The Savage Is Loose

This was a personal project of George C Scott. The early 1970s did see a lot of these personal projects because it was before the era of Jaws and Star Wars . They were eagerly bankrolled because the Industry was still under the spell of Easy Rider. Scott was infuriated that his film got an R rating . Still even one F bomb can do that in an otherwise clean film. The Savage is Loose is basically mediocre and it's exploration of a taboo subject is competent but not profound . The directing and cinematography is good . Scott , his wife Trish Van Devere and Lee Harcourt Montgomery do their roles very well . Still the film doesn't have that intangible X factor special something that would propel it into Classic or even Cult Classic status .

This movie provides a family the basis for discussions regarding eternal human behavior usually impossible to begin with teenagers, male and female. While not a "remake" of Oedipus, teenagers will better understand the essence of their tensions from this experience.

You are warned to view this movie first as parents without the siblings. Then, if you are prepared to begin the transition of establishing an open relationship with your teenagers at an adult, not parental, level, view it together.

A shipwreck in 1905 leaves a university scientist, his wife and infant son shipwrecked on an island. Seven years later, the child is now a growing boy learning about nature and island wildlife from his father while his mother plays disciplinarian (she also seems to be cracking up, feeling hopeless and accusing her husband of enjoying their isolated predicament). Early on, Mom screams for the men to light the signal fire even though there's not a trace of ship smoke on the horizon; her husband gets caught up in the excitement, later shaking his head sadly as the fire dies out. Does he question her about it, or do they discuss her emotional and mental stability? No, they exchange silent looks at dinner time (and one gets the feeling this movie is going to last a long time). A colossal flop for producer-director-star George C. Scott, who gives a pushy performance. Working from a screenplay fashioned by Max Ehrlich and Frank De Felitta--two very strong writers--Scott inevitably (though almost unbelievably) goes in for the Oedipus storyline; but why did this particular subject intrigue him...and why did he think it would intrigue us? Although Trish Van Devere (Scott's real-life wife) is an attractive, talented actress, I didn't buy her character for a second; that her son should mature and want her sexually isn't totally preposterous, though it is ludicrous the way Scott stages the action. I assume we're supposed to ask: if there's not another woman around, are incestuous feelings between a boy and his mother natural? It's heady subject matter, to be certain, but no one involved quite knows how to present it in this dramatic context. On the plus side, Gil Mellé has composed a nice score, and Alex Phillips Jr.'s cinematography is skillful. *1/2 from ****

This is one of the worst movies I've ever endured & 90% of the blame goes to the arrogance of the director & star, George C Scott. The remainder of the blame goes to the scriptwriter's unbelievably bad screen writing. As the 2 hours drag on for what seems an eternity, nothing happens except a sex showdown between the father's & the son's sex urges for wife & mother! The son could've just masturbated. The entire production is seedy, ridiculous & unbearable. Giving it 1 star is the best that can ge said for it. Avoid @ all cost unless you are a masochist who's into incest.

I watched this film when I was very young -- maybe 12; it was either a TV or cable movie then. Taped it, and had it for years. I sympathize with the other reviewer who said he showed it to his Taiwanese date -- my wife is Taiwanese, and somehow, I don't think she would like it either, though not due to prudishness. She's just not into savages, Tarzan-like figures, or Christianity. I did like this film when I was a kid -- and well into my 20s, but have not seen it since then (now in my later 40s). Yet, I still remember most of it vividly. Kudos to George C. Scott -- and I am very sorry for him that the film did not do better, but also I am in no way surprised. Many out-on-a-limb worthy efforts fail to win over the majority of viewers. (I recall my grandmother saying she walked out of A Clockwork Orange when she somehow went to see it in the theater in the early '70s -- and I loved that film too; still do.) I wonder how Savage would do now, if it were released on DVD in good quality. I would advise seeing it, especially to younger people with imagination, curiosity, and a capacity for deep thought. (I could not watch Scott in Day of the Dolphin, however -- not due to any acting problem, but because that film struck me as terribly heartrending -- I felt badly for the dolphins.) This one didn't trouble me a bit, except I wondered what would come next at the end.