L'impossibilità di essere normale

Just to say that this is one of the good movies that still holds up well. Richard Rush (director) didn't make many movies, but he did well with many of them. The screenplay is often excellent and Elliot Gould is usually excellent. There aren't many other good roles or performances, but that doesn't in my opinion bring the film very far down below good.

Gould's acting in this story about student protests and "riots" in the late 60s is about as good as he got (gets?) - and that is very good.

Technically the movie's first rate. Photography, cutting, timing. All good.

I hope this show gets more credit as time goes on.

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).

Mind you this film IS thirty years old and reflects what was "politically correct" for that era. We do see the early signs of the change from hippie to yuppie. Remember Jerry Rubin's conversion to capitalism? It doesn't wear well however, thirty years of wear at our ardor and idealism shows this film to be a faded glory. If a young person that wasn't around for the march from "the summer of love"; through "is Paul dead"; "Kent State"; and Watergate; and wants to see 1970 through a looking glass.. Just remember that you're looking at a different world.

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.

Too bad Richard Rush doesn't make more movies. He's got a fantastic style, as can be seen in the more recent "The Stunt Man" and this movie should have retained a "classic" status. Set in the campus riot era, Harry Bailey only seeks to fulfill his dream of becoming a teacher, molding another Salinger and making enough to live on. He can't be bothered with the idealistic ravings of his younger friends and fellow students until he see "it's not what you do that counts, it's what you are". Check out this totally superb performance of Elliot Gould's. Even if you find the movie dated and somewhat silly, Gould is extraordinary. Unfortunately Candy Bergen has about one decent scene, the rest of the time her acting is very trying. The rest of the actors are right on though, especially a very young Harrison Ford.