Énigme à 4 inconnues

Th is was a cool offbeat film. The real treat is the actresses. They are all lovely and give good performances. They truly elevate the material.

There are also some really cool shots of mid 60s New York, some of which no longer exist.

Other commentators are probably right to say that the plot is totally unlikely, poorly acted and perhaps badly directed. I am no film critic hence do not judge the film from a critical point of view.

Yes, I was aware, while watching the film on TV, that it was completely unlikely, that people just don't act in such a way. Yet I found it compelling, enjoyable, enthralling, haunting. I just had to watch it to the end, and this doesn't happen to me very often these days.

I see the film as an allegory of a man who has lost sight of himself after a personal traumatic drama and is in search of himself through various unlikely encounters, mostly intriguing women. I enjoyed the film as I would enjoy a haunting melody. I guess I see in it an allegory for my own condition.

The whole feel of this film is great - soundtrack, cinematography, location filming - but ultimately, the storyline reveals its secrets well before the final scene. The actors attracted me to this film, shown very early in the morning on Turner

Classic Movies. Late night viewing is perfect for a mid-sixties, black-and-white, jazzy sort of feature. For the first thirty minutes, I was quite intrigued by the plot. It reminds me of Gregory Peck's "Mirage," a similar (and superior) amnesia- based movie from the 60s. The location filming is perfect, though I know NYC is never that dead, having taken a walk by the Plaza Hotel at 7 in the morning, on a Sunday.

The actors cannot be at fault, and I'm certain that the original novel is quite interesting. Perhaps this particular amnesia variation just doesn't work on film.

After the first "flashback," involving Katherine Ross, her "real-life" presence simply vanishes, unlike the other two women who later provide Garner's

character with memory enhancers. This must be to initially throw us off track, as viewers. Incorrectly, I assumed Ross's character was a complete fabrication. Then, later in the film, Suzanne and Simmons are indicated to be real, as is

Lansbury's "Gloria." Garner simply uses their presence to reformulate images of his wife. There is also a bit of cheating regarding repetitive dialogue between the three women. The "real" Simmons repeats dialogue of the "imaginary"

Suzanne; this must be pure coincidence, as Garner cannot dictate what an

"actual" person says. (Believe me, this makes sense, if you've seen the film.)

The film is ultimately disappointing. By the half-way mark, I knew what the

outcome would be.

One side note - that scene with the cop in Washington Square is totally dated and ridiculous. And, PLEASE, can we avoid all NYC scenes involving

characters running into a dead-end alley?????? It has become one of the

major clichés of NYC-based films and TV series.

I don't know why this web site messes up my paragraphs and spacing!!?????

Great jazz score. Memorable dialogue. Fascinating characters. Even small parts are interesting. Vulnerable male lead (unlike cardboard cutouts). Ladies with personality. Wonderful performances even by bit players. Gorgeous black and white photography. New York streets. Camera that isn't afraid to dare. Pure gold performance by Pleshette as an ever-aspiring thespian. This movie IS a jazz score. It is about life, midlife and city life. It's suspenseful, but the suspense isn't its central element. Mood is. This movie is perfect from every angle, in every department. Not much more can be expected from images on a screen. A movie with an attitude that presents life as style. Voila.

"Mister Buddwing" has an interesting start. Seen from the POV of the protagonist, we find ourselves in Central Park. Searching our pockets for clues to our identity--because already it is clear that we have amnesia--we find a train schedule, 2 pills, a phone number and a ring with an inscription. As a jazz track plays in the background, we make our way out of the park and into a hotel where we see our reflection. We are James Garner!

Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.

Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.

According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.

The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.

When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.

Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).

One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.

After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.