Henry Jaglom is a director I've heard about before, but had never seen one of his films. He makes a film every couple of years, they play in like three cities in America, and no one seems to like them. A Safe Place was his first film, adapted from his own play, which he wrote in 1964. Tuesday Weld plays an insufferable hippie chick who doesn't want to grow up. Phil Proctor is a square who wants desperately to bone her, so he puts up with her nonsense (he knows that she's half crazy, but that's why he wants to be there). Eventually, a much more exciting Jack Nicholson shows up and steals her away. Orson Welles plays a magician who occasionally enchants Weld with his magic. Gwen Welles (whom you might remember from Altman's films California Split and Nashville), in her film debut, also appears and rambles on about her dreams of being sexually assaulted. The film is pretty, and that prettiness is very much augmented by Tuesday Weld's enchanting beauty. But, honestly, there's not much going on here. It's very repetitive (there are some nice, old songs on the soundtrack, but each of them plays all the way through like three times), and, well, boring.
19 Reviews
A Safe Place
gavin694222 September 2014
A strange young woman (Tuesday Weld) lives in a fantasy world where she can never grow up.
Henry Jaglom's directorial debut was a "critical and box-office disaster". Time magazine called the film "pretentious and confusing", a film that "suggests that the rumors of his expertise were greatly exaggerated, or at least that it does not extend to directing." Apparently, for the critics, not even the presence of the incredible Orson Welles or Jack Nicholson could save this one.
Author Anais Nin was perhaps the most kind. She called the film "an impressionistic film, an X ray of our psychic life, which gives an insight instantly into the secret self." She called it a "masterpiece", and praised it for its dreamlike quality that could only be captured on film.
Henry Jaglom's directorial debut was a "critical and box-office disaster". Time magazine called the film "pretentious and confusing", a film that "suggests that the rumors of his expertise were greatly exaggerated, or at least that it does not extend to directing." Apparently, for the critics, not even the presence of the incredible Orson Welles or Jack Nicholson could save this one.
Author Anais Nin was perhaps the most kind. She called the film "an impressionistic film, an X ray of our psychic life, which gives an insight instantly into the secret self." She called it a "masterpiece", and praised it for its dreamlike quality that could only be captured on film.
Helps to watch the interview on the DVD
Katz524 April 2021
The Criterion DVD and BluRay of this film contains a 2009 interview with writer/director Henry Jaglom that is worth watching after (or before) anyone views this film. This film is a definite product of its time and was released as part of the BBS wave that was taking Hollywood by storm in the late '60s and early '70s (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, and Last Picture Show were some other films released during the BBS wave). Jaglom explains that his film was initially a play and the goal with his career (A Safe Place was his first movie) was to write and direct films that are from a woman's point-of-view. He continued to make very low budget films into the '00s (budgets lower than even John Sayles), including a few that starred his once-girlfriend Karen Black. This background helps understand this film, which is a unique watch but requires tremendous patience. Orson Welles' presence in the film is basically restricted to him channeling Topol, doing magic tricks in Washington Square, and commanding zoo animals to "disappear." Tuesday Weld is Susan (currently using the name Noah), an imaginative hippie who dwells on her childhood and falls into an unusual relationship with a stranger she meets in Central Park. Jack Nicholson arrives to stir the pot as Susan/Noah's ex. The film is more art than narrative and plays like an adult version of "Head," the Monkees movie that was also part of the BBS movement. A time capsule piece which will be more appreciated by independent American film lovers than the casual viewer.
Nicholson, Welles, Weld - could have been more....
grahamclarke28 January 2004
Henry Jaglom has often been accused, justifiably, of self indulgent movie making. "A Safe Place" is no exception, yet here it's an indulgence in experimenting with cinematic form itself. As always with Jaglom, it's a pretty mixed bag. There are scenes with some striking moments, but many which ramble on for much too long.
The question remains does this experiment work ? The answer has to be no. But the attempt itself is not without interest. While much of the film will certainly test your patience, the rewards are there, though not as predominant as to make one want to champion this as a film that should be seen.
