Der Erfolgreiche

To say the least, this is an odd movie. It has no real "plot" per se or at least not a continuous , cohesive storyline but, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of La Dolce Vita (and I mean pretty loosely), it follows one man as he drifts through various events and people, and how those experiences do or do not affect him. The events are also rather surreal, often very strange, brutal, or sexual, and at times a bit disturbing. The commonalities or unifying elements throughout, aside from the character, are constant social commentary, often rather harsh; the fact that the whole film is a series of apparently random experiences, each by happenstance leading to the next, and an ultimate conclusion; and the fact that in the end the events change the character.

I won't say that this is one of my top choices of films to watch on a regular basis, at least not if I just want to relax and have a good time, but it certainly is interesting and strangely compelling. Despite the often tense situations and some humour, etc., I douybt most people would find the film particularly fun or exciting, so one should certainly not expect that. Nevertheless, there is something about the film, perhaps a mixture of the oddness, the apparent randomness of it all, the impacts of the events and people, and McDowell's great portrayal of a seemingly clueless but sympathetic character, that draws the viewer in to care about the events. The result is that the viewer does want to keep watching throughout the roughly 3 hours to see what is going to happen next. There is something gripping about the lack of a particular story line so that the viewer wants to see what seemingly random, unconnected event will follow and whither it will lead. In the end, the viewer does see a progression and how the film ends up with essentially a counterpoint to the beginning.

In addition, everyone is enjoyable to watch. This is particularly true of McDowell, of course, since he is usually great and is the one constant person throughout. He wonderfully portrays his character Travis and Travis's transformations.

At the same time, the viewer also constantly encounters numerous points, images, events, etc., that work themselves into the viewer and make the viewer think, even if not right away.

The film also has a great soundtrack that I think really helps the film. The songs have a way of deeply embedding themselves in the viewer just as McDowell's character and the events themselves do. The lyrics are also quite telling and catchy.

This film is certainly not for everyone and I'd say that the average moviegoer would probably not like it or at least be confused or bored. But, for some, at least, this will be an enthralling and gripping film.

I also think that any thinking person who takes the time to sit through this film, even one who does not especially enjoy the movie while watching it, will at least appreciate, and be affected by, parts of the film. There is a lot here to ponder, some extremely obvious, some almost unnoticeable. Some of it is in the specific events or characters themselves, some in the apparent randomness of these haphazard events leading into each other and ultimately changing McDowell's character, Travis. This latter element is clearly seen in how he changes from the very beginning to the very end.

Ultimately, this is a movie that I doubt anyone can fully appreciate right after viewing it, much less while actually viewing it. I think that full appreciation requires at least some time to digest the film after wards and possibly another viewing later. I won't say one could ever fully understand all of this film, as I don't think anyone can, while there are probably many ways to interpret a lot in this film.

I recommend that anyone who likes "different" or thought-provoking films, etc., to try it, be patient, and aftewards just think about it or let it wander around in your mind for a while without actively trying to think about it. I think that the film will work itself into a viewer's mind and stay there, without any effort on such a viewer's part, and that even someone who wasn't sure about the film right after watching it will be affected and appreciate something from it.

There is something intriguing about this film. It won't suit everybody, but if you are in a reflective mood you'll find yourself drawn into the story and becoming fascinated by it.

It is a journey through life and its experiences directed with a deftness and real respect for the material. The points are all made with a lightness which somehow makes them all the more effective. You watch the story unfold and are reminded of your own life's progression.

Malcolm McDowell contributed to the script and is just superb in the lead role. He uses exactly the right touch in a perfectly judged performance - it is difficult to imagine anybody else in this part.

A classic often overlooked by mainstream film critics.

It's always nice to find a worthy film after being a movie watcher for three decades. I remember when this movie was in the theaters. I was a teenager then and didn't go see it. I decided to watch the video and was immediately drawn into this surreal Bunuelish kind of British made movie. Malcolm McDowell is superb as the forever optimistic young coffee salesman. No matter what happens to him, he keeps his good attitude. Don't miss it! But, don't expect absolute narrative

I have seen both versions (there was an edited version in the late seventees that did not include the rescue scene) of "O Lucky Man" several times. I first saw it in London in the mid seventees as I was very impressed by Lindsay Andersons earlier "If", not to mention a fine performance by Malcolm McDowell. The surreal quality of of Andersons allegorical perspective of life in England at the time was reflected in one of the films great lines, "Try not to die like a dog?" Having seen the film several times since (and turned some friends onto Lindsey Anderson), I was truly surprised at how this film has, not only, not dated, but actually has more relevance now than it did some 27 years ago. England, was about to undergo radical changes in both government and economy. The naivety of the care free sixties was well behind us. Major strikes were frequent. Punk was about to explode onto an exhausted music scene. And, soon there would be a new regime of economic rationalists running the country. The mood and pace of "O Lucky Man" seemed to reflect a sense of innocence lost. Troubled times ahead. A sense of fear and mistrust of the prosperity that is so often associated with capitalism and free enterprise. There are even blatant stabs at genetic engineering. But most of all the sense that England was no longer in control of it's own destiny. Through out this vision of uncertainty are some of last centuries finest comic performances. Most notably Aurthur Lowes' 'Dr. Munda' was, and still is, brilliant. WARNING!!! Even though this film does not follow the normal codes and conventions of narrative structure, my next comment is about a scene towards the end of the film. So, if you have not seen "O Lucky Man", but would like to, stop reading now. The best line of all that sums up the mood of this film is delivered by Mick Travis during the audition scene. After being slapped in the face by Lindsay Anderson when he was told to 'smile', he looks straight at the camera, sneers, and says, "What's there to smile about?". All these years later, still brilliant.

This remarkable, often overlooked film deserves a higher critical reputation than it has largely received. It represents a blossoming of the themes introduced in "if..." (the previous film in Anderson's trilogy) and a playful, even strangely upbeat reworking of those ideas.

"if..." was an explosion of the subconscious, repression fermenting into fantasized revolution; in "O Lucky Man!" the repression has matured into deep, abiding social, political, and economic corruption-- but the fantasies have matured as well. Mick Travis's journey through early '70s England features calamity after calamity, atrocity piled onto atrocity, but it feels lighter than air. It rises like a joke-filled balloon. That vantage point gives the viewer the two advantages unavailable to Travis: wisdom and perspective, and the film's humor comes from the distance between us and the characters scurrying below. (But the film is not, I think, cynical; the road to enlightenment may be hard one but the film makes it clear that it's not unreachable.)

Surrounding Malcolm McDowell's indefatigable Candide of a hero, the supporting cast flows in and out of their multiple roles like a comic repertory company, in which the same actors show up in scene after scene shuffled into a new assortment of scoundrels, con-artists, victims and sages, climaxing (don't worry, I'm not going to spoil it) in a beautiful, subtle joke which has to be seen to be understood.

From the silent-movie pastiches through Price's terrific songs (the music is used admirably) through wild, spontaneous moments of parody, uninhibited symbolic flourishes, and a few small scenes of genuine poignancy, "O Lucky Man!" deserves to be recognized as one of the great films of the 1970s, and perhaps of all time. It's certainly one of my personal favorites. Movies, I think, though bigger than ever, have become smaller and smaller at heart; more films should have the ambitions this film does and deliver on so many of them.