reason for the disappointing box office was that The Stunt Man was just too strange to appeal to all tastes;” indeed, there had “been few recent films that [had] so divided an audience,” as epitomized in Siskel & Ebert’s split-decision review of the film on their show (Siskel loved it, Ebert wasn’t taken with it).

Peary admits that his own “reasons for not liking The Stunt Man, as opposed to disliking it, aren’t at all deep.” For instance, he thinks “Steve Railsback (whom Elia Kazan recommended to Rush) is miscast” given that his character is “supposed to be likable [and] sympathetic-crazy” but his “eyes give [one] the creeps”; and it doesn’t help that Rush directs him inconsistently.

He also believes Hershey “seems wrong as Nina” given that she’s portrayed as “unperceptive” and ultimately is just “a fairy tale/dream lover with the depth of Tinkerbell.”

Meanwhile, “as for the film itself,” Peary finds it “surprisingly boring, considering all the action, oddball characters running around, impressive stunts, and sex.” Like other critics, he wonders about the choice to film “entire lengthy scenes” in one take when “such scenes would [actually] be done piecemeal” — unless this was to intentionally “heighten the film’s surrealism.”

He points out that it’s too bad “Rush didn’t retain [novelist] Brodeur’s most interesting themes: stuntmen are similar to our soldiers in Vietnam; those men who give orders on the set… are as unconcerned about the welfare of stuntmen as officers are of their soldiers’ welfare in the war; a stuntman is kept in the dark about the overall picture he is making, just as soldiers are unaware of the ‘big picture’ of the war in which they are fighting; stuntmen and soldiers are willing to risk life and limb… to follow orders; stuntmen and Vietnam soldiers are expendable; nobody actually would do the foolish physical feats a stuntman does to please an audience [and] only a soldier would be required to do equivalent suicidal acts; in terms of the public that sees movies and watches news reports on TV, stuntmen and soldiers fighting and dying way off in Vietnam don’t really exist; [and] a person can lose his identity when he becomes a stunt double… as swiftly as if he joins the army.”

These are all excellent insights, and I agree with Peary that the film could/should have made these parallels more explicit. He points out that “Rush does retain Brodeur’s illusion-or-reality? theme,” which is one of his “least favorite themes because most films that use it — such as Performance (1970) and Images (1972) — turn out to be pretentious and incoherent.” However, he concedes that “at least here it seems appropriate because The Stunt Man is about filmmaking, an art form that, paradoxically, uses illusions to create a sense of reality.” He adds that “figuring out what is real and what Cameron imagines in his paranoid mind (i.e., is Cross trying to kill him) is [most likely] the challenge of the film,” though it’s not necessarily resolved in a satisfactory way.

I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment: I admire much about this movie, but am not a personal devotee; I consider it a once-must for its cult status, for O’Toole’s National Society of Film Critics’-award-winning performance, and for its behind-the-scenes (albeit skewed) perspectives on moviemaking.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Peter O’Toole as Eli Cross
  
• Mario Tosi’s cinematography
  
• Some incredible stunt work
  
• Domonic Frontiere’s score (though be forewarned it’s a total earworm)

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

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

Synopsis:
A war vet and former cop (Barry Newman) picks up a car from its owner (Karl Swenson) and makes a bet with his drug-dealing friend (Lee Weaver) that he can deliver the car from Colorado to California in 15 hours; but he quickly finds himself relentlessly chased by police, and must rely on help from strangers — including a blind DJ named Super Soul (Cleavon Little), an aging prospector (Dean Jagger), a faith healer named J. Hovah (Severn Darden), and two hippies (Timothy Scott and Gilda Texter) — to make it to his destination.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Car Chase
• Charlotte Rampling Films
• Counterculture
• Dean Jagger Films
• Fugitives
• Radio
• Road Trip

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s GFTFF review of this “cult movie about a dropout from mainstream society… who takes a drive-away car from Denver to San Francisco” is excerpted directly from his longer essay in Cult Movies 2, which I’ll cite directly from. He notes that while Newman’s “Kowalski” is posited as a “contemporary Lone Ranger,” he “forgets to do anything heroic.” Instead, “the trouble for us viewers… is that no matter how noble his self-sacrificial gesture seems” at the end of the film, “we can’t help feeling that this pill-popping, self-destructive speed demon (whom we see in flashback crash on a race track) is a menace to all of us on the road” — and “for everybody’s safety, we should hope that he’ll be arrested.”

