Carnal Knowledge (1971) User Reviews

A Depressing Descent Into The Land Of Sexual Frustration

[blakiepeterson · 7/10 · 2 May 2015]

The men in Carnal Knowledge know that there is a connection between sex and happiness, but they don't know how to grab them and bridge the gap. We first meet them as young collegians, impressionable, horny, and hugely vulnerable. Sandy (Art Garfunkel) and Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) know nothing about how the world of romance works, but Jonathan feels the need to act as though he is wiser than Sandy, a Lothario with a line of invisible women in his wake.

One would expect the brash and shrewdly confident Jonathan to get a girl first, but it is actually Sandy, who finds and wins the attention of the intelligent Susan (Candice Bergen). Susan is perhaps too strong-willed to be tied down to Sandy, who is sensitive and much too lenient on the opinions of his peers. Eventually, Jonathan sets aside the burgeoning feelings of his friend and begins an affair with Susan himself, which doesn't end gracefully.

Carnal Knowledge spans the next few decades, with Sandy and Jonathan's sexual hang-ups rarely changing. Sandy dreams of the girl who has the brains to match the bust, while Jonathan is so focused on t*ts-and-a*s that a great body is the number one priority, an emotional connection a close second. Sandy ends up marrying Susan; Jonathan has a string of affairs that hits its climax when he meets Bobbie (Ann-Margret), a voluptuous but needy redhead.

The film doesn't preach; it studies. There are some people who are able to decipher the needs of the opposite sex with ease, making for blissful unions that last for years. But then there are the rest of the population, who never really get over the kiss-and-tell days of high school and remain to be too obsessed with sex to start and maintain a meaningful relationship. The film is about that unfortunate crowd.

Carnal Knowledge doesn't have the same punchiness it once did in 1971 — today it feels rather tame — and, in some senses, doesn't go as deep and it could. Movies with miserable characters at its center can often times be so good that we don't get depressed along with them: Mike Nichols, who directed the film, earlier turned the anger of a souring marriage into a glowing black comedy with tragic components in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. That film managed to be enormously affecting, but it also didn't make you feel like a pile of sh*t by the end. And in John Cassavetes' Love Streams, the dreary existences of Sarah Lawson (Gena Rowlands) and her brother (Cassavetes) were fleshed with such extraordinary performances that their lives remained interesting long after the film ended.

Carnal Knowledge has the ensemble drama characteristic in which the four main characters — Jonathan, Sandy, Susan, and Bobbie — carve out a net of sexual frustration around each other to the point in which life turns into a prison of dissatisfaction. Their world only revolves around each other. The outsiders, found in the other woman archetypes of Rita Moreno, Cynthia O'Neal, and Carol Kane, act as happy little pills, taking the leading men away from their own banal existences, periodically, only to ground them in reality once again. Nicholson and Garfunkel are terrific, and repositioning Margret from sex goddess status to that of a dramatic figure works quite well.

Many say the film is a dark comedy, but I found no humor in its realm, and I looked in every nook and cranny. Some might find Sandy and Jonathan's failures to be melancholily funny, but, throughout the film, I was hopelessly depressed. Carnal Knowledge's components are spotless, but it forgets to do anything besides tell a story of constant grieving — maybe some can take it, but I certainly can't.

Read more reviews at petersonreviews.com

It's Not A Kids' Movie

[gottogorunning · 8/10 · 17 August 2005]

It's depressing to see what a low rating Carnal Knowledge gets. Jules Feiffer, the brilliant cartoonist, wrote an extraordinary script for this film. I loved the dialog so much I found the script on Alibris and read it immediately.

This is a dark movie. Not that it's violent or bloody, but its take on men vs. women relationships is bleak, blunt, and accurate. Jack Nicholson is charismatic and smart in his role, showing the misery at the heart of a cynic.

As others have written, it's not a kids' movie. It's not even a young adults' movie-- I was bored when I first saw it, at 21. It's an "adult movie" in the non-euphemistic sense of that phrase, an adult movie about the mortality of romance

"Sandy, do you wanna get laid?"

[Galina_movie_fan · 8/10 · 16 April 2007]

"Carnal Knowledge" (1971) directed by Mike Nichols with Jack Nicholson, Art Garfunkel, Candice Bergen, Ann-Margret in an Oscar nominated performance as a sex kitten who wants to marry Nicholson's Jonathan, and Carol Kane and Rita Moreno in the small roles is one of the movies that made 70s so memorable. It is also the movie that keeps reminding me why I love Jack Nicholson of his early years and how grand he was without his "Jackness" which he has developed during all these years. Sandy (Garfunkel) and Jonathan are two college friends and like every straight young (and not too young) man in the world they are obsessed by girls and move from one relationship to another in the course of almost thirty years. Nichols and Jules Feiffer who wrote the play and later adapted it for the screen let us look inside the minds and souls of two educated upper-middle class white males and to learn their very intimate thoughts and secrets concerning their plentiful dysfunctional and joyless affairs and it is not a pretty picture - "Boys begin life not liking girls, later they don't change, they just get horny." The film is honest, uncomfortable, "very slick, very clever".

