Petulia

source: Petulia

1968 was a remarkable year in the history of cinema. Films as Pasolini's "Teorema", Anderson's "if...." and Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", among others, reflected the times of sudden and often violent changes people were experiencing all over the world. "Petulia" is among those motion pictures, but it is obvious Warner Brothers executives did not realize what had director Richard Lester delivered, and handled the product badly, as the original trailer eloquently shows. I finally had the opportunity to see it after many years, since I saw it included in a list of best films, in James Monaco's book "American Film Now". "Petulia" (based on the novel by John Haase, "Me and the Arch Kook Petulia") touches neuralgic issues of difficult times in the United States in an oblique manner, not to avoid them, but because its center is the title character played by Julie Christie (excellent as usual): hippie culture, racial conflicts, Vietnam, drugs, illegal immigration, the intrusion of technology in the bedroom, and middle-class betrayal before the reign of so-called "savage capitalism", all appear as variables in the drama of a young woman abused by her husband. The script of "Petulia" is a guide to moderation and restraint: the film does not emphasize nor is it redundant, but paints all those aspects as integral parts of the portrait of a British woman trapped in (and adapted to) the life of her rich and influential in-laws, and whose intent of rupture is as fragile, fragmented and banal as her personal structure. This is told in a most innovative way for its time, which makes it more regrettable that the film was handled as a pop extravaganza, when it was an innovative and puzzling product with a structure that demanded a more intellectual participation from the audience; and with an organic use of the flash-forward technique (proposed by its editor, Antony Gibbs), an anticipation device that would become common practice in later years (it is interesting to note that five years later the cinematographer of "Petulia", Nicolas Roeg, would direct Julie Christie in the horror drama "Don't Look Now", which contains a scene film editors often mention as an outstanding example of the flash-forward technique, a sex scene inter-cut with takes of the following scene, edited by Graeme Clifford). For many who only think of Richard Lester as the maker of The Beatles movie, "Petulia" is one of several titles of his making that ask for a reconsideration of his work, which also includes very enjoyable period comedies as "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum", "Robin and Marian", "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers".

I stumbled across "Petulia" late one night somewhere on cable and quickly became entranced by the mixed up, alarming and sensitive story. Julie Christie and George C. Scott are amazing in this tale of bad marriages and mistakes. Richard Chamberlain, who is chilling to look at no matter what the role, plays the slightly-insane prison-warden husband of Petulia so well it makes your hair stand-on-end with disturbance. Lester's cinematography is amazing - manipulating the scenic San Francisco landscape to its diabolical best - even better than Hitchcock in "Vertigo". It especially captures the essence of the city in its heyday of hippie-drugged-ness, adding another layer to the film's drama. The quick cross-cutting by Lester adds to the disturbing stream-of-consciousness and rich visual chemistry of the film. The 1960's drug culture poignantly juxtaposes the upright middle-class marriages of the main characters, adding color and quirkiness to the already-strange montage. I especially enjoyed George C. Scott in sport coat & tie on the floor of the Fillmore dancing to the Grateful Dead. Petulia is the cross-over character: a free spirit with a tuba in white maribou, being shut up in a stuffy mansion in Marin County, with an abusive, plastic husband. "Petulia" is a wonderful, alarming, disturbing gem of a film that has soaring hope and chilling visuals. Not a film to be missed.

In 1980, Nicholas Roeg (who served as the cinematographer on this film) made a groundbreaking, stunning portrayal of a dysfunctional romance told in fractured, elliptical narrative fragments called "Bad Timing". In many ways, "Petulia" serves as a predecessor to that wonderful film, as it tells a similar story using a similarly disjointed technique. However, as a film this one, while not bad, barely holds a candle to Roeg's later masterpiece. Although Roeg's cinematography is often excellent, the story is very promising, and there are even a number of good scenes, as a whole it just doesn't quite come together. For one thing, the film feels more like an attempt at hip, edgy '60s art film-making from conventional Hollywood filmmakers than the real deal (note the overabundance of melodramatic, overwrought soundtrack music). It seems more like a self-conscious imitation of "Pierrot le fou" or "Blowup" than anything that comes close to comparing to the artistic integrity of those films, and consequently has dated very badly in a way those films have not. Also the dialogue is often frustratingly awkward in a way that I am not sure was intentional, or rather what the intended tone of the dialogue was suppose to be. Was it meant to be post-modern and ironic? Or is it really just insipid Hollywood melodrama dressed up with flashy psychedelic cinematography and set design? Considering the degree to which the film disintegrates into pure conventional sappiness by the end (the last scene being almost painfully mawkish), I fear it may be the latter. It is really a shame, because based on the premise alone the film did not at all need to be that way. There are actually enough good moments that it makes it all the more regrettable that ultimately the filmmakers could not overcome cliché.

Julie Christie is unforgettable as the lost and abused wife of an insane husband chillingly played by Richard Chamberlain. Looking for love she throws herself at the equally lost George C. Scott. John Barry's subtle score adds a gentle, poignant edge to the package.

