Nuts

NUTS was a play that was turned into this film that has a first rate cast headed by Barbara Streisand, including Richard Dreyfus, Maureen Stapleton, Karl Malden, Eli Wallach, Robert Webber, James Whitmore, and Leslie Nielson and a top director (Martin Ritt). But it has not gotten the notice it's deserved among Streisand's top performances. I will get to that in a moment. Streisand is a hooker who has been arrested for the murder of a "John" she picked up. Nielson is the "John", and his performance here is a type of throwback to the usually villainous parts he played in the early half of his career, before he demonstrated his mastery of deadpan comedy. He tries to get rough with Streisand, and in the process of defending herself she causes him to get stabbed. Taken to court for arraignment she finds her mother and step-father (Stapleton and Malden) have arranged for her attorney (William Prince) to plead guilty on account of insanity. She gets quite upset about this, and manages to punch Prince in the mouth, breaking some teeth, and making him decide to drop this client. Dreyfus, a struggling defense attorney, is picked by the arraignment judge to handle the defense. Slowly Dreyfus and Streisand find a way of working together - and find it is an uphill battle. Streisand insists that she is sane, and that it was an accident not murder. Dreyfus believes her, but has to fight a top flight assistant district attorney (Webber) who has an accredited psychiatric expert (Wallach) ready to testify to Streisand's insanity. Fortunately the Judge (Whitmore) is pretty fair minded. I notice that parts of the resolution of the story appear on the other comments on this board, so I will refrain. Suffice to say that Streisand not only discredits Wallach quite well, but she also manages to trace her choice of profession to a damaged childhood. NUTS, as I said before, did not get the exposure of THE WAY WE WERE or WHAT'S UP DOC? or THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES or YENTL as a key performance in the Streisand legend, and yet it bears comparison to them or her two appearances as Fanny Brice. Why was it ignored? I suspect it was that it came at the point where Streisand began making movies every couple of years instead of year after year, and that it was also made just before the change in Streisand film career when she turned director as well as actor. YENTL, THE PRINCE OF TIDES, and THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES were far more personal films than NUTS was. Then again, it was not the first time Streisand handled the role of a hooker. She played a similar role in THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT opposite George Segal (although that was a comedy, not a drama). So it fell into a hole in the Streisand career - and was unfairly forgotten. It should not be, for it was well made, well acted, and thoughtful about the causes of the choices in lifestyles we make. I give it "10" out of "10".

Like most issues in life, the question of sanity vs. insanity isn't nearly as cut and dried as it might seem on the surface. And Nuts is a film which definitely dives beneath the surface, and brings up some intriguing issues. Nuts is based on the true story of Claudia Draper (Barbra Streisand), a high priced call girl who killed a john (Leslie Nielsen) in self defense. The facts leading up to the murder are told in flashbacks that leave little question as to the nature of the killing. It's the aftermath that is both surprising and disconcerting. Claudia's mother (Maureen Stapleton) and step father (Karl Malden), wishing to cover up any embarrassment over the crime, decide to have Claudia declared criminally insane. While Claudia doesn't wish to have this happen, her general paranoia and lack of cooperation don't help her case much. When she breaks her attorney's nose for not doing what she wishes, she is indeed institutionalized, pending further evaluation and another hearing. Her court appointed attorney, Aaron Levinsky (Richard Dreyfuss), also finds her less than cooperative, but ultimately comes to agree that she shouldn't be declared insane. However, with Claudia as a client, Levinsky has his work cut out for him as they try to convince Judge Stanley Murdoch (James Whitmore) that Claudia shouldn't be institutionalized for the rest of her life. This is a fascinating story, told with a great deal of skill. While Claudia does seem insane at first - violently so - as the film delves into her background and the events leading up to the murder, the audience discovers a very intelligent, very disillusioned woman. Her disillusionment has turned her both cynical and abrasive. She trusts no one because those she has trusted have repeatedly let her down, or even abused her. Nonetheless, in order for Claudia to win her freedom, she must learn to trust both Levinsky and Murdoch. Her growth as she begins to do so is most satisfying to watch. Streisand turns in another excellent performance, showing both her skill and her range as an actress. Her portrayal of Claudia shows the many facets of the character with astonishing skill. Dreyfuss also turns in his usual skilled performance as a lawyer who becomes more passionate about the case the longer he is involved with it. His eventual concern for Claudia is touching. Stapleton does a nice job of showing a woman who blinds herself to what she doesn't want to see, only to be forced to face it, and realize the damage she has done. Her regret is skillfully portrayed. Malden gives off a smarmy arrogance that is perfectly appropriate to his character, only to reveal a pitiful sort of vulnerability when the mask is stripped away. Whitmore does a wonderful job maintaining control in a situation that frequently threatens to get out of control. And Elizabeth Hoffman's cameo is amusing and skillfully done. This is a disturbing film, and not one that is for the faint of heart - or even not a Streisand fan. Strangely, there was also a great deal of criticism for the fact that Claudia is not a "nice" character. But the point the film makes is that Claudia's only reward for being "nice" was to be mistreated. It's small wonder that she's not "nice." Still, this movie is a skillful portrayal of her story, and she does become a sympathetic character by the end of the movie. Overall, a thought provoking film, and one that gets better with repeated viewings.