You hang on every word of this lively, honest script by cartoonist Jules Feiffer.

[Ben_Cheshire · 29 July 2004]

Its a wry, often funny, often sombre drama about the sex lives of two college roommates, Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel (who's actually fine in this - much better than in Catch-22) - at college, and in middle age.

There are really very few movies where the dialogue seems so true and searching, yet funny, that you hang on every word. I can only think of a few - and this is one of them.

It is episodic, and may be broken into two halves - intentionally, importantly. The heart of the story is in the comparison of the first half and the second: how the two men have or have not changed. If you consider this is the purpose of the film, the two halves are not perfect - but nevertheless a fascinating film.

Bitterness, nostalgia and melancholy run through this character comedy from the 70's. Its a frank, confronting (depending on the viewer) laying bare of sex. Though there is very little actual sex in the film, this one is definitely only for adults. A penetrating character study, and a richly worded film filled with wit, irony and character penetration by cartoonist Jules Feiffer.

9/10. Not perfect, but absolutely must-see.

Naughty but good...

[JasparLamarCrabb · 7/10 · 5 September 2005]

Telling the sordid, often depressing story of two men and their sexual hangups over several decades, director Mike Nichols and writer Jules Fieffer concoct a thinking man's dirty movie. At times it's not easy to watch, but it's mostly entertaining and beautifully made. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel are the men ---Nicholson is the callous, emotionally detached one, Garfunkel is the romantic. He marries college sweetheart Candice Bergen, while Nicholson shacks up with sexy Ann-Margret. The scenes with Nicholson and Ann-Margret are cringe-inducing. Nicholson, Garfunkel and Bergen are terrific and Nichol's clever casting of Ann-Margret, putting her sex kitten image through the blender, pays off in spades...she's the best thing in the movie. The supporting cast includes Carol Kane and Rita Moreno.

Talky But Effective Relationship Drama

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 8 March 2006]

A talky, oddly stage-bound film (though it's not based on a stage play) that nevertheless exerts a kind of raw emotional tug on the viewer.

Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel (yes, you read that correctly) begin as college chums on a never-ending hunt for female tail, and end the film as stifled adults, still filling their lives with emotionally empty physical affairs that do nothing to fill the yawning void of their boring existences. Sound depressing? It is, but it's also rather fascinating, due to a sharp script and excellent acting.

This came out at a time when Jack Nicholson was actually playing characters in movies other than Jack Nicholson, and he does fine work here as the more virile and experienced of the two friends. Candice Bergen is also in fine form in a very dramatic role, a far cry from the comedic roles with which we've come to associate her. And Ann-Margret won a lot of acclaim (and the film's sole Oscar nomination) for her brief performance as the sex-pot basket case Bobbie, the target of Nicholson's emotional abuse.

"Carnal Knowledge" is entertaining as an intellectual exercise, but it may leave you cold on a deeper, more emotional level, as no one, not even the women, are especially likable or sympathetic. It came out at a time in our cultural history when "free love" was in vogue, and seemed to suggest that the price people payed for indulging that urge was high and that people turned to casual sex more as an excuse for avoiding significant human contact than as a way to more fully enjoy living. Certainly these emotionally stunted characters seem no better off for all of their care-free indulgence in pleasure.

In many ways, "Carnal Knowledge" seems to be the movie Mike Nichols' other 4-person relationship drama, "Closer," wanted to be, and he would have been wise to approach the material in "Closer" in a similar way as the material here. The staginess in "Carnal Knowledge" works. These people seem to exist in a plane of existence just a fraction removed from the one in which the rest of us live. It's like they live in a vacuum where they're the only people who matter, an airless atmosphere that serves as a fitting backdrop for their selfish behavior.

Probably not one of the more important films from this fertile period for film making, but worth checking out.

Grade: B+

The Relationships of Two Men With Women Along Thirty Years

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 30 September 2003]

The plot begins with Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) roommates in the university. Each one of them has a different behavior and experience with women: Jonathan is cynical, malicious, and selfish. He does not respect anybody (even his best friend is not respected) and just want to have sex. Women are objects for him. Sandy is almost the opposite of Jonathan and has a different approach with women: he is shy and respectful, he does not have much experience with women. These characteristics are presented in the film having Susan (the gorgeous Candice Bergen, the most beautiful actress of the 70's) as pivot. Then the story advances a few years and shows both of them successful in their professions and boring with their mates. The character of Susan (who married Sandy) is just occasionally mentioned and does not appear on the screen any more. Now, we see basically the relationship of Jonathan with Bobbie (the sexy Ann-Margret). Then, there is another jump in time and other relationship of Jonathan and Sandy are presented in this movie, since its essence is about relationship of men and woman having the focus mainly in Jonathan.