The film is centered round Tuesday Weld. Weld has always been something of an enigma. The movie persona of her earlier films established her firmly in the mind of the public as yet another pretty blonde. It took her a long time to shake this off. This need to find herself as an actress to be reckoned with must surely have drawn her to this project, written and directed by a newcomer. Her beauty and talent are in abundance here. This may have led to her next big role, made the following year; "Play It As It Lays". Sadly, despite a great performance, Weld never seemed to be able to prove her worth to the wider public or indeed the studios and moved towards a career in mainstream television movies, in which she still managed to shine.
"A Safe Place" boasts an intriguing cast. Alongside Weld is Orson Welles, a close friend of Jaglom's, obviously having much fun as a magician of sorts as well as a young and as always devilish, Jack Nicholson. Jaglom allows them much room for improvisation. He once related having written a scene for Nicholson and Weld; it somehow wasn't working. His feeling was that knowing them personally, they were both far more interesting people than the scene he had written for them showed. He simply let them improvise their dialog.
"A Safe Place" is the kind of film that sounds more interesting than is actually the case. I for one, despite being in favor of much of Jaglom's work and certainly that of Welles, Nicholson and Weld, am reticent in recommending it. For those with special interest in these people or the times, (New York, 1971), there will be points of interest but I must admit to being ultimately somewhat let down to what I sensed could have been far more than what I found.
The question remains does this experiment work ? The answer has to be no. But the attempt itself is not without interest. While much of the film will certainly test your patience, the rewards are there, though not as predominant as to make one want to champion this as a film that should be seen.
The film is centered round Tuesday Weld. Weld has always been something of an enigma. The movie persona of her earlier films established her firmly in the mind of the public as yet another pretty blonde. It took her a long time to shake this off. This need to find herself as an actress to be reckoned with must surely have drawn her to this project, written and directed by a newcomer. Her beauty and talent are in abundance here. This may have led to her next big role, made the following year; "Play It As It Lays". Sadly, despite a great performance, Weld never seemed to be able to prove her worth to the wider public or indeed the studios and moved towards a career in mainstream television movies, in which she still managed to shine.
"A Safe Place" boasts an intriguing cast. Alongside Weld is Orson Welles, a close friend of Jaglom's, obviously having much fun as a magician of sorts as well as a young and as always devilish, Jack Nicholson. Jaglom allows them much room for improvisation. He once related having written a scene for Nicholson and Weld; it somehow wasn't working. His feeling was that knowing them personally, they were both far more interesting people than the scene he had written for them showed. He simply let them improvise their dialog.
"A Safe Place" is the kind of film that sounds more interesting than is actually the case. I for one, despite being in favor of much of Jaglom's work and certainly that of Welles, Nicholson and Weld, am reticent in recommending it. For those with special interest in these people or the times, (New York, 1971), there will be points of interest but I must admit to being ultimately somewhat let down to what I sensed could have been far more than what I found.
One of the worst motion pictures ever made
JayAuritt23 December 2015
The title of my review is no exaggeration. The only saving grace to watching this movie is that it's only about an hour and a half in length, even though it seems at least twice that long to view. The screenplay (assuming there really was a screenplay to begin with, because the dialogue feels totally improvised...not because it sounds "real", but because it's strained and ludicrous) is annoying to the nth degree, unless you like hearing profound voice-over comments such as "I love you from New York to Rome..from Rome to Madrid, etc. etc. etc. over and over and over again. If I was on a deserted island with a DVD player and this was the only DVD I had with me, I'd break it in a hundred pieces with a coconut because, otherwise, I'd end up searching for a shark to eat me as soon as possible. If I had a choice between being water-boarded and being forced to watch this movie repeatedly, I'd have a VERY tough decision to make. But, other than that, the movie was great.