This movie just serves as a star vehicle for Barbra Streisand. While it has a credible plot that kept me watching till the end, it is very contrived film. When the movie starts Barbra's lawyer is trying to prove to a judge that she is mentally ill, so that her parents are saved the embarrassment of a public trial, which will surely reveal that their daughter is a hooker. She punches her lawyer who abandons the case and the judge appoints a new lawyer for her. But even though she is sane, she doesn't really acts like that. She is openly hostile to her lawyer who is trying to help and refuses to submit to an independent psychological examination that can help her case. When the hearing starts she constantly interrupts it. And somehow the judge never holds her in contempt but just keeps giving her warning after warning. I do realize that she was a victim of child abuse and she is angry, but she is a big girl and is living as hooker for past 3 years. So I found the the whole affair very fake.

"Nuts" is one of those set-piece courtroom dramas that feel too slick, too pat, too contrived to really work, despite some excellent work by Richard Dreyfuss, Eli Wallach, and especially Maureen Stapleton. Even Barbra Streisand (definitely NOT one of my favorites) isn't too bad when she's not too busy chewing the scenery to pieces. However, this movie drones out like a late-80s morality play, or even an acting-class extemporaneous psychodrama. It hits all the right PC notes: a stepfather who is a sexual predator, an alcoholic mother who (maybe) unwittingly pimps out her daughter for security, a physically abusive husband, not to mention the lawyer who wants to get rid of her quickly, the other lawyer who risks everything for justice, the uncaring hospital administrator/psychiatrist who ... well, I'm sure you're getting the picture. The most egregious is when the WASPy lawyer and psychiatrist get their panties in a bunch when she starts talking about sex and prostitution, as if they've never dealt with it before. All we're missing here is a learning disorder. All of this is mere prologue for Streisand to strike a blow for feminists by declaring that her life choices are her responsibility (true) and that they want to label her as crazy and lock her up forever because she's dared to do things that men don't like, and they're afraid of her power (huh?). Maybe it's symbolism, but it's laid on very, very thick, and Streisand's tendency to overact doesn't help. The result of all this contrivance is that the story feels false, the characters feel false, and a good deal of what goes on in the courtroom isn't at all realistic. James Whitmore as the judge gives the most realistic performance, but it's not the actors -- it's the script itself. People contradict themselves in ways inconsistent to their characters. For instance, Karl Malden as the stepfather makes a very incriminating contradiction on the witness stand. Would a man who had successfully hidden his abuse of his stepdaughter for 20-odd years suddenly crack under 5 minutes of unremarkable questioning? Not likely. Would a psychiatrist who had testified in "hundreds" of hearings admit any personal bias by accident as shown here? Not likely. However, there are some good performances that definitely lend tension to the movie, and even though this has very obviously been adapted from a stage play, it avoids that flat, almost-video look that so many movies from the 80s tend to have. It's watchable but not remarkable -- I gave it a 6.

