Un coin tranquille

Only in the post-"Easy Rider" early 1970s could a film like this be made by a major Hollywood studio. Totally devoid of anything resembling a plot, "A Safe Place" will probably seem incomprehensible to most. But if you already have an appreciation for the 1950s-1960s works of Fellini, Antonioni or Godard, come on in. You'll feel right at home in this "Safe Place."

Henry Jaglom was the unsung hero amongst the circle of friends that brought us "Head," "Easy Rider," "Five Easy Pieces," and several other lesser-known classics of the era. Jaglom is more responsible for the success of "Easy Rider" than Dennis Hopper, as he took Hopper's three-hour cut--a mishmash of flashbacks, flash-forwards and art- damaged nonsense--and shaped it into the legendary film it is today. His close relationship with Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Bob Rafelson, Bert Schneider, and others gave him a chance to write and direct his own movie for Columbia Pictures.

Jaglom in turn delivered this dream narrative starring Tuesday Weld as a young woman who copes by retreating into isolationism and fantasy. Orson Welles pops up here and there as a magician who represents a physical emodiment of her retreat from the world. Or does he only exist in her head?

It's best not to ask questions like that. Free your mind, sit back, and take in the feeling and mood. Where Hopper failed with his cut of "Easy Rider" and "The Last Movie", Jaglom effortlessly succeeds with such lofty and artsy ambitions. "A Safe Place" coasts by like a gentle dream in an afternoon nap--full of beautiful, detached imagery, illogical but comforting.

"A Safe Place" is a beautiful relic of a brief time in American cinema. Even Jaglom-- always on the fringe of mainstream cinema--would never make anything like this again, as he later developed the documentary/verite style which has become his trademark.

This experimental piece of work, from Henry Jaglom, is actually something of a gem, if not for it's unique direction, for the typically stunning performance from Tuesday Weld. Weld is wonderful in her characterization of a simple, juvenile young woman, caught in the limbo between innocence and adulthood. This film is from the period which I consider Weld's peak. She is beautiful, charming and completely earnest in her delivery.

Others in the cast are interesting at best. Orson Welles is good as the father figure in Weld's life. Philip Proctor is not much acting wise, but at least he has a pleasant voice. That seems to have helped his career in the years following this film. Jack Nicholson is his typical cocky, slimy character in this one. I didn't feel his acting was anything new here, but his presence makes for an interesting triangle relationship.

The editing is choppy, utilizing audio and image clips flashing by, altered, and repeated again. It would seem to get old after a while, and it does to some degree, but it's effective nonetheless. There are some good vignettes here and there throughout the film, namely a scene where Weld describes to Proctor the importance of telephone exchanges. Not every actress could pull this off well, but Weld does so with empathy and charm...brilliant! The Ouija board scene also stands out, as do the ones of Weld and Welles in Central Park Zoo.

A fascinating and surprisingly engaging film. If for no other reason, it's worth watching for Weld's performance.

A SAFE PLACE has certainly a bad reputation. It has a score of 4,9 that places it among Jack Nicholson's lowest rated movies, nearly all negative reviews and according to IMDB when it was shown at a film festival the audience became hostile and fights almost broke out because some loved it and some hated it. But not deterred, last October I finally saw it for seeing for myself if it was that bad and sadly I had to agree with nearly everyone.

Noah (Tuesday Weld) is a young woman that lives in her New York apartment. She is a flower child that retreats herself in her childhood memories in the search of a safe place while at the same time she dates two men: Fred who is practical but dull and Mitch (Nicholson) who is more dynamic and fit for her tho none of them can fulfill her passion, but at this point who cares?

To say that A SAFE PLACE is bad is just the tip of the iceberg. First, it's very disconnected and annoying at his worst because of the various jump cuts from a moment to the other. To get a sample of this we are shown moments of Noah in a hippie comune with snippets of a man only known as The Magician (Orson Welles) doing some magic tricks and even visiting a zoo.

Second, the acting is probably the laziest and when I say it, I mean that Megan Fox and Kristen Stewart are light years better than the cast in this movie. Tuesday Weld gives probably a prime example of sleepwalking acting as she is perpetually bored which seems difficult to do considering she is playing an immature girl. Only Nicholson was ok but his immense talent was wasted, same goes for Welles since we don't know what his motivations are or what was his purpose for appearing in this. Supporting cast? Forgettable on a whole.

Third, the pacing was so slow that the more time passes the more you'll end up asking yourself when the movie finally finishes. And as the movie ends you'll end up asking yourselves: What did I just saw? Did I missed something in the viewing? But in the end, these questions go by unanswered.

Overall, probably one of the worst art movies ever because of how much it's grating. My 2 would be only for Nicholson's performance and for the animals that appeared in the zoo scenes but for the rest, it's best to avoid as it would confuse most of you if you seek in a movie excitement and characters that look like real people.

One might be tempted to call Henry Jaglom's directing debut "A Safe Place", which he also wrote (based on material he originally presented on stage in New York), self-indulgent; however, the indulgence here really belongs to the editor, Pieter Bergema. This is a movie 'made' in its editing stages, and either Bergema had too much film to work with or not enough (this might explain the endless close-ups of crying or howling faces, several of them repeated). Tuesday Weld plays a commune-living hippie chick in New York City, on a tightrope between being a woman and wanting to remain a child, who begins a relationship with a drop-out from high society before she has resolved her feelings for former boyfriend Jack Nicholson, who apparently left her for another woman. Jaglom encourages his cast to wing it, and so we're left with lots of rambling, pseudo-introspective monologues about illusion and reality. It's wise not to try and dissect "A Safe Place"--that would be like analyzing a snowflake. There's just not enough real substance here--nor enough real acting--to spark a debate on the film. Orson Welles as a magician (or perhaps Weld's guardian angel) looks like a cross between Jackie Gleason and Oliver Hardy; he has fun doing magic tricks in Central Park, but is mostly used as a shoulder for Weld to lean on. Weld herself is a lovely presence (although this little-girl-lost number was just about played out), and cinematographer Dick Kratina gets some gorgeous shots of her all around the city, but the only genuine acting in the film comes from newcomer Gwen Welles as another hippie who is mesmerized by the non-meaning of her dreams. ** from ****

So, let me get this straight - if I have a taste for Fellini, Antonioni and Godard I'll feel right at home with A Safe Place? Um, no. I love Fellini, right up through 8 1/2. I've enjoyed much of Antonioni. Godard - a mixed bag for me, but I like Breathless and Alphaville fine, and Band Of Outsiders, too. Mr. Jaglom is not in their company, at least for me, and A Safe Place is a pretentious mess from start to finish. No one loves Tuesday Weld more than I, and she's fine. Jack Nicholson, who came in for a day and improvised everything is embarrassing. Gwen Welles gives new meaning to self-indulgent, but then again she has the most self-indulgent filmmaker imaginable "directing" her.

I have never met a Henry Jaglom film I liked - ever. And his "thing" that if you don't respond to his films then you don't understand women is, well, fatuous. I'm glad he considers himself such an enlightened and sensitive man, but I'm not buying nor are many of my women friends. It is the type of cinema that makes me want to throw up and not because I don't like experimental or interesting films, because I have and I do. As I sat there with drool running out of my mouth because I'd just invested what I thought was almost ninety minutes of my time, I paused the film to find out I was only at the forty-minute mark.

However, one has to commend any filmmaker who keeps on doing it - he does it with his own funds (good to be wealthy) and as long as he keeps having girlfriends he'll keep making films because his entire oeuvre is based on his love life.