Movies that are slightly off.
Everyone needs to be loved - sometime or another.
The concurrent sexual lives of best friends Jonathan and Sandy are presented, those lives which are affected by the sexual mores of the time and their own temperament, especially in relation to the respective women who end up in their lives.
Well, damn, they don't really make 'em like this anymore, do they?
While the plot to this film is virtually non-existent, with the film simply spanning 25 years in the lives of two college friends with extra focus on the women that come and go in their lives - what the film tries to do is incredibly ambitious. It's not very subtle at times, but I found it fascinating to be given an insight into how these two characters look at intimacy between people, and how these feelings change over the years. The film explores difficult psychological processes in a really honest way. I thought it was extraordinary how, without hammering it home, it highlights so many different views on…
I must confess: I don't much like Jack Nicholson. Well, his movies/acting, I suppose. I always have to be convinced to like them as I watch them, rather than going into them with the expectation of enjoyment. Knowing he is in a film makes me skeptical about it. In this particular film, his performance is neither distractingly hammy (most of his later career) nor nuanced (The Passenger), and therefore, I remained unconvinced. It's a flaw, this default prejudice, but I am trying to own it.
The film depicts two men who both treat women as objects in their own ways. Nicholson's character embodies confident misogyny while Art Garfunkel's (I know, right) character is a shy, nerdish sort. Both have unrealistic…
Outside of the phenomenal performances, this was pretty standard. Nichols has always been able to get great performances out of his actors. My main problem with his work is how drawn out every film of his is. His stuff begins to really drag for me around the midway point, despite of the great performances onscreen. A big problem with this was that Nichols doesn't really explore the characters. For a film that runs its course like a play, this really could have benefited from doing so. Nichols one grazes the surface of these characters. The fight scenes between characters do not have then power they need because of this. Whereas the scenes of relationship turmoil in Bergman's Scenes From a…
If Easy Rider introduced Jack to the masses and Five Easy Pieces proved he could really act, then Carnal Knowledge cemented the Jack persona for the next 40 years. I swear every line he speaks in the film is quintessential Jack. It might as well be a dramatization about his actual sex life and the self-centered asshole mentality he flaunted with such ease. And leave it to Mike Nichols to deliver still-contemporary direction. Less ahead of its time and more a long-lasting style of storytelling that adapts over time. Like a fine wine, the narrative techniques haven't aged. If you made the film today, set it in 1971 but kept Nichols' same approach, it would still feel fresh.
Mike and Dave's Scavenger Hunt, Vol. 1!, #3: Watch an unseen Jack Nicholson film (letterboxd.com/michaeleternity/list/mike-and-daves-scavenger-hunt-vol-1/)
If you can picture it, this is like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" meets an '80s sex comedy like "The Last American Virgin". Not what I expected, much more substantial and resonant, a real punch-in-the-heart downer about how diseased and bleak love and relationships (and even life) can turn out. Fantastically douche-y performances from everyone, especially of course Jack Nicholson; only the 2nd searing, dense, larger-than-life performance (of eventually dozens) in his career, and already as creepy and loathsome as any antagonist he ever played. He wasted no time subverting his growing star status for the integrity of interesting roles. He did the same thing…
look at these assholes.
Can you believe that there are TWO movies where Art Garfunkel is nude? What a world we live in.
brb just gonna hack my dick off and throw it in the sea
Not exactly my kind of a movie as far as its themes and subject go, but evetually it won me over.
An odd pastiche of 20th Century American theater and Philip Roth filmed in a Hollywood approximation of Rohmer with a few added stylistic quirks... I feel like I shouldn't like this as much as I do.
There is some undoubtedly great direction within Mike Nichols' Carnal Knowledge - it brisks effortlessly through time whilst still maintaining appropriate character development, which is achieved from filmmaking that positions every moment like it is urgent and necessary. It is hard to shake the feeling though that most of Nichols' early film is simply posturing and merely flirting with the ideas that become fully realised within the brilliant Closer, a film which I absolutely adore. The cast certainly have the gumption for the material, especially Nicholson and Ann-Margaret, who share some vicious and lively scenes that instantly add weight to film that could otherwise be described as flighty.
Art Garfunkel isn't even bad in this but Art Garfunkel?
I had seen this before. I remember being a young teen and thinking, "Showtime. Late night. Carnal. I bet there's nudity" I was far too young to understand what this film was about. In fact, my teen sexual impulses parallel the immaturity exhibited by our male protagonists.
Rewatching as an adult, this is rough, primarily because of the amount of self-reflection one must do...especially as a man. Its a story of sexuality without connection. Lust without passion. And the final scene with Rita Moreno's prostitute exemplifies what that life could lead to.
Nichols directs this slow, methodical, and emotionless. A passive observer, unwilling to engage with the characters. Incredible long takes, pregnant with information and subtext.
The opening shot lasts…
a leggere le critiche che si trovano in rete si rischia di smontare il film. In realtà si tratta di un quasi capolavoro sulle meschinità legate al sesso e sulle illusioni create dalla sua idealizzazione. A uscirne malconcio è principalmente l'uomo, animale disposto a tutto pur di placare il proprio istinto, che ha la meglio sulla donna, più razionale e proprio per questo è destinata a soccombere. Nicholson 34enne è magnifico e Art Garfunkel perfetto per il ruolo. la regia, che molti definiscono datata e pretenziosa, l'ho trovata invece incisiva e sufficientemente brutale. La bellissima sceneggiatura è del grande Jules Feiffer, cartoonist da me molto amato, nonché vincitore del Pulizer nell'86.
A sometimes funny but mostly sad examination of the pathetic sad lives of men objectifying women. The powerful and insightful script, which is relevant up to now, takes a look at the expectations of masculinity with a bite of the offensiveness that it brings to women. The acting also gives justice to the almost stage-play cinematography which, I think, makes the film more than just a drama about relationships.
[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!