In 1971, I was too young to watch this movie and certainly I would not understand most of the story. Only a couple of days ago I had the chance of seeing it. It is amazing how this movie for adults has not aged. Further, it does not look like an American movie. The camera, the screenplay, it does look like European movie (maybe a little of 'Jules and Jim'). All the actors and actresses have outstanding performance, but certainly Jack Nicholson and Ann-Margret are superb. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ânsia de Amar" ("Eagerness for Love")

Note: On 18 January 2014, I saw this movie again.

"I wouldn't kick her out of bed"

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 4 August 2003]

Mike Nichols directed Jules Feiffer's script of two men in their times with the opposite sexes, beginning with college years, then years later when they have occupations, and settling on middle age. Jack Nicholson creates one of his more complex characters here, which like About Schmidt or The King of Marvin Gardens, doesn't end up the happiest guy in town. His Jonathan is lusting, condescending, scared (deep inside), angry, and intelligent all at once, though never knowing himself well enough to know the one he's getting his rocks off with. On the flip-side his best friend Sandy (Art Garfunkel) is sensitive, unsure, though without a feeling of overt confidence and control like Jonathan has, and that feeling of confidence over the other sex is what keeps them together in discussion, and serves as a tinge in their friendship in their older age.

In college, Sandy meets Susan (Candice Bergen), and is more of a friend at first, while Susan begins an affair she didn't intend on with Jonathan. This unfolds, and when they graduate and are out in the world Jonathan meets Bobbie (Ann Margaret) who is a pure vixen with, at the behest of Jonathan, is a louse and wanting a commitment Jonathan can't take. The last scene with Rita Moreno, and especially the last shot featuring an ice skater Jonathan saw once, say it all about his character- essentially, as it is with nearly all men, he wants what he can't have.

Many of the angles and many of the one shots of faces for long stretches, the camera compositions and time length, etc, reminded me of techniques that director Ingmar Bergman used in his movies that dealt with relationships, men with women, and how the desperation in their personalities either become their downfall, or a life lesson later on. In a sense, Carnal Knowledge is Nichols' throwback to Bergman as was Interiors for Woody Allen, though his dealt with the strife in a family and Nichols is a character study dealing in love and sex. Never-the-less, non-art film goers shouldn't be scared off by the notion that Carnal Knowledge is bleak or sterile. It may not be the most cheerful, or an entirely fair to both sexes, but it is important in that it views Jonathan, Sandy, Susan, and Bonnie, as people, and Nichols doesn't force the viewer to judge these people if they don't want to. For its time it was groundbreaking, and today it's almost mature compared to the barrage of "relationship" movies of late. And, if anything, it should have mass appeal to devourers of film acting. Grade: A

Mike Nichols last depressing hurrah

[daha1120 · 7/10 · 7 November 2012]

For the first half hour the characters are so disgusting and terrible, the feeling of bile rising in my throat doesn't subside. These are the people who I have known. And while I cannot bring myself to turn it off, I also can't help but fondly remember watching all of his movies that he made before this one, the spark that say The Graduate or Catch-22 had, and this just feels a little flat. But at the same time, it seems to completely succeed in doing what it sets out to do, creating something suffocatingly real, like watching the most depressing moments in my life played back for me with dim lighting and blonder actresses. The fact that Candice Bergen goes away after that also helps. Upper middle class ennui is something that's almost always tedious to watch, but this is actually affecting. Nonetheless, this feels like the beginning of the end for Mike Nichols. He would never again make anything on a level with Catch-22, and he followed this one up with Day of the Dolphins. Seriously. wtf. Also for the curious, pop star Arthur Garfunkle (as the back of the DVD box puts it) gives a surprisingly strong performance in this.

Sex Versus Everything

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 30 November 2016]

I remember Edith Bunker on "All in the Family" thinking this was a religious movie-- "Cardinal Knowledge." This is a movie about sex. It involve a couple guys who become totally focused on it, beginning in their college days when they share notes on their conquests. They are portrayed by Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel. One is a walking libido, the other a passive, sensitive guy. We get to watch as the two of them go through a tortured life, never quite getting what they want. They attract, then leave women. They ignore all that is positive in life to reach an end they determined when they were kids. Nicholson is a sad and unsatisfied character who is ultimately impotent after experiencing the chase. Garfunkel has a grandiose expectation of the experience and becomes so maudlin as to turn everyone off. Two sound performances in a movie that's not for everyone.

