IMDb user comments for
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

60 comments in total

---

20 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Brava, Mabel!, 19 September 2004
Author: Watt from Portland, OR

Everyone views movies differently. I for one didn't think we were meant to wonder who was crazier Mabel or her husband. Cassavetes makes a strong, bold (and rarely voiced) point...it is the husband! Mabel loved her children, loved to dance and sing and for that she was committed. Her "unidentified mental illness" seems to intensify when her husband mistreated her and was physically or verbally violent...in my opinion going a bit crazy after someone slaps you is probably healthier and saner than being polite, demure, and rational.

Mabel loves life, shows her love without apology, and is severely punished for it. Everyone else in the movie struggles to calm everyone down and avoid showing too much emotion. While this may be more socially acceptable it isn't sane or even healthy. Humans are emotional beings...I for one say Brava! Mabel.

I think the director tips his hand and proves his point when Mabel's character comes home from the institution. She hasn't seen her children, husband, and family for 6 months and people assault her, some she has never even met, before she even leaves the car. When she does get inside the safety of her own home the people who put her away and told to forget the past greet her with small talk and politeness! Then when she finally sees her children after being told to "wait a minute" she says to herself that she wants to remain calm and show "no emotions." It seems obvious that this is a perfectly acceptable time to be emotional but fresh from the institution she know being normal doesn't allow you to be emotional. Emotions are scary, messy, and inconvenient and I for one am thrilled that John Cassavetes didn't shy away from them.

This movie is a true original.

---

25 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
Cassavettes – The Anti-Hollywood, 24 May 2003

Author: votarus4 from New York

A man goes into a big, strange house with his family and friends. He is armed with script and camera, and proceeds to create a milestone work of American cinema – the key film of the 1970s. Above all else, `A Woman Under the Influence' is Anti-Hollywood, Anti-Establishment, Anti-Film. 1970's Hollywood may have defined itself with films like Godfather, Rocky, Annie Hall, and Deer Hunter – but real, unpredictable, chaotic life was Cassavettes' territory. Fact is, Hollywood will never be ready for uninhibited Mabel and her much crazier husband Nick. Nutty as she is, Mabel/Cassavettes does nothing but tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. Hollywood at best, tells persuasive lies. So…, to get Hollywood ready for the Gospel of Cassavettes, the first thing that must happen is to banish the entire FX community; ship ‘em to Alcatraz where they can make blockbuster cartoons for each other. Second – the writers, directors and producers of said cartoons can go Vegas and try to `leave.' Those who remain will be entrusted with putting complex human beings who inhabit interesting lives and situations on the screen – not `role models' who traipse through neatly-plotted, highly-improbable, beautifully photographed, committee-designed plots. Get my point? By the way, Gena Rowlands in "Influence" gives one of the finest performances of the sound era. See this film. See it now. Right now.

---

14 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Cassavetes's absorbing look at the nature of a husband and wife; Falk and Rowlands are spellbinding, 24 December 2004

Author: Filmjack3 from United States

While John Cassavetes is (rightly) revered for this film and other under his belt (of those I've seen, Faces is his best), Gena Rowlands is the most fascinating part to this work, Woman Under the Influence. Her role as Mabel was perfect in a film that sometimes was not even as it just tried for suburban truth. I was constantly curious about where her character was headed, and even more so by how I did not feel any desire at all to pass judgment on her. The moment I would have thought to myself "well, she's too nuts to like" the film would be ruined for me. And that is one of the more intelligent points to the film that Cassavetes gets at. This is, after all, a character-based film, with story merely in the background. And with his two main characters we get a look at what has been a stereotype for centuries- men are often brutal and stupid, women are crazy. In this filmmakers world, it's just not that black and white, however, but with the grays as pronouced as the highs and lows in a melodrama; it's just the way he sees things, and it's a unique way as well, where the soul and choice are the precedents over comfy dramatic circumstance.

I liked the use of the camera in many scenes, how it felt like they just shot and shot and went from one spot in the house to the next. In fact, the whole film has the feel of a kind of documentary, with the occasional dramatic touch such as a close-up. But what turns it into being something special is that Cassavetes understands that Falk, Rowlands and the others can take his script and make it their own, very personally so. And as it happens, Falk finds some of his most daring work here as Nick, a character who in his own way has become as nuts as Mabel with the everyday grind of living (which for both of them is filled with people, talk, pure humanity). For those who don't like the easy solutions in dramas, or want to know the basics of the post-modern independent film movement, this is for you. It might seem to drag in spots, but it seems to be even more enveloping if one gives it the time to contemplate over those 'drag' moments.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
9/10, 24 April 2005

Author: desperateliving from Canada

This is just another confirmation that Cassavetes, along with Dreyer and Tarkovsky, is one of the very small number of geniuses in film, whose every film is an extension of their genius -- some more mature than others, but impossible to be "bad"; they are beyond terms like "good" or "bad" -- they are the great art works of the century.

