Carnal Knowledge

source: Carnal Knowledge

I'm guessing that this was considered a sophisticated and honest look at relationships back in 1971. Today, it comes off as terribly ugly and mean-spirited. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkle star as two friends, from their college days to adulthood, who basically sit around and talk about women. Or sex, really. The women themselves are little more than the owners and annoying defenders of the vaginas their penises really would like to get to know. Among the women they bother are Candice Bergen, Ann-Margret, Rita Moreno (whom I don't even remember being in the film, honestly), Cynthia O'Neal and Carol Kane (who isn't allowed even to speak). The film is very dry and clinical, and also very boring. I think Mike Nichols made a far more successful film of the same type with Closer in 2004. There really isn't even a performance worth noting here, except for perhaps Ann-Margret's. She has one killer scene, but has to act it opposite a very hammy and detestable Jack Nicholson.

Mike Nichols' dramatic film about the separate sexual journeys of two male friends from college to middle-age got critical raves upon its release, but it doesn't quite live up to the kudos; it's not so much overrated as it is overwrought. Though a well-acted piece, it condescends towards the audience with a self-satisfied conception. There's hardly an actual plot, and the screenplay is fake-literate: it's made up of heated dialogue exchanges which purport to show how men treat women, yet it may very well be just these men. The film is smug, with too much of the rabble-rousing disintegrating into melodramatic soap. It does feature fine acting, from Arthur Garfunkel and Ann-Margret in particular, but Jack Nicholson is uneven (and he always seems to be in the shower!). The arty shots (close-ups held a long time on each character's face) aren't there to reveal anything special--they're just there to show-off the director's prowess. I eventually tired of the back-and-forth arguing and female crying, though I do see the merit in the acting and in some of what Nichols was trying to accomplish. **1/2 from ****

Whenever there is a movie that comes out with Jack Nicholson in it, I have to see it. Since he hasn't been in a boat load of movies lately, I decided to see some of his older ones. Overall, I am impressed by them from his Oscar winning work for One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest to his trademark performance in The Shining. But "Carnal Knowledge" is the first movie I have seen him in that I absolutely did not like. I had the assumption that this would be a comedy about the sexual desires of a man over women. Sure, I anticipated sex, and some innuendos, but a decent film. Well, I found nothing decent about it. The film is a complete bore fest, made up of Nicholson and Garfunkel talking about which girl to bang and how many foul, maligning, and sexist words they can deliver in a 90 minute period. I was absolutely disgusted by it. Garkfunkel looked bored with the film and just went along with it, not even bothering to put some effort into his character. A young and beautiful Candice Bergen is to busy smiling and giggling to even be a believable character. Anne Margaret, well, like Candice, she has great looks, but is a pain in the butt by her constant whining and drug overdoses. Nicholson seemed to have fun with himself, but is not even in comparison to all his other performances. Maybe this is because this was one of his earlier movies. Either way, he wasn't great. There was no plot and no good acting. Needless to say, this was not a good movie. I was even surprised that this was even made back in 1970. Uhm? I can understand people calling it a controversial movie, but only because of all the sexual dialog. 1/10 -For those of you who like the old movies, skip this one and see something else.

The plot begins with Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) roommates in the university. Each one of them has a different behavior and experience with women: Jonathan is cynical, malicious, and selfish. He does not respect anybody (even his best friend is not respected) and just want to have sex. Women are objects for him. Sandy is almost the opposite of Jonathan and has a different approach with women: he is shy and respectful, he does not have much experience with women. These characteristics are presented in the film having Susan (the gorgeous Candice Bergen, the most beautiful actress of the 70's) as pivot. Then the story advances a few years and shows both of them successful in their professions and boring with their mates. The character of Susan (who married Sandy) is just occasionally mentioned and does not appear on the screen any more. Now, we see basically the relationship of Jonathan with Bobbie (the sexy Ann-Margret). Then, there is another jump in time and other relationship of Jonathan and Sandy are presented in this movie, since its essence is about relationship of men and woman having the focus mainly in Jonathan. In 1971, I was too young to watch this movie and certainly I would not understand most of the story. Only a couple of days ago I had the chance of seeing it. It is amazing how this movie for adults has not aged. Further, it does not look like an American movie. The camera, the screenplay, it does look like European movie (maybe a little of 'Jules and Jim'). All the actors and actresses have outstanding performance, but certainly Jack Nicholson and Ann-Margret are superb. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Ânsia de Amar" ("Eagerness for Love") Note: On 18 January 2014, I saw this movie again.