The impotency (in all aspects) of the American male...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 3 September 2005]

Mike Nichols' dramatic film about the separate sexual journeys of two male friends from college to middle-age got critical raves upon its release, but it doesn't quite live up to the kudos; it's not so much overrated as it is overwrought. Though a well-acted piece, it condescends towards the audience with a self-satisfied conception. There's hardly an actual plot, and the screenplay is fake-literate: it's made up of heated dialogue exchanges which purport to show how men treat women, yet it may very well be just these men. The film is smug, with too much of the rabble-rousing disintegrating into melodramatic soap. It does feature fine acting, from Arthur Garfunkel and Ann-Margret in particular, but Jack Nicholson is uneven (and he always seems to be in the shower!). The arty shots (close-ups held a long time on each character's face) aren't there to reveal anything special--they're just there to show-off the director's prowess. I eventually tired of the back-and-forth arguing and female crying, though I do see the merit in the acting and in some of what Nichols was trying to accomplish. **1/2 from ****

Naughty men who think with their...

[DukeEman · 9/10 · 4 March 2006]

The sexual adventures of Jonathan and Sandy. From college to mid-life crises, we see their attitude to the opposite sex and how their male organ leads them to lower depths. A fascinating script from Jules who isn't afraid to show how some men really are. Nichols' direction has the European flavor, allowing the stunning performances to take over with the help of Giuseppe Rotunno's unobtrusive photography. The amazing thing is that this film is still relevant to some of today's modern male species. The writer and director teamed up recently and made CLOSER, for today's generation. Watch the two movies back to back and you'd see the similarities in style and substance after thirty years.

I feel the same way about getting laid like going to collage: I'm being pressured into it!

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 16 August 2011]

***SPOILERS*** Were introduced to the movie with the cool and sexy sounds of Glenn Miller's classic "Moonlight Serenade" as we see these two wild crazy and mostly horny collage guys Jonathan & Sandy, Jack Nicholson & Art Garfunkel, talking about sex and how to get it on campus by being both cool and with it with all the co-ed's available there. The very with it and confident Johathan is giving pointers to his friend the introverted and shy Sandy in how to pick up girls with him having his eye glued on pretty Susan,Candy Bergen, who's sitting alone at this very boring get together at the main collage dorm. Sandy who tries to make small talk with Susan is too shy and clumsy to open his mouth so it's Susan who starts up the conversation between the two.

Before you know it both Sandy and Susan are going study with Jonathan, who wanted nothing at first to do with Susan, feeling left out in the cold. It's later that the very experienced Jonathan beats Sandy to Susan by deflowering her behind Sandy's back which in fact, in Jonathan's animal like behavior, draws her closer to the far more sensitive and feeling her pain Sandy. The film then goes some ten to 15 years into the future to the 1960's during the free love era where everything goes and it's the free and available bachelor, as well as tax and financial lawyer, Jonathan who's getting all the free love, and in some cases paying for it, with Sandy, My Son the Doctor and Gynecologist, now married to Susan and missing out on all the fun.

By now the very sexually active Jonathan has gotten bored of all this sex he's been having and has cut down his yearly affairs, with different women, to about a dozen but is still looking for the women in his life that can keep him young and going strong ,in the sex department, until he's ready for the grave. That woman of his dreams turns out to be the sexy and flaming redhead and model Bobbie, Ann-Margaret, who ends up quitting her very high-paying job on TV commercials and shacks up with Jonathan in his bachelor pad in midtown Manhattan. It' not that long that Jonathan loses interest in Bobbie which turns her into a pill popping zombie sleeping as much as 18 to 20 hours a day and becoming addicted to dangerous and life threatening barbiturates. Sandy who had since broke up with Susan is now married to the bull-dike like Cindy, Cynthia O'Neal, who unlike the very sweet and womanly Susan wears the paths in the family.

Things come to a head between Jonathan and Bobbie when after a very violet spat or fight between the two, over making the bed and sweeping out the apartment, that Sandy & Cindy show up to party. Jonathan trying to hid what's been happening between him and Bobbie comes up with this bright idea for him and Sandy to swap wives, a very popular thing among swinging couples back then, so that everyone can loosen up and release their pent up emotions. It's a moment later when a very willing Cindy, in going to bed with him, tells Jonathon that if her wimpy spouse Sandy lays as much as a hand on Bobbie he can forget to go back home that he realizes what a big mistake he made. That mistake was intensified when Sandy instead of having anything to do sexually with Bobbie calls the nearest hospital emergency ward after finding her in bed almost dead from an overdose of sleeping pills!