A Safe Place Would Be Far Away From This Film
whitesheik6 May 2011
So, let me get this straight - if I have a taste for Fellini, Antonioni and Godard I'll feel right at home with A Safe Place? Um, no. I love Fellini, right up through 8 1/2. I've enjoyed much of Antonioni. Godard - a mixed bag for me, but I like Breathless and Alphaville fine, and Band Of Outsiders, too. Mr. Jaglom is not in their company, at least for me, and A Safe Place is a pretentious mess from start to finish. No one loves Tuesday Weld more than I, and she's fine. Jack Nicholson, who came in for a day and improvised everything is embarrassing. Gwen Welles gives new meaning to self-indulgent, but then again she has the most self-indulgent filmmaker imaginable "directing" her.
I have never met a Henry Jaglom film I liked - ever. And his "thing" that if you don't respond to his films then you don't understand women is, well, fatuous. I'm glad he considers himself such an enlightened and sensitive man, but I'm not buying nor are many of my women friends. It is the type of cinema that makes me want to throw up and not because I don't like experimental or interesting films, because I have and I do. As I sat there with drool running out of my mouth because I'd just invested what I thought was almost ninety minutes of my time, I paused the film to find out I was only at the forty-minute mark.
However, one has to commend any filmmaker who keeps on doing it - he does it with his own funds (good to be wealthy) and as long as he keeps having girlfriends he'll keep making films because his entire oeuvre is based on his love life.
I have never met a Henry Jaglom film I liked - ever. And his "thing" that if you don't respond to his films then you don't understand women is, well, fatuous. I'm glad he considers himself such an enlightened and sensitive man, but I'm not buying nor are many of my women friends. It is the type of cinema that makes me want to throw up and not because I don't like experimental or interesting films, because I have and I do. As I sat there with drool running out of my mouth because I'd just invested what I thought was almost ninety minutes of my time, I paused the film to find out I was only at the forty-minute mark.
However, one has to commend any filmmaker who keeps on doing it - he does it with his own funds (good to be wealthy) and as long as he keeps having girlfriends he'll keep making films because his entire oeuvre is based on his love life.
Manically Pretentious And Shamefully Useless
dungeonstudio24 October 2014
I didn't think BBS could have a stinker in the bunch. But this is the one bad apple for sure. It's so dislocated and uneventful, it truly hurts to see such great talents go to waste. Whatever it thought it was, it wasn't. Whatever it was trying to be, it couldn't. Whatever fulfilling moral it thought it possessed, it doesn't. It's useless magic that baffles the viewer into innocently believing for a mere moment, and then is ashamed for having bought into it. That sentiment can be said of so many flaky relationships with supposed 'magical beauty' that 90% of the viewers have already experienced, or will experience. This movie does absolutely nothing to justify or caution the naive lustful immaturity of the whole ordeal. If anything, it exploits Noah for being an overly attractive airhead that men put up with in order for sex. And as long as they do, she will eventually put out for them. I found this more distasteful of any Russ Myers or Roger Corman-esque 'Grindhouse Sexploitation' movie I've ever come across. And believe me, I like those movies A LOT! Like the fishing lines used in Welles childish tricks through out the film, and carrying the camera off on a balloon to simulate 'flight' - DO NOT BUY INTO THIS FOR ONE MOMENT! You'll be such an easy lay if you do.
The Inland Empire of Tuesday Weld
slammerhard19 June 2022
This extremely silly piece of filmmaking in which Orson Welles does magical tricks and talks in a funny accent, is a (failed) combination of early seventies Antonioni (
Blow Up, Zabriskie Point) and American hippie cinema (Psych Out, Head).
I like what Tuesday Weld did in Lord Love a Duck and Pretty Poison so I decided to give it a shot.
She is not very convincing as a hippie chick, not only because of her restrained style, but also because of her looks and the way she dresses. Or maybe the New York hippie scene was kinda lame compared to California. You decide.
Jack Nicholson was creepy enough and he makes you wonder how stupid girls were back then, giving it for free to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This film is all over the place and does nothing but copy filming and editing techniques from far superior films.
It would have called it a waste of time, if it wasn't for the last five minutes where some sort of explanation is given for the previous 85 minutes of Mumbo-Jumbo.
