A powerful, upsetting, tremendously well-made cinematic experience......
A powerful, upsetting, tremendously well-made cinematic experience that has haunted me
ByK. Gordonon April 24, 2016
Format: Amazon Video
Maybe it’s because I first saw this when I was a teenager that it had such a strong impact on me. But from the first viewing there were scenes and images burned into my consciousness in a way that few movies have. Looking on the internet, I was surprised to see that the majority of critics were lukewarm on this, and some downright hated it, So I’m an outlier, because all these years later I still find it a powerful, tremendously well-made cinematic experience, with a great central performance by Diane Keaton, and terrific support from Richard Gere (this debut is still one of his 2 or 3 best roles), Tuesday Weld, William Atherton, Tom Berenger and Richard Kiley.
The fantasy sequences - often the target of scorn - work beautifully for me. Yes they can be momentarily confusing – ‘is this real’?, but to me they establish that the whole film is a subjective experience. The lead character gets carried away mixing fantasy and reality, so we do too. This story isn’t objective truth, it’s one woman’s attempt to meld her dark and light sides, her need to be selfish and her need to give, her need to be loved and her need to distance, her need for sex, but her fear of intimacy, all springing from a screwed up childhood -- as most of our problems do.
Many criticized the family scenes as being over the top, but again, this is her subjective experience. Who among us don’t make members of our family even bigger monsters than they really are?
(mild general spoilers ahead)
There are flaws. Brooks breaks this subjective approach at a key moment in the film, and it hurts the internal structure badly, giving credence to those who say (wrongly I think) that this is a morality picture about a woman who was ‘asking for it’. That would be awful, akin to a film blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. But I never feel Brooks moralizing against his heroine. She may be messed up, but she’s trying to find her way through the rabbit hole, trying to find some pleasure in a life that has been filled with nothing but physical and psychological pain, and in the pursuit ends up flying too close to the flame.
There are also accusations of homophobia, and those are harder for me to deny. In 1977 when the film was made, portraying gay characters in the dark, sad way the film does was common. But now it looks not only politically incorrect for 2016, but one could see how it could have fueled the worst of cliches about gay men at the time of it's release.
Yet somehow, as with the issues around it's heroine, I feel inclined to give Brooks the benefit of the doubt. Just as I don't see the film as saying 'women who are promiscuous, or enjoy sex are begging for violence' I don't feel the film saying 'gay people are twisted, or dangerous'. I feel like these are very specific characters at a very specific moment in their lives and in social history, and to generalize them into statements about 'women' or 'gays' - while possible - doesn't feel at all like the intent of the work. That said, I understand how others could feel differently.
This is a film that isn’t pleasant or easy to watch, but much like Brooks even greater masterpiece "In Cold Blood", it goes inside the darkest of personal hells with a both a clear eye and yet empathy for all.
It's extremely frustrating that this brave and challenging work has never been made available on DVD or blu-ray. Apparently there have been tremendous issues around the rights to the soundtrack full of wall to wall hits from the disco/singles bar era. But I hope that a film that had real importance and value can one day find a way to be released in a format that will do it justice.