Georgia

Were the 60s a non-stop blast of idealism, hedonism and self-exploration? Were they a violent, divisive cataclysm that heralded America's decline? Well, this movie makes both points. And what's more, it makes them brilliantly, probably because it was made by one of the greatest directors (Arthur Penn) and screenwriters (Steve Tesich) in film history. Because of the talent involved, you never notice how epic and improbable this story is: four kids from a grimy Midwestern town (think Tesich' hometown of East Chicago, Indiana) experience every major social upheaval of the 1960s, from the civil rights movement to the Summer of Love to (of course) Vietnam. But what could be soapy, sappy and overblown in the hands of lesser filmmakers (think Zemeckis) is art thanks to messrs Penn and Tesich. Some of the images are so indelible that the dialog becomes superfluous: in an excellent sequence near the start of the film, teens bat around a beach ball with a picture of JFK and Jackie, so we know it's the 60s. When the protagonist sees the girl he loves having sex with his best friend, his eyes meet hers, so their estrangement is established without a word. And later, in a disturbing single shot, a bunch of white kids around a bonfire start pounding on a smaller group of black kids, shattering the idyll forever. Still, Tesich is a smart enough to understand that he's writing for an impressionistic film so he keeps his script minimal to the point of cryptic -- entire relationships start and end in three lines (what happens to Danilo's college roommate Louie will have you laughing and crying at the same time). After many travails and terrors, the movie ends on an unresolved but hopeful note and you're actually satisfied by the slight unease since that's how life works, and this film is a pretty effective albeit rather heightened approximation of how memory and experience actually function.

So why weren't there Oscars galore for this picture? Why isn't it heralded as a modern classic? Well, part of the problem is the cast of young unknowns, all of whom are excellent but couldn't get busted in Hollywood. (It's just as well -- better-known actors might have demanded longer, more floridly written scenes that would have thrown the film hopelessly off balance.) Another problem is the film's ambiguity -- neither Penn nor Tesich seem inclined to judge their characters, and modern filmgoers tend to get headaches when they're asked to make up their own minds. I know this firsthand, since this is the first "art" film I saw with friends, and we loved it so much and discussed it so long afterwards (we were pretentious teenagers so we had the time) that we couldn't help but rave about it to a hippie-dippy couple we knew, who LOATHED it for its lack of overt moralism. And finally, there's the character of sweet Georgia, the elusive object of desire for the other three friends. Georgia is a free spirit who idolizes Isadora Duncan, and she wanders across the 1960s having all kinds of different experiences, and despite some trauma she emerges more or less intact. Lots of people resent that, which is why mediocre films that torture and kill adventurous women (think "Forrest Gump") win Oscars while masterpieces like this can't get released on DVD. Find it, watch it, love it or hate it, one way or another you will be affected.

I watched it again tonight (once or twice a year); and it got me curious re: what new comments were here, if any. I'm both pleased and surprised to see the relative glut of new reviews -- which do NOT add up to a 6.1 rating, btw! -- for this most excellent film. I guess it was released on video....... FINALLY!!!?

In a comment dated 18 June 2001, Nozz wrote: Melville said that "Moby Dick" was only "a sketch of a sketch"... the book illuminated so many avenues that it never took time to explore. So too with "Four Friends." ... So it's a little unfair, but there's a sense of missed opportunity because everything in the movie is so good that it seems to deserve more attention.

I think that's part of the point/its poignancy and bittersweet sense of loss at the end, which is what makes it so evocative; as so is life -- small moments of apparently frivolous experience/choices/opportunities -- which will rarely, if ever, come again; and certainly not while we are the same. We always think of/were taught the 20/20 hindsight bit; but there's NO guarantee path "x" would have been more ideal/fruitfil/ better than path "y"! One can never KNOW w/o taking the path/making (whatever) choice -- Talking about good things here, not stupid things like OD'ing on some lame chemical or suicide! Can't speak for today's youth -- as it is indeed a different, more cynical world! -- but given the idealism, hope, and energy inherent in the 60s youth, who wanted to LIVE (after so much repression)...... and experience everything, a legacy of feeling loss was inevitable. There's just not enough time being young. I never grew tired of being young, as long as my body was! That's not to say many/most did not have many good times, even wonderful lives and families. But the ideals we hoped for the world certainly didn't materialize; and few realized it in their personal lives, I suspect, at least on the braod scale we hoped. And for that, we greive; for few have the choice. "Four Friends," as does few films, conveys that loss so splendidly and the rewards of the remaining, though not ideal, friendships -- whose importance in our lives is timeless. And yeah, it always elicits tears and longing for what could have been! Someday it will be recognized, I hope, for the great film it is!

This is a great movie. It is one of my favorites. It covers a great time in history to have grown up. It addresses several of the problems of that era, including the Vietnam war, racism, the moon landing, patriotism among others. It also includes smatterings of comedy, drama, horror, incest, and romance. That is a lot to cover in one film. It does not have the time to adequately develop the story or the characters. Therefore, you have to watch it attentively. If you leave it without pausing it , you can miss something that is never explained again. There is so much for the brain to absorb, it seems to drag. I compare it to Deer Hunter which does the same thing. The acting is great, but other than Craig Wasson, the actors disappeared after this movie, and he only seems to have gotten small roles.

I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, but it had such an impact on me that I remember sitting through the credits and for several minutes after in complete awe. This is one of the most underrated films of the entire decade in which it was originally released. I just ordered a copy of it on DVD and paid for overnight shipping and can't wait for it to arrive. It is uplifting at times, and also very dark and somewhat disturbing. It's a story of a close-knit band of regular kids growing up in the inner city and makes one feel as though they are actually sitting on the sidelines, rather than watching on a movie screen or television. Hard to explain, but it is something that must be experienced. The story starts at childhood and tracks the lives of the four main characters through high school and as they embark on their separate journeys in life. The entire cast did an incredible job and it's by far the best work of Jodi Thelen's career. I'm hoping that the DVD lives up to my memory and plan on watching it this Friday with a good friend.

Behind the nostalgic music, we see a young boy get off a train. He is arriving from Yugoslavia to meet his father, a man he has not seen in a decade. At the train station, we meet the man. He never smiles.

Thus, we begin our journey into "Four Friends", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.

Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Chase", "Alice's Restaurant" and the underrated "Mickey One") and "Four Friends" is no exception.

A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from "Body Double" and "Nightmare on Elm Street 3") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in "Four Friends", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.

I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe "Four Friends". It's not one of those "high-concept" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.

"Four Friends" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another "American Graffiti" (it lacks the wallop of "Four Friends"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.

**** out of 4 stars