It's hard to appreciate this film if you were raised on a strict diet of, say, Law & Order, The Practice, even Ally McBeal. The courtroom conduct makes more modern viewers shout out our own relevance objections when Richard Dreyfuss fails to do so. In the light of what we're used to, the trial scenes are almost painfully inept--on both sides of the aisle. And nowadays, network TV has more wrenching depictions of child abuse story lines, but if it hadn't been for this film and others like it, we wouldn't be where we are. They broke ground, and the dramas that followed refined the plot lines and honed the tension. Yes, Streisand is impressive in this role, mixing the high and low of top-dollar call-girl with the stereotypical hooker's slang and crudity. Dreyfuss' incompetence as an attorney in this mental competence hearing at first suggests he's off his game, but it slowly dawns that the actor is portraying a mediocre lawyer, a creature nigh-extinct in today's movies and programs. This average solicitor doesn't miraculously discover the tongue of William Jennings Bryan, nor does he find himself trampled by opposing counsel. As Dreyfuss' character puts it after Streisand has "excused" her first, high-priced attorney, "You had good. Now you've got me." That is precisely the character Dreyfuss portrays. The film forces comparison with another Dreyfuss-courtroom drama, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" also based on a play. "Nuts" falls short in that competition, even though the sophistication of the characters' understandings of mental states is almost equally dated and thus incredulous to latter-day viewers. In "Horses," it's easier to imagine that the good guys might just lose, and for a courtroom drama, that's a crucial uncertainty. Further, Dreyfuss' quadruple amputee character in "Horses" puts forth a more apparent and accessible frame of mind than Streisand's in "Nuts." She is more animalistic, less eloquent, more bitterly insulting, less achingly sardonic. We can relate more to him, because we're given more to work with. If you want to rediscover some of the roots of commonplace legal story lines we see in primetime, both films are worth the time.

In New York, the public defender Aaron Levinsky (Richard Dreyfuss) witnesses the high-class call girl Claudia Draper (Barbra Streisand) beating her attorney while waiting for his hearing in the courtroom. Judge Stanley Murdoch (James Whitmore) assigns him to defend Claudia and soon he learns that she killed her client Allen Green (Leslie Nielsen) in self-defense. However, her mother Rose Kirk (Maureen Stapleton) and her wealthy stepfather Arthur Kirk (Karl Malden) want her declared mentally incompetent to go on trial. Dr. Herbert A. Morrison (Eli Wallach) prepares a medical report stating that she is mentally unstable to support the trial, but Claudia wants to prove that she is sane; otherwise she would spend the rest of her life in a mental institution. Along the hearing, the District Attorney Francis MacMillan (Robert Webber) and Levinsky question the defendant, her mother, her stepfather and Dr. Morring and the painful truth about Claudia's childhood is disclosed. "Nuts" is one of the best courtroom dramas ever made. The story is developed practically in one location, but the performances are awesome highlighting Barbra Streisand. This actress deserved at least a nomination to the Oscar. The conclusion has a corny moment, when Claudia hugs her mother. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Querem me Enlouquecer" ("They Want to Drive me Crazy") Note: On 12 Nov 2018 I saw this film again.

