A Safe Place

Henry Jaglom has often been accused, justifiably, of self indulgent movie making. "A Safe Place" is no exception, yet here it's an indulgence in experimenting with cinematic form itself. As always with Jaglom, it's a pretty mixed bag. There are scenes with some striking moments, but many which ramble on for much too long.

The question remains does this experiment work ? The answer has to be – no. But the attempt itself is not without interest. While much of the film will certainly test your patience, the rewards are there, though not as predominant as to make one want to champion this as a film that should be seen.

The film is centered round Tuesday Weld. Weld has always been something of an enigma. The movie persona of her earlier films established her firmly in the mind of the public as yet another pretty blonde. It took her a long time to shake this off. This need to find herself as an actress to be reckoned with must surely have drawn her to this project, written and directed by a newcomer. Her beauty and talent are in abundance here. This may have led to her next big role, made the following year; "Play It As It Lays". Sadly, despite a great performance, Weld never seemed to be able to prove her worth to the wider public or indeed the studios and moved towards a career in mainstream television movies, in which she still managed to shine.

"A Safe Place" boasts an intriguing cast. Alongside Weld is Orson Welles, a close friend of Jaglom's, obviously having much fun as a magician of sorts as well as a young and as always devilish, Jack Nicholson. Jaglom allows them much room for improvisation. He once related having written a scene for Nicholson and Weld; it somehow wasn't working. His feeling was that knowing them personally, they were both far more interesting people than the scene he had written for them showed. He simply let them improvise their dialog.

"A Safe Place" is the kind of film that sounds more interesting than is actually the case. I for one, despite being in favor of much of Jaglom's work and certainly that of Welles, Nicholson and Weld, am reticent in recommending it. For those with special interest in these people or the times, (New York, 1971), there will be points of interest but I must admit to being ultimately somewhat let down to what I sensed could have been far more than what I found.

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.

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.

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 strange young woman (Tuesday Weld) lives in a fantasy world where she can never grow up.

Henry Jaglom's directorial debut was a "critical and box-office disaster". Time magazine called the film "pretentious and confusing", a film that "suggests that the rumors of his expertise were greatly exaggerated, or at least that it does not extend to directing." Apparently, for the critics, not even the presence of the incredible Orson Welles or Jack Nicholson could save this one.

Author Anais Nin was perhaps the most kind. She called the film "an impressionistic film, an X ray of our psychic life, which gives an insight instantly into the secret self." She called it a "masterpiece", and praised it for its dreamlike quality that could only be captured on film.