Crazy 60's Nightmare Woman
Today's review: Petulia.
In my experience, there are two different reasons a movie is called “a product of its time”. One is that it has attitudes that were common in the day but haven’t aged well, and the other is when the aesthetic is completely mired in the era in which it was made. Petulia is mostly an example of the latter, though I would argue that a little bit of the former creeps in as well.
The Petulia of the title is Petulia Danner (Julie Christie), a woman who’s unhappily married to a rich man named David Danner (Richard Chamberlain). As the movie starts, she decides to have an affair, and her target is Doctor Archie Bollen (George C. Scott), who recently got divorced, with the implication being he did it because he wanted something different in his life. Bollen isn’t particularly interested initially, but Petulia is nothing if not persistent, and eventually he goes along with it. Unfortunately, David finds out and decides to do something about it in an unpleasant way. Though personally, I thought the movie was a bit unpleasant before we got to that point.
My biggest issue with the movie is Petulia herself. I mentioned in my Goodbye, Mr. Chips review that while I like the “free-spirited woman improves the life of an uptight man” trope in theory, I generally don’t like the execution, and Petulia is a prime example of this. Not only does she continue to badger Bollen until he finally gives in and starts a relationship with her, some of her ways to get his attention include showing up at his house while he’s on a date with another woman and breaking into a pawn shop to arrive at his house with a tuba (this relates to an earlier conversation they had) and then leaving him to figure out what to do with it. She doesn’t seem to care about anything except herself, and that makes her unpleasant to watch. Making matters worse, she has no chemistry with Scott, which makes later developments even less believable. For Scott’s part, he’s generally okay, but the problem is that he mostly plays things in the same neutral register. This is kind of humorous initially when he’s reacting to Petulia’s attempts to seduce him, but once they’re together, it makes it feel more like he’s humoring her, contributing to that lack of chemistry. He does get a bit more impassioned in the third act, but by then it’s too little, too late. By the end, while you may feel a little sorry for both of them, you aren’t particularly invested either. At best, the ending will make you feel slightly depressed; at worst, it’ll be the cherry on top of an unsatisfying movie.
Now, what about the aesthetics that I mentioned in the opening paragraph? The movie was made in 1968, and it definitely shows. Some of this can be seen in the costumes (particularly Petulia’s outfits), a scene in a club featuring very 60’s sounding music and trippy visuals, a hotel that’s so tacky it becomes kind of amazing (huge novelty keys in order to check in, a tiny fountain with classical looking statues in the hotel room), and a brief encounter with some people who are obviously hippies. The biggest thing that struck me, though, was the non-linear nature of the movie. At random points in the early going, we get flashbacks explaining how and why Petulia came to want to seduce Bollen specifically, as well as occasional flashes of moments that are going to happen later in the movie. The flashbacks I can sort of justify as Petulia’s memory being jogged by something and getting lost in a reverie, but even then, some sort of small transition would have been nice. The flashforwards, on the other hand, have no explanation and serve no real purpose. There’s even one shot of Bollen and Petulia in front of a bridge that never actually happens later on in the movie, thus creating an expectation that’s never fulfilled. I’m sure there was some symbolic reason the filmmakers decided to do this, but in practice, it’s baffling and annoying. Though at least it’s right at home with the rest of the material.
I don’t think this movie is worth watching in any capacity. The story is mediocre at best, the acting isn’t anything special, and unless you really love the look and feel of the 60’s, the style of the movie is going to be more eyebrow raising than entertaining. While you could consider the movie a time capsule, this is one capsule that I think would be better off staying buried.
CAT ALERT, sort of: While a cat doesn’t make a physical appearance in the movie, there is a scene where Bollen and his friends are looking at a slideshow of times they spent together while he was still married, and a few of the pictures involve his wife holding a cat. It doesn’t exactly count, but I figured I’d mention it. On a semi-related note, a few of my readers might be interested to know that there’s an extended scene involving penguins…
In my experience, there are two different reasons a movie is called “a product of its time”. One is that it has attitudes that were common in the day but haven’t aged well, and the other is when the aesthetic is completely mired in the era in which it was made. Petulia is mostly an example of the latter, though I would argue that a little bit of the former creeps in as well.
