Mister Buddwing

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.

There is something deeply touching and oddly disarming about this wonderful film, but as the above poster comments, the film does not quite fulfill its remit.

I have watched this film on a number of occasions because of its sombre dream-like quality - the juxtaposition of slap-in-the-face reality and those almost womb-like immersions into Buddwing's memories.

The score is brilliant, the lighting dramatic and memorable.

The cast - brilliant, but it pains me to say this as a massive, massive fan of James Garner - he shows his limitations as an actor in this one.

Note the self-naming scene. "Bud.....wing.... I..have a name" too dozy, and that crying scene after he faced off with the madman who claimed he was god. Poor Jimmy looked like he'd be pepper-spayed.

However, because of Garner's form, I like this film even more. Garner's character should be vulnerable, extremely so, because of his predicament. To see Garner himself vulnerable and out of his league in the role works almost better than great acting would. And what was that look on his faced when Grace-2 asked him if was "one of those AC/DC types" ??

There's still something magical about Garner's presence. He's a winner.

The film comes across as a stage play adapted for film - a piece of beat poetry acted out by conservatives. Strange, half realized, surreal, and finally a flawed gem.

James Garner is "Mr. Buddwing," a man who wakes up in Central Park and can't remember who he is in this 1966 film directed by Delbert Mann. Taking the name Buddwing off of a Budweiser truck and the wing of a plane, Garner has a train schedule for a Harlem line, a phone number, and a ring with a crack in it from "GV." Gradually things start to come back to him as he meets various women throughout the day, all of whom he thinks are named Grace. Through them, he relives different stages of his married life: Katharine Ross, a college student; Suzanne Pleshette, an actress; and Jean Simmons, as a drunken blond on a scavenger hunt. Angela Lansbury plays a blowsy woman whose phone number Buddwing finds in his pocket - or thinks he does.

The film is made in an interesting way - one minute, Garner will be talking to Pleshette, for instance, in the present, and then a second later, he's talking to Pleshette as Grace, at some time in the past. The film is like that all the way through, as Buddwing's memories come back. Despite its stylishness and the '60s New York City scenes, "Mr. Buddwing" moves somewhat slowly. Garner does a good job, portraying the man's confusion and frustration well. Both Pleshette and Simmons are excellent; Ross has the least showy role.

A dark movie, worth seeing.

Mister Buddwing, a curious made up name for the lead character, finds James Garner as a man who wakes up in Central Park without a clue as to who he is. All he has are a couple of scraps of paper with a phone number on one, an address on another and the name of Grace ringing through his clouded mind. From this he tries to build an identity. He's also given some reason to suspect he's an escaped mental patient.

He also runs into during the course of his day, three women, Suzanne Pleshette, Katharine Ross, and Jean Simmons all of whom as his fevered mind flashes back, play the elusive Grace at some point in his life. And they're three very different Graces. We do find out he was married to Grace.

Some of the issues involving amnesia were done better in Mirage which starred Gregory Peck and Diane Baker and in Garner's own film 36 Hours. In 36 Hours however Garner is made to think he's developed amnesia. Here it's the real deal, the hysterical kind after some kind of mental trauma.

Mirage is a much better film however, far more suspenseful. Mister Buddwing is interesting, but really does lack suspense as a whole. Jim Garner does his best with the Buddwing character, but you really don't develop a rooting interest in him.

Best in the film is Angela Lansbury who plays an Adelaide from Guys and Dolls type character, presumably after she finally married Nathan Detroit and settle down somewhat. She only has two scenes, but you really remember her. Especially now since the character is so different from Jessica Fletcher or Mame Dennis roles we know her far better for.

The role must have been thought of as a challenge for James Garner, but I think he was betrayed by a flawed story.

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!!?????