Then everything kinda makes more sense although I'm not sure if all viewers will get it.
It seems that Tuesday Weld died when she was a little girl but does not remember it. She is trapped in some sort of purgatory.
The silver ball stands for her soul, and the Orson Wells character is Death.
What David Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, this film did first. For this reason alone, you may want to check A Safe Place.
I like what Tuesday Weld did in Lord Love a Duck and Pretty Poison so I decided to give it a shot.
She is not very convincing as a hippie chick, not only because of her restrained style, but also because of her looks and the way she dresses. Or maybe the New York hippie scene was kinda lame compared to California. You decide.
Jack Nicholson was creepy enough and he makes you wonder how stupid girls were back then, giving it for free to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This film is all over the place and does nothing but copy filming and editing techniques from far superior films.
It would have called it a waste of time, if it wasn't for the last five minutes where some sort of explanation is given for the previous 85 minutes of Mumbo-Jumbo.
Then everything kinda makes more sense although I'm not sure if all viewers will get it.
It seems that Tuesday Weld died when she was a little girl but does not remember it. She is trapped in some sort of purgatory.
The silver ball stands for her soul, and the Orson Wells character is Death.
What David Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, this film did first. For this reason alone, you may want to check A Safe Place.
Resisting adulthood
moonspinner557 February 2017
One might be tempted to call Henry Jaglom's directing debut "A Safe Place", which he also wrote (based on material he originally presented on stage in New York), self-indulgent; however, the indulgence here really belongs to the editor, Pieter Bergema. This is a movie 'made' in its editing stages, and either Bergema had too much film to work with or not enough (this might explain the endless close-ups of crying or howling faces, several of them repeated). Tuesday Weld plays a commune-living hippie chick in New York City, on a tightrope between being a woman and wanting to remain a child, who begins a relationship with a drop-out from high society before she has resolved her feelings for former boyfriend Jack Nicholson, who apparently left her for another woman. Jaglom encourages his cast to wing it, and so we're left with lots of rambling, pseudo-introspective monologues about illusion and reality. It's wise not to try and dissect "A Safe Place"--that would be like analyzing a snowflake. There's just not enough real substance here--nor enough real acting--to spark a debate on the film. Orson Welles as a magician (or perhaps Weld's guardian angel) looks like a cross between Jackie Gleason and Oliver Hardy; he has fun doing magic tricks in Central Park, but is mostly used as a shoulder for Weld to lean on. Weld herself is a lovely presence (although this little-girl-lost number was just about played out), and cinematographer Dick Kratina gets some gorgeous shots of her all around the city, but the only genuine acting in the film comes from newcomer Gwen Welles as another hippie who is mesmerized by the non-meaning of her dreams. ** from ****
The wizard of odd.
mark.waltz15 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This Henry Jaglom film serves absolutely no purpose other than for Orson Welles to do some phony magic tricks with the help of the movie camera and play good witch to Tuesday Weld who lives in a weird fantasy world. The soundtrack interrupts the minimal dialog with a bunch of old songs throughout (a few repeated several times), and then Jack Nicholson pops up here and there as one of the men whom Weld is dating while having weird little girl fantasies.
Nothing about this makes any sense, but there's some enjoyable Central Park locations that shows the cuddly Welles with Weld leaning on his shoulder. Welles has a weird cartoonish accent, Nicholson is completely wasted, and leading lady Weld seems to be playing a role with absolutely no depth. Gwen Welles (no relationship to Orson) gets special billing for no purpose. Only recommended for Jaglom fans, and many of them will most likely be perplexed by this odd experiment.
Nothing about this makes any sense, but there's some enjoyable Central Park locations that shows the cuddly Welles with Weld leaning on his shoulder. Welles has a weird cartoonish accent, Nicholson is completely wasted, and leading lady Weld seems to be playing a role with absolutely no depth. Gwen Welles (no relationship to Orson) gets special billing for no purpose. Only recommended for Jaglom fans, and many of them will most likely be perplexed by this odd experiment.
wonderful scenario
pedrito12 November 1998
I don't know why I hadn't seen this movie before. I find the script an almost perfect one, closer to poetry than to the novel and a cinema language that owes a lot to Jean Luc Godard but nevertheless contributes to a post-modern comprehension of cinema as an art form in constant evolution. A 'must see' for any serious student of the evolution of cinema.