It's interesting, in looking through the "official" reviews of this film that such questionable illuminaries of film criticism as Roger Ebert seemed to miss the point: the desire to mark Claudia as insane seems to run strongly through reviewers, much as it does through the courtroom that the film portrays. Streisand plays an abrasive, uncooperative, deeply rebellious person. Clearly, she's shown as intelligent. Clearly, she understands the rules of the game; she just doesn't want to play. I find it interesting that so many people seem to consider her insane, at the same time that Nicholson's McMurphy is a rebellious revolutionary hero, working against a repressive system. It's passe to suggest that sexism plays a role in how we view movies, but this one points it out on two levels: Claudia's trap, in the film, bears an uncanny resemblance to the trap the film's been placed in by reviewers: the fact that she isn't a nice housewife seems to suggest to many that she's unstable. Sure, the movie (like the play) uses the facile psychological excuse of childhood molestation to explain her refusal to play the good-girl game. But maybe, just maybe, she refuses to play because she recognizes that she's not allowed to win. It's not for those who hate Streisand on principle, certainly. But, if you're willing to take a tough walk through the definition of sanity and the gendering of that idea, take a look at this film.

This movie is very psychological and emotional. The realism of Claudia's abuse as a child and its effects on her life as an adult is very heart-wrenching. It made me so furious to see Claudia's helplessness in a fight against the judicial system and her wealthy parents. It is depressing to see just how far the power of money can take us as a society - free killers and lock up (in this case institutionalise) the innocent. It is even more terrifying to know what kind of "licensed professionals" get to judge people's "mental capacity." This movie shows that there is still some hope and justice in the world.

Badly neglected by both audiences and critics at the time of it's original release, NUTS is a film that is ripe for reevaluation. Based on Tom Toplor's 1981 courtroom play, NUTS is definitely a dialogue-based film with little Hollywood flashiness. Though extremely well-written (by Toplor, adapting his own work with Darryl Ponicsan and Alvin Sargent) and sharply staged and directed by veteran Martin Ritt, it is the cast whom is really responsible bringing NUTS to life. Barbra Streisand gives an absolutely bravura performance that should have earned her an Oscar nomination. Alternately hilarious and frightening, Streisand is always mesmerizing as she delves so far into character. Richard Dreyfess is nothing less than Streisand's equal as her public defender. He too was robbed of an Oscar nomination. The supporting cast is a top-notch ensemble of professional character actors (Maureen Stapleton, Eli Wallach, Robert Webber, James Whitmore, and Karl Malden), all of whom work their craft flawlessly. NUTS' screenplay does indulge in the predictability of some of the typical courtroom-plot conventions a little too often, but Toplor's absorbing script still deserves high praise for it's fascinating exploration of what constitutes as normality and whether or not the insane should be required to receive treatment. NUTS isn't going to win over any fans of 3-cuts-per-second action films, but it will leave lovers of thought-provoking, expertly-acted dramas fascinated.

Manhattan call-girl has to prove her sanity in a courtroom hearing after she has killed a client; she says it was in self-defense, but now her mental state and her lifestyle--as well as her tumultuous childhood--are on trial. "Nuts" presents a dilemma for director Martin Ritt and his screenwriters, Tom Topor, Darryl Ponicsan and Alvin Sargent, working from Topor's play: how do you get an audience to sympathize with the heroine of your story, one who has a short fuse, a nasty disposition, and who rubs everybody else the wrong way? It probably wasn't possible, and protagonist Claudia Draper is an exasperating, meddling, infernal creation. Barbra Streisand obviously saw in the material a meaty dramatic role for herself as an actress and, although perhaps a bit too old for the part of Claudia Draper, she tackles the project with relish. Unfortunately, "Nuts" opens with such a flurry of manic energy that it's predictable the film won't be able to sustain or match that intensity for the rest of its length. Once the introductions are out of the way, the film settles into a talky, stagy formula, one complete with showboating solo moments for Streisand and most of her co-stars (with the exception of Richard Dreyfuss as her legal representative, who makes a bigger impact simply by keeping a lower profile). Streisand's abrasive Claudia is really the whole picture, and Barbra chews up so much scenery in the course of two hours I'd be surprised if she didn't hit the gym afterward. Still, a piece like this needs an electric personality in the lead if it's going to work at all, and Streisand does more for the role than a less-dynamic actress might have. Not a great picture by any means, and with an amusing/puzzling final shot of Streisand at the end, but one that is well-produced, interestingly edited and full of top talent and style. **1/2 from ****