Peary notes that “because the high-speed car chase in Bullitt (1968) had such an impact on the public… and on filmmakers who saw a good way to fill twenty minutes of screen time in their own dreary films, almost every action film of the following years included an obligatory car chase” — though for Vanishing Point, this was simply the “starting point.”

He asserts that “director Richard Sarafian… was looking for the perfect movie formula” and “noticed that there was also a proliferation of ‘personal’, low-budget existential films that used the road as a metaphor for lives that have no meaning, no direction, no beginning, and no end” — so “he decided to mix the car chase, hallmark of the action film, into an existential road film.” Meanwhile, “he threw in some gorgeous Colorado-Nevada-California scenery, a bit of nudity (a girl on a motorcycle in the desert???)”:

… “some acoustic and psychedelic rock music (perfectly attuned to the era), and stereotypes from the counterculture” — and, “the youthcult ate it up.”

Unfortunately, there are three central problems: first, “the picture makes little sense”; second, audiences are manipulated by “Sarafian and screenwriter Guillermo Cain” into “regarding Kowalski as its hero”; and third and “most significant[ly], they have ‘cool’ characters” — like “Vera [Kowalski’s deceased girlfriend, played by Victoria Medlin]”:

… “Super Soul — who [for some reason] thinks of Kowalski as ‘the last American hero,’ the symbol of our dying freedom”:

… “Jake, the old prospector”:

… and “Angel and his nude girlfriend think[ing] well of Kowalski”:

… thus indicating “he must be all right.” Meanwhile (and most frustrating to me), “all the women are portrayed as love objects, willing to hop into the sack with any lonely stranger.” As DVD Savant writes in his equally scathing review:

“… perhaps the warped plotline can be justified as being partly from [Kowalski’s] distorted point of view. Women appear like visions out of the desert. A gas station attendant is just like (or is) the girl he rescued from being raped by his partner when he used to be a cop. Another female conjures up visions of the surfer girl (cue romantic flashbacks) he lost to the deep blue see (cue lonely surfboard washing ashore). A final vision, seen only in the English version, is a sultry hitchhiker (Charlotte Rampling) who seems to be a personal hallucination.”

Adding insult to injury, “the only misfits who don’t help Kowalski are homosexuals (even youth films in those days made homosexuals into comical deviants.)”

Peary concludes his essay by naming many of the confusing or unclear aspects of the screenplay — but he also admits he “half enjoy[s] Vanishing Point” given that “the stuntwork here… is truly spectacular,” and there are (thankfully) “few actual car crashes” (though the filmmakers did go through eight white Dodge Challengers during the making of the film).

While “Kowalski drives like a tourist guide who missed the last reststop,” the “scenery we glimpse is… breathtaking, and the camerawork from fast-moving vehicles and helicopters is stunning.”

What Peary likes “best about the film,” however, “is its depiction of a coast-to-coast network of weirdos, dropouts, and misfits ready to help wayfaring strangers,” thus “show[ing] a finer aspect of the sixties-seventies counterculture, for which [he has] nostalgic feelings.” I wonder if this may also be why 72-year-old Bruce Springsteen mentioned this as his favorite action film on the November 10th, 2021 episode of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert while taking the “Colbert Questionnaire”. Perhaps we all have a collective nostalgia for a (perceived) time when the world was more collaborative and communal.

Note: Check out the 18-minute documentary called “Built For Speed: A Look Back at Vanishing Point” if you’re curious to learn a bit more about the film’s production and popularity.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Plenty of exciting car chases and stunts (shout-out to stunt coordinator and driver Carey Loftin)
  
• John A. Alonzo’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status. But expect to be annoyed by much of it.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review

Synopsis:
A team of astronauts — Lt. Doolittle (Brian Narelle), Boiler (Cal Kuniholm), Talby (Dre Pahich), and Sgt. Pinback (Dan O’Bannon) — who’ve been sent on a 20 year mission to detonate “unstable planets” deal with both boredom and life-threatening emergencies during their time in space.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Astronauts
• John Carpenter Films
• Satires and Spoofs
• Science Fiction
• Space Opera

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “this emerging cult hit” — the “debut effort of director John Carpenter and screenwriter… Dan O’Bannon” — “actually began as a thesis film at USC,” and “has long been the textbook example of how to make a quality film on a shoestring budget.” He refers to it as “a splendidly inventive, hip, irreverent space satire (a parody of 2001) that provocatively illustrates how astronauts, when confined to their spaceship for too long, become irretrievably ‘spaced out’.” He goes on to argue that “this dehumanization theme is much better realized here than in Carpenter’s The Thing” (but we have vastly differing opinions on that flick, so I won’t carry that discussion any farther).

