Dernier été

There's no plot, no apparent theme, and little action. And an hour into the movie, I'm still not sure where it's going. So why is the 90-minutes as riveting as I think it is. For one, the filmmakers begin with that interesting seagull sequence that provides insight into Sandy's (Hershey) manipulative character and the boys' general submissiveness.

However, in between the opening sequence and the final one, nothing much happens. Some scenes are overlong (the pot smoking, the hair washing), while the elliptical dialog is often punctuated by long, non- meaningful, pauses.

Nonetheless, the three hedonistic kids are attractive, fairly realistic, and found horsing around at a scenic beach. But then, chubby Rhoda arrives, with her needy, yet judgmental, attitude, and it's curious where things will go from there now that an outsider is watching them.

There's an undercurrent here, especially with Sandy, that's seductive. It's to the filmmakers credit, including the cast, that they manage to mesmerize with such spare elements. Oddly, the technique reminds me of the popular Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman— especially his Virgin Spring (1959).

I take the upshot as having to do with judgmental people who stand apart from the crowd and not being able to tolerate them. But however you take it, the movie avoids cliché (as others note) and continues to fascinate at a generally unspoken level. Too bad the Perry's didn't make more movies.

You must see it uncut for the full effect. The conclusion at the beach is the whole point of the film, as Evan Hunter points out in his interview in "The Writer". I was agast the first time I saw it on commercial TV (late night).

It's almost surreal. I think this film can be viewed on a few levels.

If you are looking for a profound coming of age film ..this is not it. There is however a provocative image here and if you adjust your vision you might just possibly see...yourself..at an age of no regrets and all intoxications.

The " three " set up the world for themselves and no one else can be allowed in to spoil It That is until Catherine Burns comes along and throws a wrench in their postulates on life..

There is a scene where the "three" are running along the beach...look closely now ..closer ..did you find someone you know well or someone you used to know.

Provocative and wonderful and melancholy all at the same time.

CP

To the poster who asked if her name change to Seagull had anything to do with the film, the answer is yes.

While filming one of the scenes with the bird, it was accidentally killed. She was so moved ( or guilt ridden) by it that she changed her name to Seagull to memorialize it. I read this in an biography of her years ago.

Seems vaguely stuntish, but it was the 60s, after all. One thing that always interested me was that her career stalled for years, and it wasn't until after she changed her name back to Hershy that she got more roles and respect. Kind of like Dionne Warwick/Warwicke.

Very intriguing late 60's film by Frank Perry with a great performance by Catherine Burns (nominated and SHOULD have won Supporting Actress). A young Barbara Hershey is attractive and full of verve. Bruce Davison is fine and Richard Thomas is sensitive and believable, but C. Burns as Rhoda is heartbreaking and wonderful. I don't know what happened to his young actress. She was also in RED SKY AT MORNING with Richard Thomas in '71.

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Ms. Burns. A tale of youth that will stay with you. Nothing exploitive going on this film. Find it if you can. A beauty!