The film's cinematography, with a clear cut preference for close ups, is a contribution to the general epos of the story. A real masterpiece, which I am sure will gain in public aclaim as time passes. A 10 by any standard. Pedro Saad
The film's cinematography, with a clear cut preference for close ups, is a contribution to the general epos of the story. A real masterpiece, which I am sure will gain in public aclaim as time passes. A 10 by any standard. Pedro Saad
Awful...an artsy-fartsy mess of a film.
planktonrules9 February 2022
The only reason I saw "A Safe Place" was because Jack Nicholson was in the movie. Well, in hindsight, I proably would have been best to just skip this one.
According to IMDB, when the film debuted at a film festival, the crowd became very hostile and fights almost broke out between the patrons. Some loved it, some despised it. And, as I watched I understood why. The film is deliberately artsy and defied your expectations for a film. The plot is rambling at best, the main character seems like a dingaling and much of the movie just doesn't make a lot of sense. Add to that artsy touches like fast edits, close ups of eyes and a myriad of other tricks and you have a film that is bound to annoy most viewers...and I'm included in that.
Another thing I should mention is Orson Welles in the film. I have no idea why he's there, why he keeps doing magic orwhat his motivations are. I am not sure he knew either.
Overall, probably the most difficult of Jack Nicholson's films to like or appreciate. Obviously, some do like it...but I really couldn't understand why...and I'm not trying to be facetious about this.
According to IMDB, when the film debuted at a film festival, the crowd became very hostile and fights almost broke out between the patrons. Some loved it, some despised it. And, as I watched I understood why. The film is deliberately artsy and defied your expectations for a film. The plot is rambling at best, the main character seems like a dingaling and much of the movie just doesn't make a lot of sense. Add to that artsy touches like fast edits, close ups of eyes and a myriad of other tricks and you have a film that is bound to annoy most viewers...and I'm included in that.
Another thing I should mention is Orson Welles in the film. I have no idea why he's there, why he keeps doing magic orwhat his motivations are. I am not sure he knew either.
Overall, probably the most difficult of Jack Nicholson's films to like or appreciate. Obviously, some do like it...but I really couldn't understand why...and I'm not trying to be facetious about this.
A beautiful relic of its time
lcrews27 September 2003
Only in the post-"Easy Rider" early 1970s could a film like this be made by a major Hollywood studio. Totally devoid of anything resembling a plot, "A Safe Place" will probably seem incomprehensible to most. But if you already have an appreciation for the 1950s-1960s works of Fellini, Antonioni or Godard, come on in. You'll feel right at home in this "Safe Place."
Henry Jaglom was the unsung hero amongst the circle of friends that brought us "Head," "Easy Rider," "Five Easy Pieces," and several other lesser-known classics of the era. Jaglom is more responsible for the success of "Easy Rider" than Dennis Hopper, as he took Hopper's three-hour cut--a mishmash of flashbacks, flash-forwards and art- damaged nonsense--and shaped it into the legendary film it is today. His close relationship with Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Bob Rafelson, Bert Schneider, and others gave him a chance to write and direct his own movie for Columbia Pictures.
Jaglom in turn delivered this dream narrative starring Tuesday Weld as a young woman who copes by retreating into isolationism and fantasy. Orson Welles pops up here and there as a magician who represents a physical emodiment of her retreat from the world. Or does he only exist in her head?
It's best not to ask questions like that. Free your mind, sit back, and take in the feeling and mood. Where Hopper failed with his cut of "Easy Rider" and "The Last Movie", Jaglom effortlessly succeeds with such lofty and artsy ambitions. "A Safe Place" coasts by like a gentle dream in an afternoon nap--full of beautiful, detached imagery, illogical but comforting.