I would agree that “seeing these astronauts in their sorry state at the film’s beginning” makes us “concerned not [only] about what will become of them but about how they became that way.” They are “neglected or, more likely, forgotten by earth base”, and are now in a “radioactive” ship with “their toilet paper long gone, their minds wandering in various directions,” flying “through infinite space on an endless and now pointless mission to blow up (with talking bombs, no less) unstable planets.”

What a dreary, torturous existence! As Peary points out, how these four men “spend their time is the gist of the film,” so it’s a good thing we’re given plenty of droll comic relief.

Peary argues that while “the film has traces of amateurishness, it is brimming with ingenuity… and quirky humor,” with a highlight “a long sequence in which O’Bannon’s witless character tries to feed an alien they’ve taken aboard” — which is played as “pure comedy” but is also clearly “the genesis of Alien, for which O’Bannon also wrote the script.”

Peary analyzes the film in further detail in his Cult Movies 2 book, where he notes that both of Carpenter’s pre-Halloween (1978) films — this and Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) — have unique cult followings that are “quite separate from each other.” He points out that Carpenter at this early stage in his career “was obviously much like the innovative astronaut Doolittle, who fills up two rows of hanging bottles with varying amounts of water to create a makeshift vibraphone”:

… just as Carpenter “used everything at his disposal to complete a ‘legitimate’ film… despite having little money for production values.” His strategies included using “interesting opticals and animation effects;” building “an eighty-foot shaft and flip[ping] his camera on its side to make Pinback’s elevator-hanging scene seem believable and exciting”:

… “allow[ing] for a monster that is no more than a beachball with claws because he can use it for humor as well as suspense; vary[ing] the visuals by including several sequences in which characters appear on television monitors and seem to be addressing the viewer”:

… and “giv[ing] voices to the ship’s computer (a sexy but motherly female) and the bomb about to be detonated (a fussy male), thereby adding two characters to the film.”

I’m not a personal fan of this film, but I concede its effectiveness and can understand how and why it would have appealed to audiences of the day. There are a number of clever moments (my favorite is “Doolittle’s phenomenological discussion with the bomb”):

… and I would agree with Peary that this film can be “an inspiration to aspiring independent filmmakers” as a “surprisingly non-indulgent [film] for a new director.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Impressive use of a super-low budget
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Talk Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A socialite (Julie Christie) unhappily married to the son (Richard Chamberlain) of a wealthy businessman (Joseph Cotten) propositions and begins dating a surgeon (George C. Scott) whose former wife (Shirley Knight) is now dating another man (Roger Bowen), but doesn’t quite understand why they divorced.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Domestic Abuse
• George C. Scott Films
• Joseph Cotten Films
• Julie Christie Films
• Marital Problems
• Richard Chamberlain Films
• Richard Lester Films
• Shirley Knight Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that director “Richard Lester’s shattering vision of America in the late sixties” — based on a novel by John Haase and a short story by Barbara Turner — “is a brilliant, expertly acted film, so rich in character and visual and aural detail that it takes several viewings to absorb it all.” He points out that “on one level, it is a wildly comical essay on a country gone haywire; but at heart it is a tragic look at the individuals who must fight a (losing) battle for survival in a zany world.”

He elaborates on his analysis in both GFTFF and his Cult Movies book, noting that “the great American tragedy is that a country founded by a resourceful, enterprising, responsible people of high values and ideals” (well… for a select few) “has become so utterly wasteful of money, time, human life (Vietnam is ignored by a desensitized nation), and human potential,” with “America’s institutions — the army, hospitals, prisons — … as impotent as David [Chamberlain] is in bed.”

He points out that “even marriage is a casualty of the modern age: boredom is an adequate reason for a man to leave his wife; a battered wife is no longer required to stay with her husband” — and with “America… spinning too fast, there is no solid footing” yet “there stands Petulia, symbol of the shaky times: mini-skirted, on wobbly legs,” with a “stoical” face “but her eyes indicate she has lost something irretrievable and sees a road downhill to oblivion.”