It's now 1970 and both Jonathan and Sandy together with his now live in lover as well as love teacher the 18 year old hippie Jennifer, Carol Kane, are watching a slide show of Jonathan's many sexual conquests which included, and which slide he quickly withdrew, Sandy's first wife Susan. Not at all impressed in what Jonathan has to show them both Sandy and Jennifer leave him alone, the guy gives off such bad vibrations Sandy tells him, to his fantasies of years gone by. ***SPOILERS*** It's the final few minutes of the film that really shook me up in Jonathan having this hooker Louise, Rita Mereno,show up at his pad to pump up his both ego and now almost completely gone sexual drive. With Louise looking, with the camera panning up and down exclusively at her hypnotic like face, like a cobra or black mamba rising from the ground and about to strike Jonathan now all heated up and excited finally seems to have gotten his Mojo back and is ready to jump into action just like back in the good old days. But as we and Jonathan sadly know it's only his imagination not his body that's capable of doing that!

You don't need to worry. Everybody here is of legal age.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 20 May 2020]

Several things is very clear in watching "Carnal Knowledge again from start to finish. It is not the type of film that everybody will like equally. It has dated ideals and concepts about what men are like and what men like and what men expect. It has little respect for the two leading characters, Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel, who wouldn't be able to sustain a single relationship for more than a decade. Nicholson is the more amoral of the two, spending one key scene with a slide projector showing all of his lovers since childhood. It is an absurd scene not only because it removes any sympathy you may have gained for him, but how would he have pictures of all these people over the years let alone put them into a slideshow?

One definite detail is also clear from watching this film from start to finish. Garfunkel seems to age naturally, but Nicholson looks exactly the same from his college years (ridiculously so in those scenes) to his mid-to-late 30's in the early 1970's. Garfunkel definitely gained a bit more sympathy because his character seems to truly want a great woman, but after the first half, he seems to begin to emulate Nicholson's desire for girlfriend after girlfriend after girlfriend. None remain the same, and even though he ended up with the gorgeous Candice Bergen after the first half, her character completely disappears as the focus changes to Nicholson and Ann-Margret.

Both of these women are desirable and certainly looking for the right relationship that will sustain them for a lifetime. They want to be cherished and loved and to love back. We get to see the build-up of Garfunkel's relationship with Bergen (briefly interrupted by her fling with Nicholson which doesn't seem to bother Garfunkel), and then she's gone. Nicholson is wining and dining Ann-Margret and soon they are cohabitating together, discussing the rules of relationship that will not include marriage. As time goes by, they are revealed to be married with a daughter, and it is indeed evident that Nicholson never should have made any type of marital vow.

This is not necessarily a bad movie, just a depressing one. You are hoping throughout that Nicholson will grow up but he never seems to change at all other than to become angrier as he ages. Certainly, the performances are excellent, and as a character study, this is highly recommended. Bergen gets to be very subtle and she is greatly missed in the last half. Ann-Margret, who came out of this with the sole Oscar nomination, plays a character who is not only desirable physically but spiritually and emotionally as well and it is sad to watch her be destroyed by the self-centered Jack. It is very evident why she was singled out for the nomination, proving that her beauty isn't only physical but deep inside as well.

As for the others in the cast, there's a very quiet Carol Kane and a shocking cameo by Rita Moreno, coming on for the final scene and getting a monologue you won't soon forget. It is ironic that an earlier scene has Nicholson and Ann-Margret driving through times square past a "West Side Story" marquis. I couldn't determine whether this was supposed to be the movie or the original Broadway show, but I found it quite ironic. This film probably was considered groundbreaking upon its initial release, and some of the elements do hold true today, but watching this film from start to finish after a long hiatus from having seen it last, I felt like I was reliving the memory of having a sledgehammer bang down on my foot, and it's hard to lose a depression after seeing a film again when those memories resurface.

Saw it again, after 33 years, much more meaningful this time.

[TxMike · 22 July 2005]

"Carnal knowledge (noun) - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman." That's what this movie is about, especially from the point of view of Jonathan Fuerst, expertly portrayed by Jack Nicholson. The movie begins with voices and a dark screen, Jonathan and his good friend and roommate Sandy (Art Garfunkel, of "Simon and Garfunkel" singing fame) are taking at a college mixer. Jonathan is explaining to Sandy the finer points of seducing women. The immediate object of Sandy's attention is Susan (a young, pretty Candice Bergen) who is sitting alone near a window. Sandy eventually asks Susan out, and they begin dating.

The movie is a tragic story, of these two men, close friends, but worlds apart in how they view the world. Jonathan seems unable to form any bonds with either males or females. He sees each as objects to either facilitate getting what he wants, or obstacles to getting what he wants. And, all he seems to want is 'carnal knowledge.' Every description he gives of a female relates to how she looks and whether he would like to have sex with her. (My college roommate in 1963 was almost like this.) Opposite, Sandy is truly a gentle soul, wanting relationships, and sometimes too eager to follow Jonathan's advice. Over the 20-odd years of this story, it doesn't quite work out for either of them, and we are left wondering if Sandy's outlook became tainted by knowing Jonathan. Ann-Margret, as beautiful as ever, has a key role as Bobbie who becomes Jonathan's girlfriend.

