Nichts wie weg, Rabbit

Some films pass the test of time. Others feel incredibly stale, dated, and stultifying. This film, I would wager, felt stale as soon as it hit the theatres. James Caan's and most of the other actors' acting is stiff, forced, and one dimensional, and the screen adaptation of a worthwhile book also is awkward and artificial, in the way that films that don't pass the test of time are.

As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.

An almost satisfying movie experience. The seldom seen film version of John Updike's novel has equal parts of good and bad. There are scenes that suffer from poor editing and dramatic continuity, especially for instance the first time Rabbit goes to Ruth's apartment, the scene feels rushed as though something was cut out to keep it moving and it loses coherence. A few other scenes are like this. I would guess the film might have been much longer, but it was cut down for unknown reasons. All the performances are good. James Caan has a challenge with Rabbit and he rises to it, you can't despise him for his actions and can almost understand his feelings. Same goes for Janice (Carrie Snodgress, very good) and certainly Ruth, played by the excellent Anjanette Comer. Jack Albertson deserves special mention for his sad characterization. Technically the film is uneven, with some pedestrian direction alongside some beautifully shot and staged scenes. The Reading, PA location is used very well and it's a strong part of the film.

The absolute, single WORST thing about this film is the soundtrack. Godawful, uninspired late sixties rock in place of film music. In 1969 I can assume the producers wanted the film to be 'hip' with current musical styles, but the songs and singers are so dreadful they nearly ruin the film for me. Not only is the music beyond terrible, but it often surges loudly into a quiet scene, adding nothing but irritation. The actors make and save this film. It's worth seeing for them. In finely played supporting roles are familiar faces from TV: Carmen Matthews, Don Keefer, Josephine Hutchinson, and Arthur Hill of course is excellent as always.

Jack Smight directed this unexciting adaptation of John Updike's book about a feckless husband and father in small town Pennsylvania, married to a pregnant, alcoholic drudge, who bolts from his responsibilities. Although new to the screen, James Caan does quite well in the central role, turning this flaky material (dotted with shockable language, which was new at the time, and talk of sexual kinks) into an acting showcase. Caan gives his Rabbit a sense of humor bourn of desperation and an edge that isn't so much angry as it is internally combative. Updike, the ultimate girl-ogling, horny heterosexual, doesn't allow his characters to have much fun, and this dampens the movie as well. Smight blamed the poorly-received results on producer-screenwriter Howard B. Kreitsek, who reedited Smight's final cut, and threatened to remove his name from the credits. "Rabbit, Run" isn't terrible but, aside from Caan's casting, it isn't anything memorable or dynamic. Carrie Snodgress is poorly-used as Rabbit's wife, though Jack Albertson (in the basically unplayable role of Rabbit's former basketball coach) gets stuck with the worst of it. *1/2 from ****

Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom (James Caan) and his pregnant wife Janice Angstrom (Carrie Snodgress) fight constantly. Life has not turned out well for the former high school basketball star. He reconnects with his strange struggling coach Marty Tothero (Jack Albertson). Marty and him go on a double date and he's introduced to Ruth Leonard (Anjanette Comer).

This is based on a John Updike novel. It's hard to get inside the character. The script is too loose. I don't know why he undresses and sleeps in front of his former coach. Does that indicate some sort of abusive relationship? I don't know. The movie doesn't expand on it. It's a very 70's movie where the character is aimlessly searching for something he doesn't know. It's a muddle. The filmmaking is weak. Updike was writing against the backdrop of 50's white Protestant middle America. The movie should play that up. This still has Jimmy Caan and that could save it. He did this instead of MASH. This guy is wandering in the wilderness of his life and it's not compelling.

The year 1970 gave us James Caan in "Rabbit Run" and Michael Douglas in "Adam at Six A. M.". Films with such remarkably similar themes that you have to wonder what the typical young man was thinking during those years and whether it was unique to the times.

Both films center on their title character, Harry 'Rabbit' Angstrom and "Adam" Gaines, who if they aspire to anything aspire to seeing the world in their respective rear view mirrors. Basically making a case for not getting trapped by an easily defined life. While Adam is ambitious and more cerebral about the whole thing, Rabbit just lets life take him in any random direction and then dodges any responsibility or consequence that might complicate his life. There is a lot of Kerouac's Dean Moriarty character in Rabbit, at least with regards to living in the moment and showing little remorse for any wreckage he leaves behind.

"Dean features prominently as a hero. An incredibly flawed hero who tends to abandon those who love him and feel no remorse whatsoever at his poor judgment and horribly timed actions. But a hero nonetheless".

Where Adam anticipates situations and avoids getting trapped in the first place, Rabbit is too wrapped up in himself and his immediate gratification to avoid getting trapped. Adam might fall for a manic pixie dream girl if one came into his life who meshed well with his ambitions. But no manic pixie dream girl would want Rabbit and the more dimensional and imperfect women he meets and recklessly commits to end up simply cramping his style.

Carrie Snodgrass and Anjanette Comer play his main love interests. Both give excellent performances as women tortured by their association with Rabbit. He can't give them what they need in these unequal relationships and neither seems equipped to successfully deal with life on their own. This lack of independence is off-putting to many female viewers who blame author John Updike - who wrote the 1960 novel on which the film is based - for creating such shallow female characters. This is a fair criticism as far as it goes but such people do exist and a story is not necessarily sexist just because its focus is a certain female or human type.

I think this is Comer's best performance. Her typical character is weird in a restrained way and not especially accessible or relatable to a male viewer. But Ruth Leonard is quite likable and earthy, a very regular person. She is Updike's counterpoint to Janice Angstrom (Underwood). Updike is saying that Rabbit is almost sympathetic in his aversion to his wife and his horrible marriage, a put upon hero with somewhat understandable flaws. But his advance and retreat behavior with Ruth is simply inexcusable.