A talky, oddly stage-bound film (though it's not based on a stage play) that nevertheless exerts a kind of raw emotional tug on the viewer. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel (yes, you read that correctly) begin as college chums on a never-ending hunt for female tail, and end the film as stifled adults, still filling their lives with emotionally empty physical affairs that do nothing to fill the yawning void of their boring existences. Sound depressing? It is, but it's also rather fascinating, due to a sharp script and excellent acting. This came out at a time when Jack Nicholson was actually playing characters in movies other than Jack Nicholson, and he does fine work here as the more virile and experienced of the two friends. Candice Bergen is also in fine form in a very dramatic role, a far cry from the comedic roles with which we've come to associate her. And Ann-Margret won a lot of acclaim (and the film's sole Oscar nomination) for her brief performance as the sex-pot basket case Bobbie, the target of Nicholson's emotional abuse. "Carnal Knowledge" is entertaining as an intellectual exercise, but it may leave you cold on a deeper, more emotional level, as no one, not even the women, are especially likable or sympathetic. It came out at a time in our cultural history when "free love" was in vogue, and seemed to suggest that the price people payed for indulging that urge was high and that people turned to casual sex more as an excuse for avoiding significant human contact than as a way to more fully enjoy living. Certainly these emotionally stunted characters seem no better off for all of their care-free indulgence in pleasure. In many ways, "Carnal Knowledge" seems to be the movie Mike Nichols' other 4-person relationship drama, "Closer," wanted to be, and he would have been wise to approach the material in "Closer" in a similar way as the material here. The staginess in "Carnal Knowledge" works. These people seem to exist in a plane of existence just a fraction removed from the one in which the rest of us live. It's like they live in a vacuum where they're the only people who matter, an airless atmosphere that serves as a fitting backdrop for their selfish behavior. Probably not one of the more important films from this fertile period for film making, but worth checking out. Grade: B+

Mike Nichols has the dubious distinction of producing the two worst films in U.S. history - this one and The Graduate. How this man ever came to be respected is beyond me. I think Nichols is a perfect example of what we mean when we say there is an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because no one wants to be embarrassed by admitting there is an elephant in the room. Jules Feiffer, however,who wrote this piece of garbage should be hung out to dry in the public square. The fact that Nichols made this film simply demonstrates once again that the man has no conscience much less any moral or ethical compass. His cynical atheism more than shows here. Too bad. So much talent and so little character.

The sexual adventures of Jonathan and Sandy. From college to mid-life crises, we see their attitude to the opposite sex and how their male organ leads them to lower depths. A fascinating script from Jules who isn't afraid to show how some men really are. Nichols' direction has the European flavor, allowing the stunning performances to take over with the help of Giuseppe Rotunno's unobtrusive photography. The amazing thing is that this film is still relevant to some of today's modern male species. The writer and director teamed up recently and made CLOSER, for today's generation. Watch the two movies back to back and you'd see the similarities in style and substance after thirty years.

**SPOILERS THROUGHOUT** Hopelessly outdated film about sex. It follows the sex lives of two guys--Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel)--from their college years in the 1940s up to 1971. Sandy falls for Susan (Candice Bergen) in college. Jonathan also falls for her too. In later years Sandy is married to Susan and Jonathan gets involved with Bobbie (Ann-Margret) who is much younger than him. It all ends badly. The message of this movie seems to be that some men (Nicholson) only see women as sex objects and can't relate to them. Other men (Garfunkel) are too timid. Basically both of the men are pathetic! Nicholson keeps saying revolting sexual asides about women left and right. Garfunkel is just blank. The women don't fare much better. I couldn't figure out Bergen at all. She's sleeping with both of them but we never understand why she's doing it--or how she really feels. Ann-Margret comes across as needy and passive. Basically there's not one person in this film you can relate to--or like. The "insights" here are ridiculously obvious (maybe they were meaningful in 1971) and the film is full of pointlessly long silences that seem like they're profound. It's also very coldly directed by Mike Nichols--but that was the point. Add to that two horrible performances by Garfunkel and Bergen. Nicholson and Ann-Margret are great however--but they're given little to work with. Ann-Margret was justly nominated for an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for this. Also it has Rita Moreno as a prostitute (!!!) and is Carol Kane's first movie. This was a controversial picture in 1971. The dialogue is sexually frank and shocked a lot of people. By today's standards it's laughably tame and the movie comes across as a self-important dated dud. Worth seeing only for Ann-Margret and Nicholson. Another one time shocking movie that just doesn't date well. I give it a 4.

At age 34, Jack Nicholson plays a college student, a guy named Jonathan, who lives, breathes and talks ... girls. His best bud is Sandy (Art Garfunkel) who has the same one-track mind. At least Garfunkel was only thirty when he made this film. But both actors are way too old to be convincing as college studs. Miscasting aside, the Jonathan character is a jerk. He's smug and shallow, and he smirks a lot. His chatter about women is juvenile. I did not like him at all. Maybe this film has some historical value as a relic of the 1960s "sexual revolution". Thirty years later, I find the film painfully boring. Scenes are long and drawn out. Action is super slow. Talk is excessive. A major character disappears, never to be seen again, long before the film ends. And the overall plot is minimal. Jonathan and Sandy age a little, become a little more "experienced" with women. But they've still got that one-track mind. Color cinematography and direction are terrible. At times, a character, in close-up, will be speaking directly to the camera. Eventually, after interminable "sophisticated" talk, the camera backs away, to reveal that the character is sitting in a chair speaking to another character. Are we supposed to be impressed by this little directorial sleight of hand? I can see this story as a 1971 Broadway play, for sophisticated New Yorkers. But given the cultural changes that have transpired in the last thirty years, the film's style and execution now seem pretentious. And the entertainment value, for me at least, is nearly zero.