Rabbit, Run

Strong performances, especially James Caan at the height of his career, save this film from being a complete disaster. The problem is that the 1950's themes (Updike's novel is set in 1956) seem out of place framed within the 'New Hollywood' of American film making in 1970. Choppy editing and a heavy 70's electronica soundtrack distract from what would otherwise be a fairly strong representation of the new wave of film making (Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Bonnie & Clyde) portraying a harsher and more critical view of middle class America. Caan's portrayal of the selfish and immature 'Rabbit' is sympathetic and charming. He is surrounded by a supporting cast that portray hapless, stupid or unlikable people who interfere in his efforts to find fulfillment. These characters are one dimensional and serve only as a means to justify the angst and frustration of the protagonist. (A recurring plot device in the American 'New Wave' cinema.) Worth the watch for fans of Caan or films of that era.

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.

The subject matter feels a bit too lightly treated and the technical elements of the film are rather ordinary, but 'Rabbit, Run' has some good ideas, especially in regards to detaching from and trying to escape unhappiness. James Caan is good in the lead and the supporting cast is strong, with Arthur Hill and Jack Albertson particular highlights, plus another solid performance in the same year from Carrie Snodgress of 'Diary of a Mad Housewife'. It is the acting and the occasional good idea that keep this film alive, and it might not be a brilliant piece of cinema, but it does have enough good about it to be a satisfying watch.

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 ****

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.