Customer Reviews

Woman Under the Influence (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I haven't been able to think about anything but this film for some time now. The truth of the matter is that no matter how frustrating the film can be and no matter how irritating the actions of many people within the film may be, the powerful performance by Gena Rowlands is so powerful that it makes the entire exercise well worth it. After seeing this film a few times and salivating over this woman's complete transformation I'm ready and willing to say that she delivers what may possibly be the finest performance by any actress ever committed to the big screen.

So, regardless of your feelings on the film in general, there is no denying that this brilliantly constructed performance deserves to be seen.

The film tells the story of Nick and Mabel Longhetti. They are a middle aged married couple with three kids and a big problem; Mabel isn't all there. Mabel suffers from a mental illness that causes her to repel those around her, especially her husband Nick, who loves her but doesn't understand how to deal with her.

The film is basically a study of what mental illness really is, literally and figuratively. Mabel is the one suffering literally, but Nick is definitely ill and or mad in a more figurative sense; thus making him the more dangerous and unlikable character. His madness transcends the boundaries of `frustrated victim' and he becomes an enabler and an abuser in order to try and restore some sense of order in his home. Mabel, the primary cause of all the turmoil, is never acting out of malicious intent but is always portrayed as trying to restore some sort of peace, and so her actions are perceived as normal compared to her husbands reactions to them. Sure, she is a little eccentric, but her madness is almost dwarfed by the effect it has on those around her.

This was such a smart move, because it challenges all we know about what the true sense of mental deterioration is. Mabel seems to be normal to us; we love her and appreciate her and want her to succeed. Nick appears to be the insane one, thus further impressing on us the off-kilter appearance of normalcy.

It's a bold move, but in my opinion it was well worth it in this case.

While I personally was off put by the unresolved ending provided to the film, I must say that it adds a layer of stark realism to the films controversial subject matter. I won't say how the film ends, but in my opinion it was probably the way it needed to end, regardless of how I would have liked things to end. The thin line between mental health and regression is kept throughout the film and thus is something of a conversation starter upon the films conclusion.

Who was really crazy; Nick or Mabel?

Were they both?

Neither?

I also thought that the reactions from friends and family were pertinent to the morale of the film. Having the varying degrees of their individual stances on the subject made known helped create an ambiguous tone to the film. This is not a film that sports any answers to the questions it asks but forces the audience to decide for themselves.

I do admit that this film will be off putting to some. The ending, the whole idea of Nick, as well as some other ways in which the disease is regarded may turn some off to the concept director John Cassavetes was toying with here, but truly this is an art piece that deserves to be seen and discussed. I personally love this movie and find it to be a startling and very intensely frank portrait of the American marriage, complete with its ups and downs. It is less a film about mental disease and more a film about human relationships and the excuses we make for our selfish and domineering behavior. Using the backdrop of mental insanity in order to explore this subject was an inspired decision.

Peter Falk as the confused blue-collar husband who is in over his head dealing with mental illness is the performance of a generation. He makes it seem so real and speaks for an entire slice of the American dream. Columbo made him a household name, but this movie shows how great he really was.

In light of more than thirty-five years after this film was made, one can observe that without a shadow of doubt the seventies were by far, the golden years of the introspective drama like no other else. Films of the artistic level such as Sybil, Dog day afternoon, Scarecrow, Equus, Network, Three women or The woman under the influence are totally missed.

This is an ambitious and harrowing drama focusing the crumbling process of madness around a lower-middle-class housewife, searching for her identity, devastatingly acted by Gena Rowlands.

John Casavettes - like others emblematic directors like Lumet, Pakula, Jerzy Schatzberg or Robert Altman - knew to undertake this project into a depressive historical period of the North American society. Vietnam and Watergate became for many a turning point in their lives and a big query in the air about the hopeless future.

I cannot give this film five stars due it's overlong and at times overindulgent. Despite of it, the film is hailed and adored for many people around the world, due its implacable realism. It's a stark vision of the family in those years.

A film that must be seen, due it was without hesitation the masterwork of John Casavettes.

Gena, Gena, Gena; great again in a hard role, portraying a sad, lost woman, who it turns out, may be more sane than most of her family and friends. Misunderstood, with a reputation for questionable judgement, wife and mother Mabel tries to behave in ways that are "appropriate", but is constantly under watchful scrutiny for any signs of inappropriate behavior. Once again, her physicality is forceful, believable and somewhat shocking to view, but as part of the character is a sad part of the pain she lives with, trying to please everyone while ultimately harming only herself. Would recommend this as a well-acted film, portraying our inner selves which cannot always connect with others' expectations.

See "G. Merritt" (not a relative of mine, so far as I know) on this same page for an excellent summation of the plot. I won't rehash that, I'll only offer my strongest recommendation for seeing the film. The work of John Cassavetes, as others have mentioned, is by no means mainstream, so it might be advisable to rent one or two of his movies before spending your hard-earned money on the DVD's (I would recommend this and "Husbands" or "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie"). I used to not be able to watch his work, but I've very much grown into it. This, like all his films, is loose, it's long, scenes go on and on to the breaking point, and it offers little in the way of traditional narrative closure. Once you get into the rhythm of it, though, it will completely suck you in.