SPOILERS FOLLOW. As we follow the lives of the two men, out of college and into working life, both have successful careers, Sandy as a doctor. Sandy never finds out that in college Jonathan seduced Susan and had an ongoing clandestine carnal relationship with her even while she and Sandy were dating. Sandy and Susan eventually married, had children, but were divorced. Susan never really loves Sandy, and couldn't have Jonathan. No one could. Bobbie tried. After convincing Jonathan they should 'shack up' (live together), she almost went crazy until he married her, but it didn't last. In the end both Jonathan and Sandy are single, dating the wrong kinds of women. Jonathan has become virtually impotent, and the movie ends with his regular prostitute collecting her $100, and going through the ritual they established so that he might become aroused. Tragic story, however perhaps real.

Hollywoods Idea of A Breakout Movie. Not.

[nomorefog · 6/10 · 19 May 2020]

The women in Carnal Knowledge are far more interesting than the men. Candice Bergen drops out after about 30 minutes and you never see her again. She has 2 scenes that develop her character, one in a car with Jack Nicholson where she falls for his story about having a tough childhood, and another where she tells a story about a bear in a restaurant (I kid you not). The camera holds onto her in the latter in a very clinical way as if she is expressing herself for the first time and it could very well be the last once she marries one of the college lotharios trying to get her to notice them. Anne Margret has a more substantial role and it's well written in that she is somehow not the selfish gold digger that Nicholson's character would have the audience believe. Its complex in its own way, in a way that Candice Bergen's character is not, but still both are stilted characters, one supposedly queen of the ballroom, and the other, somewhat used but still in there fighting. Jack Nicholson is an insufferable boor which doesn't really help. Maybe with the passing of time I'm just expecting my boors to be a little more politically correct than they used to be, who knows. I'm a fan of Virginia Woolf and Catch 22 but in this case I think Nichols doesn't get his act together much at all. The profanity is a little alarming even more so by today's standards. It comes off as out-dated, over-rated and not terribly incisive about sex and relationships as it was once thought to be.

A depressing journey through the 60's Darkside

[apvalenti · 6/10 · 15 January 2013]

The sixties were a time when nearly every boundary was tested. In the seventies we began to learn that boundaries don't necessarily restrict freedom but exist to provide elasticity which stretched too thin too fast can break. Carnal Knowledge follows two buddies through their college years and into middle age a period during which the sexual revolution swept many not into a new land of liberation but to a world of sexual dysfunction, misogyny, and oppression. Jack Nicholson is terrific as man who became a callous, self-centered product of the revolution. Art Garfunkel, in a stiff and uninteresting performance, is Nicholson's erudite buddy. Directed by Mike Nichols, the movie lacks the wit of "The Graduate" and Jules Feiffer's script is leaden without a hint of irony that could elevate the film from tolerable to entertaining. Carnal Knowledge is a curio of late sixties/early seventies film-making that captures, depressingly, the underside of the '60s sexual revolution. Perhaps a wittier, lighter touch would have made this a classic.

Goes places others don't

[jellopuke · 7/10 · 15 August 2019]

This isn't an easy movie. The characters are pretty unlikeable and it pushes things into off putting places with reprehensible behaviour. Nicholson manages to truly inhabit a real SOB while Garfunkel just sort of floats around as a meek jerk. This isn't a movie to paint men in a good light, but has something to say and isn't afraid to say it.

A pure masterpiece.

[dead47548 · 10/10 · 8 March 2008]

Just like Nichols' later masterpiece Closer, Carnal Knowledge expertly deals with romances falling apart, coming back together and the study of lust and it's many complications. And just like Closer the dialogue and relationships in the film feel more authentic than virtually anything else I've ever seen. All of the arguments and especially the conversations between Jonathan and Sandy felt so natural, humorous and somewhat depressing. It evoked all of the emotions that lust in life does and perfectly demonstrates how rare true love and happiness is. The performances were all incredible and Ann-Margret more than deserved her nomination (the win in my opinion) but Jack Nicholson really shines above the rest of the cast. His realism, intensity and humor was top-notch to say the least. He also displays this internal pain that I can't even describe, but stunned me to my core. I felt like I could really relate to the character and that made his actions even more devastating to me.

Some okay moments, but overall unconvincing.

