Getting Straight

This so-called exploitive campus revolt film from 1970 actually has some wonderful things going on in it. (I can't believe I still have the soundtrack and recently got the video). Elliott Gould was at the peak of whatever powers he had as leading man, without Donald Sutherland to play off (M.A.S.H.) or Dyan Cannon(B&C&T&A - supporting role), and he's perfect as Harry (who I think is in every scene). Candice Bergen was never more beautiful (still learning to act after five years in film - and right before Carnal Knowledge), and throw in Jeannie Berlin, Harrison Ford (not boring for a change), and a host of other young up-and-comers at the time, along with Jeff Corey (James Dean's acting teacher, who played elder Hickock in In Cold Blood, and Wild Bill Hickock in Little Big Man) as Gould's semi-mentor, with campus revolt in a frenetic, casual (until later) sort of way.

I know a lot of people worship The Stunt Man directed by the same man, Richard Rush ten years later ( and that film is better than this; but not that great), but he did have his own style (I'm not sure what happened to his sensibilities or career). Throw in Robert F. Lyons as Gould's buddy (does anybody remember that guy?) and there's real possibilities, not politically, but in those areas of film that carry over into thought and heart and hope. This is not even close to being a definitive campus revolt flick from that time, but it has aspects (every other scene almost) that have stature ABOUT real topics with semi-interesting characters along the way, without taking SIDES about Viet Nam or rebellion. If you come across it, you'll find some other actresses and actors that were well on their way (if yo're interested in that) and the ending is strange, but somehow appropriate in an uplifting and yet depressing way. It's worth anyone's time who is, at all, interested in that time period (concerning youth vs. establishment). To make a long story short, it's not some dopey, campus comedy with nudity and platitudes and wise-cracks (except for a few scenes concerning Gould's car and landlady).

It's nothing important to convey the ideals, emotions, and contemporary feel of that era, but it hits some spaces and is also funny in a human way that is appropriately not cynical (even for then).

The first time I saw this movie was in a drive-in movie when I was in high school (just make a left turn at the submarine races and you'll find it). and the film opened uniquely enough to keep me from ignoring it for better things to do.

As the opening credits rolled, the students were tossing this nice red apple across the campus, looking at it, smiling or laughing, and tossing it on to someone else. This kept up all the way through the credits until it drove you nuts. What the hell was on that apple that was so damned fascinating?!?!? Just when the credits ended, the camera angle changed over this student's shoulder and you could see that someone had carved (very neatly, mind you) into the apple, the following message: "THERE IS NO GRAVITY--THE EARTH SUCKS" I have never forgotten that opening scene nor the message on the apple because as I got older, I found that indeed; the Earth does suck--I can see it in the mirror every day.

I think everyone should see where we came from and what historically we've lived through so I recommend this movie for when you're stuck inside on one of those dreary weather days when you've got nothing to do.

There is a good point and bad point to every argument and that's what this movie is all about and remember that if we don't learn from our past then we're doomed to repeat it.

Too bad Richard Rush doesn't make more movies. He's got a fantastic style, as can be seen in the more recent "The Stunt Man" and this movie should have retained a "classic" status. Set in the campus riot era, Harry Bailey only seeks to fulfill his dream of becoming a teacher, molding another Salinger and making enough to live on. He can't be bothered with the idealistic ravings of his younger friends and fellow students until he see "it's not what you do that counts, it's what you are". Check out this totally superb performance of Elliot Gould's. Even if you find the movie dated and somewhat silly, Gould is extraordinary. Unfortunately Candy Bergen has about one decent scene, the rest of the time her acting is very trying. The rest of the actors are right on though, especially a very young Harrison Ford.

Considering what this film was about I was quite surprised how well the film and its ideology stand up today.

There are several reasons why. Firstly, the film doesn't present the student establishment as 100% right and the establishment/teachers as 100% wrong. This is because the film's central character Harry Bailey is presented as belonging somewhere in the middle. On one hand he's dismayed by the establishment's inabilities to understand what the students actually want but on the other hand he's dispirited by the students protesting on frivolous issues as well as a hint of double standards within the movement.

A good example of this is the character of Dr. Wilhunt who opposes Harry's move into teaching. While portrayed in the wrong, he's not a one-dimensional monster but someone who is realistic about how much a teacher can change students' morals while teaching english grammar.

In fact it's Harry's friend, hippie Nick Philbert, who brings him down when after attempting to avoid the draft, he joins the Marines and turns into a moralistic, gung-ho youth. Only at the end of the film does Harry realise what an unworthy, crazy person he is. It could've been easy for the film to make Dr. Wilhunt as the one who brings Harry down but it avoids the easy path and shows us that there are untrustworthy people everywhere in society whether they be young, old, conservative or radical.

Then there is the character of Harry Bailey who's in virtually every scene in the film. Again the film doesn't portray him as some flawless character who fights against the conservative establishment for noble causes. Instead we get someone who's intelligent, compassionate and idealistic but who also has traits of selfishness and foolishness. That he's a realistic, believeable, flawed but likeable person helps the film immesuarably. A lot of this credit must go to Elliott Gould who's excellent in the role.

Special note must be of the direction and cinematography which make the film look both stylish and fluid.Particularly impressive is the use of focussing on more then one object or character in the same shot as it's cleverly used to make points about events or people in narrational terms instead of words.

All in all a superb film and especially so when compared to another student film of the same era, the inept RPM.

Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied both by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help) and also by his instructors, hypocrites in power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed screenplay, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the university's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world (as well as get laid), the characters in this picture are nevertheless just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged--and in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders. Gould's shaggy character rants and raves, too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids, but he doesn't see his own shortcomings...and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like many of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen gives a wan performance as Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be a wife in the suburbs. Bergen is continually put down for that, as if she's a sellout, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment. The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness, filmed and edited with precision, and yet they don't come organically out of this story; they are interjected for shock value. The rage presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. ** from ****