Peary’s analysis is a fascinating one, but presumes one will read quite a bit of depth into this array of messed up protagonists. My own take is a little different: from the film’s opening sequence at a fundraising gala — interspersed (as is the rest of the movie, with cryptic flashbacks and flashforwards) — we can tell that this is a (high) society trying desperately to “have fun” and stay lighthearted, all while floating semi-ridiculous hairdos and automated systems that appear to be from a different era altogether. (Indeed, I wondered at first if this movie takes place in a dystopian sci-fi future, though that doesn’t appear to be the case.)

Christie’s “Petulia” is an obnoxiously flitting female, someone it takes a while to warm to given her push-and-pull tendencies. Once we learn more about the truth of her marital situation, we begin to have some measure of compassion — though the storyline is ultimately too oblique to allow for deep empathy, and we end up focusing more on the inevitable role played by Big Money and those in power, who will do whatever it takes to maintain a desired façade.

Peary points out that the “picture has many great scenes,” with “perhaps the most memorable [being] Archie’s argument with ex-wife Polo (Shirley Knight)”:

… and he notes that the movie is “technically interesting,” with a “fragmentary filmmaking” style that “is characteristic of both Lester and cinematographer Nicolas Roeg, who would soon be a director himself.” While this quirky film won’t resonate with all viewers (it’s not a personal favorite), it should be seen at least once to check it out.

Note: Watch for a brief singing cameo by Janis Joplin with Big Brother and the Holding Company at the film’s opening party sequence.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Julie Christie as Petulia (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• George C. Scott as Archie (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Expert supporting performances
  
• Nicolas Roeg’s cinematography
  
• Fine use of location shooting across the Bay Area and beyond
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite. Nominated as one of the Best Films of the Year in Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Dave Kehr’s NY Times Review
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Spinning Image Review (spoiler review at the very end)
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
Shortly after an unhappy housewife (Shirley Knight) leaves her husband (Robert Modica), she picks up a former football player (James Caan) with a traumatic brain injury who comes to rely on her as his mother-figure; but when Knight begins a tentative romance with a traffic cop (Robert Duvall), their situation becomes even more complicated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Francis Ford Coppola Films
• Housewives
• Intellectually Disabled
• James Caan Films
• Marital Problems
• Pregnancy
• Road Trip
• Robert Duvall Films
• Shirley Knight Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “in his major works Francis Ford Coppola has relegated his female characters to peripheral roles,” “early in his career he made this sleeper that remains one of the few Hollywood films to deal sensitively with a real woman and her problems.” He asserts that since it’s “about a woman in desperate need of some consciousness-raising,” it “might have been a hit if released about a year later, when the women’s movement really made its first great strides.” The film focuses on a woman who “thinks too little of herself to believe she could be a good mother,” and is “enjoying her first freedom since she was married,” “searching for an extramarital affair” given that this is “her only explanation for why she would have left her husband.”

Peary writes that while “viewers brought up on movie heroines who stick by their men through thick and thin may point angry fingers at Knight,” “this is not Kramer vs. Kramer, where the woman is automatically guilty because her side of the story is never told.” Indeed, “Coppola is very sympathetic toward Knight, even when her actions cause others harm.” He is focused on showing “her immaturity, to show that she is correct in thinking she should have an abortion” — which becomes even more “clear when she picks up a brain-damaged hitchhiker [who is] a surrogate child.”

Peary asserts that “Knight is marvelous”, and names her Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars. He writes that “so much of what we learn about this woman comes not from the script, but from paying attention to the confidence level of her voice, the wetness of her eyes, or how strong or vulnerable her face is at a given moment;” she “properly plays her as a woman undergoing metamorphosis, hopefully for the better.”

Peary adds that “Robert Duvall also gives a standout performance as a highway cop who brings Knight back to his trailer one fateful rainy night,” and points out the “strong use of locales” and “fine [cinematography] by Bill Butler.”

Note: Be sure to look for “associate producer” George Lucas’s short film about the production of this movie, entitled “Filmmaker: A Diary By George Lucas,” which offers intriguing glimpses into the challenges of making a road film like this on a relatively small budget.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Shirley Knight as Natalie
  
• James Caan as “Killer”
  
• Robert Duvall as Gordon
  
• Bill Butler’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual early outing by a master director.

Categories

• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Time Out Capsule Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review