[rodinnyc · 6/10 · 8 September 2022]

At times it peaked my interest but it often became tiresome....and requires some suspension of disbelief....the life long friendship of the two men being one. Perhaps it would have been possible to disguise having a relationship with one's best friend's girlfriend....with the girlfriend rebuffing sex with her ostensible boyfriend while having sex with the friend...but I didn't buy it. Staying friends as their lives evolve in disparate ways doesn't read true. Later on I had trouble believing that a woman is desperate to get her unworthy boyfriend to marry her. Not a woman who was as seemingly successful and as stunningly beautiful as Ann-Margaret's character. The women are treated poorly in this film. The men are as another review says, not really likable or invite sympathy. Least of all the Jack Nicholoson character. My assumption is that it was close to the actor in characterization. I assumed before seeing it that it was entirely set in the seventies so surprised that it attempted to follow lives from post WWII to the seventies. As a reflection of changing awareness of women, of the relationships between men and women it doesn't strike me as representative of the seventies.....the final scene with Rita Moreno ....well who is this character she plays? We never learn. She plays Indian classical music as her choice of music. Is that a clue? Is she supposed to be of Indian background? Is that some kind of in joke of the use of this music not for mind blowing experience of awareness but rather something quite carnal? And unpleasant at that. The film ends on a sour note for its characters. That in itself is okay if the film convincingly took us there. I don't believe it does. It's a dated period piece....not a bad film....not great either.

Remarkably Insightful on Many Levels.

[ags123 · 9/10 · 14 October 2015]

This is not a movie that young adults would easily appreciate. You need more life experience to understand the complex psychology on display. And based on the title, anyone looking for cheap thrills will be sorely disappointed, despite a number of extended nude shots of Ann-Margret. Mike Nichols, more than once, proved himself to be eerily precocious, creating this incisive look at sexual dynamics at the age of 39. (No surprise; He'd done an equally impressive job at 35 with "The Graduate.") This film decidedly pushed some boundaries in 1971, and remains relevant not only for its subject matter, but the intelligence and fine craftsmanship with which it's put together. Jules Feiffer's dialog is spot on, as are the performances. Jack Nicholson, at 34, looks a bit too old as a college student, but his acting is so good that's easily overlooked, and he more than fits the part as his character ages. Ann-Margret is a standout, a perfect choice for the part. The final scene with Rita Moreno is shocking in its offhanded, pedestrian approach to prostitution. "Carnal Knowledge" offers thinking adults a lot to savor and contemplate. Action fans, look elsewhere.

3/4 BAKED EARLY NICHOLS!

[shepardjessica-1 · 6/10 · 10 November 2004]

Not up to the quality of VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE GRADUATE, or CATCH-22, this film nevertheless scores some points (great casting), but it's ultimately somewhat depressing and it shouldn't be. Ann-Margret is splendid and deserved her Oscar nod. A beautiful and talented actress who was always under-valued in Hollywood. Candice Bergen gives her first believable performance. Art Garfunkel seems perfect for his character, Sandy, but still needs more acting experience. Jack Nicholson seems ideal for Jonathan, but it's not one of his better performances.

A 6 out of 10. Best performance = Ann-Margret. It's too bad Nichols' choices of projects went South after THE FORTUNE. He was one of the great ones, but WORKING GIRL, DAY OF THE DOLPHIN, and the rest of the junk he's done since '75 has shown he needs some career advice.

"You get a pretty good salary for testing out this bed all day"

[nickenchuggets · 8/10 · 4 May 2023]

