L'impossibilità di essere normale

Even for its period, I found this film's attitudes to women and gay men disturbing and this took away from my appreciation of it as a well-made film which, in many ways, has its heart in the right place. Women seem expected to serve their men both domestically and sexually and Candice Bergen's character puts up with some horrendous abuse from Elliott Gould's character - more so than most liberated educated women of that time would do. Then there is a crack early on about Arizona being a good place to live because of its low rate of homosexuality. And Nick tries to get out of the draft by pretending to be a stereotypically effeminate gay man, with Gould repeatedly using the 'F' word to describe him. And then there's the argument in the last scene. I suspect the writers just wanted the academic to say something absurd but the choice they made suggests that there is something inherently wrong in being gay and/or that academia has been taken over by gay men pushing their "homosexual agenda". Of course it is then up to our heterosexual male hero to violently protest against this. Perhaps the students' rights campaigns of this time were paternalistic and homophobic and this film just reflects that, but I hope at least some of the people at that time had a more progressive way of looking at the world.

This so-called exploitive campus revolt film from 1970 actually has some wonderful things going on in it. (I can't believe I still have the soundtrack and recently got the video). Elliott Gould was at the peak of whatever powers he had as leading man, without Donald Sutherland to play off (M.A.S.H.) or Dyan Cannon(B&C&T&A - supporting role), and he's perfect as Harry (who I think is in every scene). Candice Bergen was never more beautiful (still learning to act after five years in film - and right before Carnal Knowledge), and throw in Jeannie Berlin, Harrison Ford (not boring for a change), and a host of other young up-and-comers at the time, along with Jeff Corey (James Dean's acting teacher, who played elder Hickock in In Cold Blood, and Wild Bill Hickock in Little Big Man) as Gould's semi-mentor, with campus revolt in a frenetic, casual (until later) sort of way.

I know a lot of people worship The Stunt Man directed by the same man, Richard Rush ten years later ( and that film is better than this; but not that great), but he did have his own style (I'm not sure what happened to his sensibilities or career). Throw in Robert F. Lyons as Gould's buddy (does anybody remember that guy?) and there's real possibilities, not politically, but in those areas of film that carry over into thought and heart and hope. This is not even close to being a definitive campus revolt flick from that time, but it has aspects (every other scene almost) that have stature ABOUT real topics with semi-interesting characters along the way, without taking SIDES about Viet Nam or rebellion. If you come across it, you'll find some other actresses and actors that were well on their way (if yo're interested in that) and the ending is strange, but somehow appropriate in an uplifting and yet depressing way. It's worth anyone's time who is, at all, interested in that time period (concerning youth vs. establishment). To make a long story short, it's not some dopey, campus comedy with nudity and platitudes and wise-cracks (except for a few scenes concerning Gould's car and landlady).

It's nothing important to convey the ideals, emotions, and contemporary feel of that era, but it hits some spaces and is also funny in a human way that is appropriately not cynical (even for then).

Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied both by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help) and also by his instructors, hypocrites in power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed screenplay, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the university's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world (as well as get laid), the characters in this picture are nevertheless just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged--and in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders. Gould's shaggy character rants and raves, too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids, but he doesn't see his own shortcomings...and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like many of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen gives a wan performance as Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be a wife in the suburbs. Bergen is continually put down for that, as if she's a sellout, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment. The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness, filmed and edited with precision, and yet they don't come organically out of this story; they are interjected for shock value. The rage presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. ** from ****

OK. Mainly, if you want to see Ms. 10-cents-a-minute and (to a greater extent) Mr. Gould make fools of themselves, check this relic out. It's suffused with dated political jargoneering and tedious, tortured ruminations on the expediency of individual political action circa 1970. Historically interesting (maybe).

one of my favorite oldies.Candice had just left the University of Pennsylvania where she literally stopped traffic on campus because of her beauty (I actually saw it happen!).She never looked as good in films as she did in real life at that time.I believe that the line Eliot Gould uses when he's had enough of the professor's comments about Fitzgerald's homosexuality is that yes it could be possible that he was a homosexual but that it sure would be news to Sheila Graham (not Zelda) with whom he had an apparently scandalous affair when he was in Hollywood trying to make money.I was in college during that era and there its a fairly good representation of the way things were then and indicative of the nuttiness of that era