"A Safe Place" is a beautiful relic of a brief time in American cinema. Even Jaglom-- always on the fringe of mainstream cinema--would never make anything like this again, as he later developed the documentary/verite style which has become his trademark.
Henry Jaglom was the unsung hero amongst the circle of friends that brought us "Head," "Easy Rider," "Five Easy Pieces," and several other lesser-known classics of the era. Jaglom is more responsible for the success of "Easy Rider" than Dennis Hopper, as he took Hopper's three-hour cut--a mishmash of flashbacks, flash-forwards and art- damaged nonsense--and shaped it into the legendary film it is today. His close relationship with Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Bob Rafelson, Bert Schneider, and others gave him a chance to write and direct his own movie for Columbia Pictures.
Jaglom in turn delivered this dream narrative starring Tuesday Weld as a young woman who copes by retreating into isolationism and fantasy. Orson Welles pops up here and there as a magician who represents a physical emodiment of her retreat from the world. Or does he only exist in her head?
It's best not to ask questions like that. Free your mind, sit back, and take in the feeling and mood. Where Hopper failed with his cut of "Easy Rider" and "The Last Movie", Jaglom effortlessly succeeds with such lofty and artsy ambitions. "A Safe Place" coasts by like a gentle dream in an afternoon nap--full of beautiful, detached imagery, illogical but comforting.
"A Safe Place" is a beautiful relic of a brief time in American cinema. Even Jaglom-- always on the fringe of mainstream cinema--would never make anything like this again, as he later developed the documentary/verite style which has become his trademark.
A great disappointment !
pat-797-86901519 April 2020
A great disappointment to see movie stars that I love, lend themselves to this realization that is not a film but a junkie delirium under acid. Orson Welles has never been so ridiculous and he would have been better off abstaining. As for Tuesday Weld, always as beautiful and Jack Nicholson always as talented and casual, they are the only attractions of this pitiful company. Obviously, the director did not write any scripts or dialogues and he merely filmed his actors by letting them manage to improvise recklessly something not too pitiful. The result is a sickening fiasco
Think "Annie Hall" crossed with "Magical Mystery Tour"
rooz1 June 1999
Wonderfully bizarre and experimental piece of work for which Jaglom should be very proud. Welles and Nicholson are great in this head game. Let yourself go when you watch this--experience it--this is not a "movie"--this is a trip!! You will get as much out of this as you allow yourself to take.
Surprising
laffinsal28 May 2004
This experimental piece of work, from Henry Jaglom, is actually something of a gem, if not for it's unique direction, for the typically stunning performance from Tuesday Weld. Weld is wonderful in her characterization of a simple, juvenile young woman, caught in the limbo between innocence and adulthood. This film is from the period which I consider Weld's peak. She is beautiful, charming and completely earnest in her delivery.
Others in the cast are interesting at best. Orson Welles is good as the father figure in Weld's life. Philip Proctor is not much acting wise, but at least he has a pleasant voice. That seems to have helped his career in the years following this film. Jack Nicholson is his typical cocky, slimy character in this one. I didn't feel his acting was anything new here, but his presence makes for an interesting triangle relationship.
The editing is choppy, utilizing audio and image clips flashing by, altered, and repeated again. It would seem to get old after a while, and it does to some degree, but it's effective nonetheless. There are some good vignettes here and there throughout the film, namely a scene where Weld describes to Proctor the importance of telephone exchanges. Not every actress could pull this off well, but Weld does so with empathy and charm...brilliant! The Ouija board scene also stands out, as do the ones of Weld and Welles in Central Park Zoo.
A fascinating and surprisingly engaging film. If for no other reason, it's worth watching for Weld's performance.
Others in the cast are interesting at best. Orson Welles is good as the father figure in Weld's life. Philip Proctor is not much acting wise, but at least he has a pleasant voice. That seems to have helped his career in the years following this film. Jack Nicholson is his typical cocky, slimy character in this one. I didn't feel his acting was anything new here, but his presence makes for an interesting triangle relationship.