It helps, of course, that at its center is one of the truly great performances in cinema history. The always-amazing Gena Rowlands is so stellar, so courageous and fearless, and so nakedly out there in this film that it's often difficult to watch. She will absolutely blow you away. It's acting that ranks right up there in movie history with Scott as Patton, Guinness in "Bridge on the River Kwai," Kingsley as Gandhi...and anything else you can think of. It's astounding. For her alone, this is worth seeing, again and again.

A Woman Under the Influence is an emotionally packed film that is centered around a capricious yet troubled housewife named Mabel. Mother to three young children and wife to her loving but volatile husband Nick, Mabel's mind is consumed with gaining acceptance and being reassured by those who surround her. Her psychological ability to keep up with normal everyday situations eventually reaches full capacity and she struggles to maintain emotional and mental competency.

Director Cassavetes intentionally chooses not to grant clemency to the viewer. Imagine walking in late to an opera that's in it's third act - that almost seems like what Cassavetes does to the audience - introducing his depiction of a distressed family while they're in mid flight. Gena Rowlands' portrayal of the likeable but frail Mabel is nothing short of incredible, and Peter Falk gives an equally remarkable performance as Mabel's husband Nick. This film is not for the weak-hearted nor for those seeking traditional entertainment. It's distinctive approach to such an emotional journey will undoubtedly impede many viewer's enjoyment - but for those who appreciate unique cinema and realism, it doesn't get much better than this.

There's nothing perfect about this film. It was independently produced because big shots like MGM, Paramount, and Warner Brothers despised the director. The Director, Nick Cassavetes despised them, if not more so in return. The lead actress, Gena Rowlands has no identity in the film, as she has no idea who she really is, though her husband played by Peter Falk keeps reminding her, "just be yourself." The mothers of the troubled couple are depicted by the real life mothers of Ms. Rowlands and Mr. Cassavetes, so the film blurs the line between fiction and reality. Additionally, Ms. Rowlands and Mr. Cassavetes were husband and wife when the film was made in 1974. It reeks of nepotism. However, with crucial performances from Rowlands and Falk, and the unbridled and daring direction of Cassavetes, this one will forever burn in mind and smolder in memory as one of the best pictures produced in 1974. There's nothing perfect about this film, except the perfection of its inherent flaws.

John Cassavetes was one of those rare artists of whom it could be said that his flaws were his strengths, and his strengths were his flaws. On a purely technical level, his 1974 film, A Woman Under The Influence, is not a very good film. It is often poorly lit, edited, and at times poorly acted, almost as badly as Cassavetes' own Minnie And Moscowitz. Yet, there are moments when its dramatic power rivals that of his first great triumph, Faces, or any other work of drama or fiction. Consequently, the film has to rank somewhere between the two in the Cassavetes canon, and I'd opt for putting it closer to Faces, for, despite its manifest flaws, which I will touch upon, it has moments of sheer brilliance, illumination, and that often misunderstood quality of `artistic honesty', that help it overcome its flaws. To say it is voyeuristic is to be too obvious.... The film follows the doomed marriage of Nick and Mabel Longhetti (Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands), who have three children, Maria (Christina Grisanti), Tony (Matthew Cassel), and Angelo (Matthew Laborteaux), who are not the cute wiseass film kids viewers loathe. He's a foul-mouthed, ignorant, and often physically and emotionally abusive husband and person, while she's a flaming nut case. Many criticisms of the film have tried to leaven such assessments of the two lead characters, but this is because of obvious political or philosophical strains. Anyone who's ever known a family of not quite there folks has known people like the Longhettis, and their bratty children. It is a dysfunctional household, in the modern sense, even though that term had not yet become prevalent when the film was made.
There really is not much of a plot to the film, as in most of Cassavetes' films....Does Cassavetes dig and probe the human psyche in the overt way an Ingmar Bergman does? No. He crafts scenes, sometimes raggedly, and lets us get mere impressions, at times. Cassavetes might be though of as an emotional Impressionist, rather than a visual one. Most of the time, the emotions are spot on, yet every so often an emotional clunker hits....However, Rowlands and Falk give terrific performances, in this acting dominated film. Falk is superb as a clueless bigot, and Rowlands gives a real unhinged performance as the crazy Mabel....Some Feminist critics have tried to claim the film as a document for their wacky theses, stating that Mabel is not crazy, no more so than Nick, and, to a certain extent, they have a point. Nick is a lout, a moron, who lets his kids get drunk on beer with him, and rages against decent people at the drop of the hat....Given that the film clocks in at two and a half hours, he does make great use of silences, as he did in Faces. There is a scene, late in the film, when Nick has been worn down by Mabel and the kids, where he just passes through a doorway, holds it, then inhales deeply. It is a very effective scene.
Cassavetes is, in a way, the Walt Whitman of film, in that his excesses, while technically being excesses, also are indelibly part of what sets him apart from other filmmakers. He lets scenes play on in real time, and often loses control of the scene, but when he is on, he nails things no other filmmaker does- few films have ever portrayed the working class as well as this film does. This film also makes better use of framing and other technical aspects than his earlier films did. Yes, often he makes bizarre edits- such as the earlier scene, where Mabel goes nuts, and is institutionalized. It just ends, mid-sentence, and then we see Nick dealing with his co-workers' knowing of it. But, overall, the film works, more often than not feeling realer than reality often does, and that's the scary part to its success, far more frightening than any Hannibal Lecter film, and like flaws, fear can be a strength. Just as Nick Longhetti.