The Petulia of the title is Petulia Danner (Julie Christie), a woman who’s unhappily married to a rich man named David Danner (Richard Chamberlain). As the movie starts, she decides to have an affair, and her target is Doctor Archie Bollen (George C. Scott), who recently got divorced, with the implication being he did it because he wanted something different in his life. Bollen isn’t particularly interested initially, but Petulia is nothing if not persistent, and eventually he goes along with it. Unfortunately, David finds out and decides to do something about it in an unpleasant way. Though personally, I thought the movie was a bit unpleasant before we got to that point.
My biggest issue with the movie is Petulia herself. I mentioned in my Goodbye, Mr. Chips review that while I like the “free-spirited woman improves the life of an uptight man” trope in theory, I generally don’t like the execution, and Petulia is a prime example of this. Not only does she continue to badger Bollen until he finally gives in and starts a relationship with her, some of her ways to get his attention include showing up at his house while he’s on a date with another woman and breaking into a pawn shop to arrive at his house with a tuba (this relates to an earlier conversation they had) and then leaving him to figure out what to do with it. She doesn’t seem to care about anything except herself, and that makes her unpleasant to watch. Making matters worse, she has no chemistry with Scott, which makes later developments even less believable. For Scott’s part, he’s generally okay, but the problem is that he mostly plays things in the same neutral register. This is kind of humorous initially when he’s reacting to Petulia’s attempts to seduce him, but once they’re together, it makes it feel more like he’s humoring her, contributing to that lack of chemistry. He does get a bit more impassioned in the third act, but by then it’s too little, too late. By the end, while you may feel a little sorry for both of them, you aren’t particularly invested either. At best, the ending will make you feel slightly depressed; at worst, it’ll be the cherry on top of an unsatisfying movie.
Now, what about the aesthetics that I mentioned in the opening paragraph? The movie was made in 1968, and it definitely shows. Some of this can be seen in the costumes (particularly Petulia’s outfits), a scene in a club featuring very 60’s sounding music and trippy visuals, a hotel that’s so tacky it becomes kind of amazing (huge novelty keys in order to check in, a tiny fountain with classical looking statues in the hotel room), and a brief encounter with some people who are obviously hippies. The biggest thing that struck me, though, was the non-linear nature of the movie. At random points in the early going, we get flashbacks explaining how and why Petulia came to want to seduce Bollen specifically, as well as occasional flashes of moments that are going to happen later in the movie. The flashbacks I can sort of justify as Petulia’s memory being jogged by something and getting lost in a reverie, but even then, some sort of small transition would have been nice. The flashforwards, on the other hand, have no explanation and serve no real purpose. There’s even one shot of Bollen and Petulia in front of a bridge that never actually happens later on in the movie, thus creating an expectation that’s never fulfilled. I’m sure there was some symbolic reason the filmmakers decided to do this, but in practice, it’s baffling and annoying. Though at least it’s right at home with the rest of the material.
I don’t think this movie is worth watching in any capacity. The story is mediocre at best, the acting isn’t anything special, and unless you really love the look and feel of the 60’s, the style of the movie is going to be more eyebrow raising than entertaining. While you could consider the movie a time capsule, this is one capsule that I think would be better off staying buried.
CAT ALERT, sort of: While a cat doesn’t make a physical appearance in the movie, there is a scene where Bollen and his friends are looking at a slideshow of times they spent together while he was still married, and a few of the pictures involve his wife holding a cat. It doesn’t exactly count, but I figured I’d mention it. On a semi-related note, a few of my readers might be interested to know that there’s an extended scene involving penguins…