The editing is choppy, utilizing audio and image clips flashing by, altered, and repeated again. It would seem to get old after a while, and it does to some degree, but it's effective nonetheless. There are some good vignettes here and there throughout the film, namely a scene where Weld describes to Proctor the importance of telephone exchanges. Not every actress could pull this off well, but Weld does so with empathy and charm...brilliant! The Ouija board scene also stands out, as do the ones of Weld and Welles in Central Park Zoo.
A fascinating and surprisingly engaging film. If for no other reason, it's worth watching for Weld's performance.
Jaglom's stream-of-consciousness masterpiece
elisereid-2966612 March 2021
A Safe Place is the first film I've ever seen that understands how a disordered mind functions-or doesn't function, if you will. Other art films dabble in this sort of free-association, but they often do it in a parodic sort of way that-though often very funny-cheapens the effect. In this film, Jaglom takes seriously what it must be like to live inside the head of a person that few in the world will understand. Take for example the recurring scene where Jack Nicholson is talking to Tuesday Weld on her roof, and the way they are circling around each other. We in the audience become dizzy and disoriented, and we get a feel for how Nicholson is manipulating her, and this is conveyed visually while they are discussing something irrelevant to the point of the scene. It's a masterful piece of film. There are times in the movie when we're not sure what we're seeing or hearing, but that's the point-Jaglom thinks well enough of his audience to expect them to meet him halfway and bring our own interpretations to the grey areas of his story. Unfortunately, most audiences refuse to do so, and as a result they don't understand.
Those of us that do understand this movie-myself, for instance-fall in love with it because he captured a slice of our unique brain weather. For others, if they have the patience to try to see the world through somebody else's eyes, they get a glimpse of what it is like to be neurodivergent. Still others will just find it pretentious and will leave the film unimpressed because they fail to see what Jaglom accomplished with this film.
The bottom line is, a movie like this isn't going to be a hit because large numbers of audience members don't go to movies for insight. It's as simple as that. They go to movies to forget about their problems, not to better understand themselves or-heaven forbid!-those around them.
This movie also shows something that I wish was spoken about in the film critique world more-that movies are made in the editing room. I have a very hard time picturing A Safe Place as a script that would've caught the attention of any potential backers because its charm, sensitivity and strengths are in the way the movie is put together on film, not on the page. On the page you just have random dialogue and imagery that even the most visual-minded reader will fail to picture the way Jaglom intended. That's why scripts are so misleading with many of the best films.
To finish on a personal note, I was an amateur filmmaker myself throughout high school, and I made a short film about a disordered mind that was filmed largely through improv and, again, really made in the editing room. When it was shown at a student film festival, the judges praised how it was put together but said they failed to understand it. It made me step back and think "Gee, maybe I should've made the movie more accessible. Maybe nobody else in the world thinks enough like me to understand what I was trying to say." And then, fifteen years later, I saw A Safe Place apply many of the same techniques-which I didn't know anybody else had ever thought up!-and Jaglom, too, was told that his film wasn't accessible enough. All I know is, I understood it perfectly as a snapshot inside the mind of a person few people had-or will ever have-the patience to understand. People like I was as a teenager, indeed, people like I still am. And those people will eat up this movie.
Those of us that do understand this movie-myself, for instance-fall in love with it because he captured a slice of our unique brain weather. For others, if they have the patience to try to see the world through somebody else's eyes, they get a glimpse of what it is like to be neurodivergent. Still others will just find it pretentious and will leave the film unimpressed because they fail to see what Jaglom accomplished with this film.
The bottom line is, a movie like this isn't going to be a hit because large numbers of audience members don't go to movies for insight. It's as simple as that. They go to movies to forget about their problems, not to better understand themselves or-heaven forbid!-those around them.
This movie also shows something that I wish was spoken about in the film critique world more-that movies are made in the editing room. I have a very hard time picturing A Safe Place as a script that would've caught the attention of any potential backers because its charm, sensitivity and strengths are in the way the movie is put together on film, not on the page. On the page you just have random dialogue and imagery that even the most visual-minded reader will fail to picture the way Jaglom intended. That's why scripts are so misleading with many of the best films.