Tonight was my first ever viewing of this film by Richard Lester. As the movie began, I was somewhat thrown off, as the editing is somewhat "jumpy" and the story is presented out of sequence, so it's rather like pieces of a puzzle coming together. The film is both set and shot in 1967 San Francisco and does a beautiful job presenting what it was like there at that time (or, at least how I imagined things were, as I wasn't around at that time.) The first scene is just flat out bizarre: A dance for car accident victims being held in the lobby of a posh-looking San Francisco hotel. The guests all looking very mod yet rich and "establishment," many of them over 50. And the live band providing the entertainment is none other than San Francisco's own Big Brother and the Holding Company with Janis Joplin on lead vocals. There's a shot of an elderly woman in a wheelchair, dressed and coiffed beautifully, with her neck in a tortuous looking brace being pushed quietly through a service area on her way to the festivities and then a quick, jarring cut to James Gurley, one of Big Brother's guitarists, playing a psychedelic riff, then a quick cut back to the woman in the wheelchair, then back to the lobby floor festivities where Joplin is singing at the top of her lungs next to Sam Andrews playing guitar whilst well-dressed party goers (looking very decidedly unlike a typical Big Brother crowd,) boogie all around them. What a way to start a film! I was initially distracted, but soon enough the characters began to emerge and the story unfolded. The main characters include George C. Scott as a newly divorced 40ish doctor and the incredibly beautiful Julie Christie as a newly married 20ish "kooky" character who decides somewhere between Big Brother's "Road Block" and "Down On Me" that she's going to have an affair with the good doctor. Despite the rather raucous and disjointed beginning, this film does have an interesting plot, as it turns out; one just has to be patient as it slowly and tantalizingly begins to unfold. Nothing is as it seems at first, and there are plenty of surprises in store. Also featured in the cast are the wonderful Shirley Knight, who gives a powerhouse performance, and Richard Chamberlain in a very off-beat role for him. I didn't know where the film was going for awhile. But I think that is one of its many charms: It's unpredictability. I would highly recommend this to anyone who appreciates something different and thought-provoking. 9/10

I may be about to annoy a lot of very nice and very clever people who have taken the time to comment on "Petulia" eruditely and sincerely. I have read them all and even the ones I disagree strongly with are well - argued and,in the spirit of fairness have marked them up positively for their style if not their content. Having said all that I feel I must record that I found it to be pretentious, derivative and self - indulgent......a typical Richard Lester film in fact. Stealing other film -makers' tricks and jumbling them together doesn't make him an "auteur" any more than a musician who steals other players' licks and jumbles them up becomes an innovator. By the time he did "The running,jumping and Standing Still" movie in 1960 just about the only person in the UK still doing "The Goons" was Prince Charles."It's Trad Dad" was straightforward exploitation,"The mouse on the moon" a tired follow - up to the vastly superior "The mouse that roared". Then we come to his two movies with the Beatles - and here I am well aware I am treading on sacred ground for millions of admirers of the lovable mop - tops,but basically they were a rag - bag of gimmicks based around pointing his camera at the boys while they did their schtick.He got lucky and rode on their coat tails ,as did many another lesser - talent. With "Petulia" his dependence upon the work of superior Contitnental European directors was nearly total.His work wasn't mere "Hommage",it was multi - sourced plagiarism (there's no such thing in Art of course, it's merely "In the school of"...). It is beautifully photographed by Nicholas Roeg,a man who,in turn, would pay "Hommage" to Mr Lester.And so it goes. If you think "Blow - Up" is Antonioni's great statement on the 1960s in so -called "Swinging London" and Mr Lester's "The Knack" a film that shaped a generation then I suspect "Petulia" will be fine for you. If,on the other hand you think Antonioni's movie was an overblown con trick and "The Knack" too clever by half,then you may prefer to watch the very beautiful Miss Christie and the admirable Mr Scott in some other movie.Perhaps one where the director isn't always shouting "watch me - I'm going to amaze you".

There's a reason this "undiscovered gem" remains undiscovered: It's lousy. On just about all counts. Considering the talent involved, it's surprising how bad it is. How can a Richard Lester film be so boring? The characters are completely unsympathetic and underdeveloped. The scene between George C. Scott and Shirley Knight is designed to reveal the essence of their failed relationship, but it's so shallow, all I could focus on was who's gonna clean up the food he threw at her? Richard Chamberlain's portrayal of an inattentive, abusive husband is totally unconvincing, though the real fault is in the writing. And Julie Christie, looking beautiful in her prime, has to be referred to by everyone as a "kook" several times, otherwise we might not get it. Wasted too, are the amazing San Francisco locations. Nicholas Roeg had every opportunity to showcase this picturesque city, but instead fills the frame with ugly, dated interiors. This humorless look at troubled losers never gets off the ground.

I was reviewing Julie Christie's career on the net, and, of course, came across one of my favorite's. As expected, the leads are the best...over time and effort. I saw it the year it was released. It still stays with me...clearly and distinctly. From Chamberlain to Knight and Joseph Cotton, everybody stands out. The director uses the Bay area quite nicely as the backdrop. If it was on tonight, on the cable, I would be sure to watch it. I viewed the movie through the eyes of Scott's character. He is in the middle of the late 60's and lost and his wife, Shirley Knight, just doesn't get it. What is the fuss. Kooky or straight, average wage earner or wealthy, they all are portrayed well... as their lives intersect. Yes it is a slice of life, in the vein of the theatre of the absurd...yet it made so much sense as I was watching it. Later Scott played a head surgeon in a New York hospital opposite Diana Rugg. It was as though the character in Petulia got transferred to New York, still lost but still the good doctor. Julie Christie continues to work when she wants to and picks her projects well. Unlike one of the reviewers on this site, Christie did significant work in Afterglow with Nick Nolte in the mid 90's. How could he drop that from his memory bank. Petulia is well worth the concentrated effort it takes to watch.

I adore this film and I'm so surprised that it doesn't have a higher score for user votes. I stumbled on this film on cable and was mesmerized. It's truly is fabulous - if it sounds like I'm gushing over it, it's because that's precisely what I'm doing. Julie Christie is just awesome in this film. She so kinetic, and of course, beautiful. The biggest surprise for me was watching Richard Chamberlain. I always thought of him as just the King of Television Mini-Series, and he was so utterly different in this than what I grew up thinking him to be. The film is so stylistic - wonderful the way it plays with time and images. Petulia is the best hidden surprise that I've stumbled on in the last 5 years. Now if someone would only release it on DVD - PLEASE!