The low rating? - Shampoo (1975) Discussion

[–] johnrenker 20 years ago

Never could understand why this film is not more appreciated. Glad someone has noticed. Every time I watch it I see something interesting.

reply

[–] TommySSS 17 years ago

I never understood why this film ws extraordinary; the 1st half kept some of my attention, but but then I became very bored.

I find Hal Ashby to be very mechanical. No wonder I found Coming Home over-rated,as well.

reply

[–] git011 20 years ago

If this film was marketed as a true expression of the 60's spirit rather than a 70's movie it would probably garner more acclaim. As it were, the "party" after the election is the most accurate depiction of a true 60's party ever filmed. The funny thing that people don't realize is that Ashby as a director probably needed the 4 or 5 years to digest the 60's experience before he could accurately depict it on film...but because it was released in 1975 people seem to believe that it is a 70's flik. By the way, I may be biased, but does anyone think that the Julie Christie character was less sympathetic than the Goldie Hawn character? Goldie's Jill seemed more heartfelt vesus the Christie's written character as a neurotic money grubbing, power flucking floozie drunk. I could never understand how George would choose her over Jill.

reply

[–] numberonealcove 20 years ago

Just a modest suggestion: perhaps 'cause Julie Christie was wicked hot.

reply

[–] git011 20 years ago

I'd rather do goldie

Be lookin' good Warriors...all the way back to Coney...here's a hit, with you in mind...

reply

[–] numberonealcove 20 years ago

You worship at your church I'll worship at mine.

reply

[–] git011 20 years ago

Fair nuff.

Be lookin' good Warriors...all the way back to Coney...here's a hit, with you in mind...

reply

[–] buby1987 20 years ago

It deserves a much higher rating. But Shampoo has its champions, among them Pauline Kael, the most respected film critic of her day. Kael gave Shampoo a rave review in 1975.

I've always felt that Goldie Hawn's character was the put-upon good girl, until she sleeps with Tony Bill's character to land the modeling job in Egypt. She's the innocent girl who finally figures out how to play the game. So basically, she and Julie Christie's character are morally equivalent -- Goldie's like the younger sister who wants to be just like her older sister.

reply

[–] rrebenstorf 19 years ago

That's a keen insight into the Jill character and her relationship with Jackie.

As to Kael's opinion of the film, she writes (in her excellent 5001 Nights at the Movies), "This was the most virtuoso example of sophisticated, kaleidoscopic farce that American moviemakers had yet come up with; frivolous and funny, it carries a sense of heedless activity, of a craze of dissatisfaction." She also says the film is about, " ... the bondage of the universal itch among a group primed to scratch."

For me, Shampoo is itself alot like the George character. It's a juggler that's thrown what seems like too many balls into the air. But unlike George, the film doesn't let any of the balls hit the floor. It's a rare gem of a movie: a truly great film that is also a whole lotta fun to watch.

reply

[–] TommySSS 17 years ago

C'mon..Kael is analyzing and making more of this than it is.

If you told the producer what Kael said, he would of been , "oh..alright, I never thought about that, but, ok, thanks".

reply

[–] hockeyhrs 11 years ago

Goldie Hawn's character is awarded the modeling job in Egypt before she sleeps with Tony Bill.

One of the few reservations I have about this movie is that it's trying to make a big political statement with all the Nixon/Agnew references, but that big political statement is grossly heavy-handed:

a) Anyone who remembers 1968 knows that adults in America simply could not elect another Democrat in the wake of LBJ (Vietnam, civil rights riots, kids revolting against their elders, etc.,).

b) Thinking people know that every president has good points to go along with their bad points, but uber-liberal Beatty seems to want his audience to consider Nixon a total failure. He wasn't: He scaled-down Vietnam in a responsible manner . . . he defused the cold war by opening relations with China . . . and, I would argue, Watergate was, on net balance, a good thing because it woke us up to the shenanigans that many politicians had been doing for a long time (i.e., we should always be hyper-vigilant).

reply

[–] theladysif 19 years ago

I think George chose Julie Christie's character (Jackie) over Jill because he understood her. He was like her.

reply

[–] sonomagirl2120 11 years ago

George did not *chose* Jackie over Jill....Jill had kicked him out after he confessed to always lying to her. George could not bear being alone (not in a relationship) so he sped over to Jackie's house to try and hustle her with bogus marriage talk. I thought the time frame of all these scenes was very rushed. George dozes on Jill's deck waiting for her to come in (at dawn?), they have their break up talk and he goes home. He finds Les waiting for him at his house where they have their long discussion (one of my favorite scenes!). Les calls Jackie a whore and George defends her. The next scene shows George riding to Jackie's house where she is preparing to go away on a trip with Les(who found her f-ing with George just a few hours ago). Jackie tells him she does not want to talk about what happened last night but George is adamant, chases her down and proposes to her. George acts strictly on impulse and self-gratification but has no idea what love is all about. Even if Jackie had fallen for George's BS, George would most likely be whoring around on her within days, making lame attempts to start his business. IRL, Jackie would marry the monied Les and have her afternoon delights with George or other guys just like him....that is life in Beverly Hills.

reply

[–] mptnla 19 years ago

I just saw this movie for the first time a coupla days ago. Once it got going, I thought it was just okay. The moral of the movie was good. But I think not many people care for this movie because if you think about it, there really were no "good" characters. Okay, you do feel some sympathy for Goldie's character, but other than that, the rest of the characters seem to be very selfish. It's it difficult to like the film, because there is no one to root for in the movie.

"Okay, why don't you tell me Miss Thin, Standing Up, Female Buddha."

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tightspotkilo 9 years ago

I realize I'm responding to a ten-year old post, but it's still pertinent because now, in 2015, the movie has a 6.3 rating, which I believe is too low. I assume it was not too far different in 2005. This movie is a movie which you either like or you don't, but some people for some reason react viscerally to this movie, and it tends to skew the numbers. We can see these people right here in the comments. I don't know whether it's Warren Beatty or his character, but I suspect some people find it so loathsome they can't see past it and appreciate this fine movie. So they downvote to the max.

Get the facts first - you can distort them later!

reply