To finish on a personal note, I was an amateur filmmaker myself throughout high school, and I made a short film about a disordered mind that was filmed largely through improv and, again, really made in the editing room. When it was shown at a student film festival, the judges praised how it was put together but said they failed to understand it. It made me step back and think "Gee, maybe I should've made the movie more accessible. Maybe nobody else in the world thinks enough like me to understand what I was trying to say." And then, fifteen years later, I saw A Safe Place apply many of the same techniques-which I didn't know anybody else had ever thought up!-and Jaglom, too, was told that his film wasn't accessible enough. All I know is, I understood it perfectly as a snapshot inside the mind of a person few people had-or will ever have-the patience to understand. People like I was as a teenager, indeed, people like I still am. And those people will eat up this movie.
Henry Jaglom could have become an American Godard, had he wished---
kingdaevid22 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
---and this brilliant little gem is proof thereof. Drawing almost equally from the French New Wave as he did Ambrose Bierce's AN OCCURRENCE AT OWL CREEK BRIDGE, Jaglom's "safe place" for Tuesday Weld's character is her own imagination, where her eccentricities can bloom in complete innocence without being impinged upon by the "real world." A gorgeous salad of fragments that collect themselves into a unit of an ethereal base, A SAFE PLACE is the kind of film you would imagine the artists whose drawings graced the pages of the "underground press" art papers (the San Francisco Oracle, for example) would try to make out of their visions. There are also nice parts for the actors Welles -- Orson, happy to perform as a magician in an all-too-rare chance, and Gwen, who is touching and magnetic in her first film role. Both Welleses left us before their time, and A SAFE PLACE provides a beautiful and unique glimpse of each.
Weird but interesting quasi-counterculture film
NORDIC-213 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The son of Simon Jaglom, a wealthy Russian-Jewish financier from London who emigrated to New York just before World War II, Henry Jaglom has always possessed the means and confidence to pursue his own, sometimes highly idiosyncratic visions. His first film as a writer/director, 'A Safe Place', had its first incarnation in the mid-Sixties as a short-run Off Broadway play written by Jaglom and starring a then-unknown Tuesday Weld. Offered a film project by Columbia—through the auspices of 'Easy Rider' cohorts Bert Schneider and Dennis Hopper—Jaglom opted to turn his play into a film. Jaglom quite naturally signed Tuesday Weld to reprise the lead role of Susan/Noah, a young woman caught between two lovers and constantly retreating into her imagination (supposedly a "safe place"), which only seems to produce troubling memories of childhood that ultimately result in her ego dissolution and/or suicide. To complement what would turn out to be a magnetic performance by Weld—who drew on her own tumultuous youth for inspiration—Jaglom secured the services of other talented friends: Jack Nicholson (who plays one of Weld's lovers) and the legendary Orson Welles (who plays a street magician and Weld's titular father figure). Though he had his own play script to provide a blueprint for the film, Jaglom insisted on endless experimentation and improvisation. His cinematographer, Dick Kratina (who helped shoot 'Midnight Cowboy'), eventually shot some fifty hours of raw footage that Pieter Bergema edited down to 94 minutes (a shooting ratio of 32 to 1). In the end, though, 'A Safe Place' would achieve notoriety not for its acting, gritty New York City vistas, its strange soundtrack (combining Gershwin, Edith Piaf, Charles Trenet, and mid-century Tin Pan Alley tunes), or even a hilarious soliloquy by Gwen Welles on New York City mashers but for its copious use of jump cuts between past, present, and future events—a risky editing technique deemed brilliant by some critics and derided as nonsensical and confusing by others. Indeed, when 'A Safe Place' premiered at the 9th Annual New York Film Festival (Oct. 15, 1971), audience members broke into a passionate shouting match over its merits that nearly escalated into a donnybrook. Though it bombed in the United States, 'A Safe Place' predictably fared better in France; a theater in Paris is reputed to have shown it continuously over a seven-year period.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