While I don't really watch many films with Jack Nicholson in them, they never fail to entertain me because he typically plays a nut or some mildly psychotic character, which is actually in line with his real life persona. Carnal Knowledge is a film I've known about for years but never gave a second thought to because at the time, I thought it was just ok. After seeing it again, I realize that it's a great showcase for Nicholson, his hilarious, dry sense of humor, and how relationships are some of the most frustrating things you can partake in. The movie follows two Massachusetts college roommates, Sandy and Jonathan (Art Garfunkel and Nicholson respectively), who despite living together, are polar opposites when it comes to their sexual proclivities. Jonathan thinks of women as mental pests who exist to drive men mad, but at the same time, he's mostly mindlessly attracted to the way they look and not much else. On the contrary, Sandy gets more emotionally attached to women, seeming to sense that they're more understanding and accepting of a person's mistakes than men are. Sandy meets a girl on campus named Susan (Candice Bergen) who is a huge tease to him as she rejects each one of his awkward advances. Sandy consults Jonathan on what to do next and the latter says he needs to be more assertive with her and feel her up if he wants to, but the next time she and Sandy are together, she says she doesn't feel that way about him. Meanwhile (unbeknownst to Sandy) Susan is also being chased around by Jonathan, who later sleeps with her. At a bar, Jonathan tries to convince Susan not to also sleep with Sandy, but she doesn't listen. Because he's his best friend, Jonathan knows Sandy's every romantic endeavor. Jonathan later gives an ultimatum to Susan, saying if she doesn't tell Sandy she's already slept with Jonathan, he's going to tell him. She refuses to tell him, so Jonathan abandons the relationship. Years later, Sandy marries her while Jonathan is still left searching for his ideal partner. Again, his definition of ideal mainly concerns itself with how curvaceous a girl is and has nothing to do with how she is as a person. When Jonathan comes across a nightclub worker named Bobbie (Ann-Margret) he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt he's going to be living the dream from now on. At first, living with her in an apartment goes well, but Jonathan soon finds out Bobbie is very bland in terms of personality. Bobbie stops working and becomes depressed to the point she sleeps for over half the day. After a year of living this way, Jonathan goes nuts and yells at her for not being motivated enough to fix her own life while he's out in the city 8 hours a day. While this goes on, Sandy's relationship also grinds to a halt. He seems to have the opposite problem as his friend, since Bobbie has the physique of a goddess but no personality, while Susan is understanding of Sandy but is shy and timid in bed. This leads to their breakup. Sandy gets a new girlfriend named Cindy who he only seems to be with for a few days before he starts complaining about her. He confides to Jonathan during a meeting at his apartment that she gives out too many instructions when they sleep together, so Jonathan suggests they trade partners. When approached, Cindy seems excited at the prospect of seeing Jonathan again (when Sandy isn't around), but Bobbie then attempts to kill herself in her bedroom since Jonathan wouldn't let her marry. A long time after, Jonathan, Sandy, and yet another girlfriend of his, Jennifer (Carol Kane) are watching a slideshow made by Jonathan which contains pictures of all the women he's had contact with ever since childhood. When he comes to a slide of Bobbie, he says she conned him into marriage and now has to pay her child support. Once the slideshow ends, Jennifer cries and walks out. Despite years passing, Jonathan's subsequent conversation with his friend proves he hasn't gotten smarter at all really: he still puts women on a pedestal and thinks Jennifer knows worlds he can't even imagine. Finally, being that he is all alone, Jonathan visits a prostitute who recites to him a monologue (written by him) to make him feel important, which is the one and only way he can get aroused anymore. While I still hold onto my belief that this film's greatest moment is when Jonathan explodes at Bobbie in his bedroom, the rest of Carnal Knowledge is enjoyable enough for a movie Nicholson fans often overlook. In it, he behaves like a real life Robert Crumb cartoon, only viewing women as objects to sate his lustful desires. This is why he gets so mad when Bobbie wants to get married, as he believes anyone wanting a relationship focusing on something other than appearance is a fool. The way Nicholson's and Garfunkel's performances synthesize when they're onscreen together is another high point, as they try to give each other advice and gripe about their past experiences. It's not the type of movie that everyone will find interesting and I'd be lying if I said I viewed it as something special years ago, but Carnal Knowledge is still a one of a kind that shows how misguided those who focus on physical attraction usually are.

Ann-Margret 's looks are for real

[mlleiter · 6/10 · 20 March 2011]

I just recently watched Carnal Knowledge. I didn't really care for it. My main reason for watching it was because I have adored Ann-Margret all these years since the 60's when she first came on the scene.I didn't want to watch carnal Knowledge when it first came out because I heard that Ann-Margret did nude scenes in them. I know that sounds silly but back then that was a big deal for me. More and more stars were starting to do nude scenes I am mostly writing this review to respond to fedor8's review titled "Good Comedy/Drama" She stated that Ann-Margret had silicone breast Implants done. She is wrong. Ann-Margret states in her biography that she wrote in the early 90's that she deliberately gained thirty lbs to look more like the way Bobbie would look. Ann-Margret did a fanatic job. Jack Nicholson also was great.

I Found This Rather Dull To Be Honest

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 16 May 2014]

You can only watch a couple of guys (neither of whom, really, are all that likable) go through women for so long without it becoming a bit of a drag. But basically that's what "Carnal Knowledge" does with the viewer. We follow Jonathon and Sandy from their time as room-mates in university to somewhere in middle age and we watch their relationships with women begin, evolve and end. I frankly didn't see a lot of point to this. No one really grew or changed (except for Sandy, who started off as kind of shy and awkward with women and ended up not much more appealing than Jonathon.) The women in these guys lives were a little more interesting, if only because they each had different ways of handling their always troubled relationships with them.

The male leads in this were Jack Nicholson as Jonathon and Art Garfunkel as Sandy. Nicholson was good. He was given a somewhat more complicated character to play than Garfunkel, which reflects the fact that he was a more experienced and more accomplished actor. But there was little growth in Jonathon, and that just made the movie seem repetitive. I did like Ann-Margret as Bobbie, who was Jonathon's primary relationship in the movie. She was believable in the role, frustrated in the relationship - loving Jonathon but also angry with Jonathon. She did well. Candice Bergen as Susan was Sandy's primary love interest, although she disappears partway through the movie, and aside from picking up that they split up we don't hear much about her.

The performances are the strength of this movie. It's fairly tame by modern standards, although it likely raised some eyebrows back in 1971, and I found the basic story to be lacking anything that would keep me glued to the screen. (4/10)