This film isn't about a "crazy" lady; it's not about putting a woman in an institution; and it's not about people talking about your crazy wife, though all of this happens in the film. Those are merely the events that take place over the course of the film; what it's really about is our misunderstanding, our experience as an audience. Just like the characters, we misunderstand Mable's childlike actions. What Cassavetes does is turn *us* into children -- it's as if we're experiencing things for the first time all over again, because it's a totally new experience, the same with watching a movie like "Andrei Rublev." That is an amazing thing to pass onto an audience. That's why I've never been bored watching a Cassavetes film -- something is always happening, things are always changing. The reality of what we're seeing is always undergoing augmentation, so we can never get fully situated.

It's never unrelenting gloom the way many so-called realistic films are (and this film goes far beyond mere "realism"); it's devastating watching it, watching Mable ask people if they want spaghetti one by one. But it's loving when Nick jokes about someone hugging her too long. It's communal during a scene at a dinnertable where Mable takes a pride in feeding "her boys." But each scene goes through a transformation as it happens. When Mable goes home with another man, he makes it clear that he's not to be used, but also that she shouldn't punish herself. It's not a screamy moment with a woman hiding in the bathroom; his avuncular twang is disarming.

There's a complete lack of self-consciousness in the film, and I mean that in terms of the characters (during Mable's key freak out scene, Rowlands does, I think, go too far) -- that's why the kids are s terrific in the film. When a boy says, "It's the best I can do, mom," it's an incredible moment because it's managed to be included without being offensive, mugging for the camera with cuteness. The film has such a strange relationship with kids -- they're like little people. And if that sounds odd, you'll understand when you see the film. The characters are constantly changing their minds; they're so aware of themselves that they're unaware -- Mable doesn't realize she's giving off a sexual aura (despite the fact that Rowlands can at times look like a blond beach babe). As with Julianne Moore in "Safe," we don't know what's wrong with her. She's a frenetic, guideless woman trying to do the guiding.

The way Cassavetes sets up the film, with ominous piano music that comes in when Falk is trying to speak, blinded by frustration; or setting the film inside this house with gigantic rooms, makes everything feel larger and emptier at the same time. It's like the scariness of the echo of something you'd rather not hear. Someone said that they wouldn't want a single frame of "2001" to be cut, lest the experience be changed. I think that applies more aptly to Cassavetes' films, because he never treads over the same thing twice, even when he's doing exactly the same thing he's just done. It's always something new. 9/10

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Courageous and Uncompromising Film, 12 June 2006

Author: Galina from Virginia, USA

This movie is a breakthrough - courageous and uncompromising view at the family and at the marriage where both spouses love each other deeply but they are both not well, they don't know how communicate when somebody else present, even their own children. They could be happy on the deserted island but not surrounded by friends and families. I was fascinated by both, Peter Falk's and Gena Rowlands' performances. She looked like a little girl, trapped in a woman's body - confused, insecure, listening to what is inside of her. When she said to her children, "I hope that you will never grow up", she meant it because she never felt comfortable as a grown up. I could not take my yes off Rowlands. Her performance is on par with the best study of nervous breakdown I've seen, and this is Liv Ullmann in Bergman's "Face to Face".

Peter Falks was also a revelation - I love him as Lt. Columbo in the TV series but he is a completely different character here; in a way, he is as mentally unbalanced as his wife is. The fact that he loves her but never hesitates to abuse her makes him terrifying - you never know how he will act in the next moment, and he does not know himself. Directing and writing are absolutely first class, and I am very exited to see more films by John Cassavetes, the Godfather of American Independent film-making and a father of American "New Wave" 9.5/10

---

11 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Influence of What?, 26 January 2005

Author: Chris Bright from London

Freewheeling Cassavetes study of a marriage.

I think its a misreading to conclude that either one of the main characters is "crazy". Clearly Mabel has what you could call a borderline manic personality, but there's little evidence that she is unable to look after herself or her kids. The fact that she gets committed says less about her condition than about the position of women in the society Cassavetes is depicting. There is no sign that the visiting kids are in any danger - their father freaks out only because Mabel's behaviour falls outside his view of the conventional housewife. Nick on the other hand is not considered "crazy" despite physically attacking several people and getting his kids drunk, because men are allowed a lot more licence. In the end he is as trapped by the social pressures on him as Mabel is, except his frustration is turned outwards, hers inwards.

When the family are alone there is no problem, Nick's difficulties arise when Mabel is unable to fit the social role assigned to her - notably it is his mother who drives him to have Mabel committed. The "influence" Mabel is under turns out not to be alcohol as we first expect but patriarchy expressed via Nick, and society's limited and limiting expectations of women and of people in general. Put Mabel in a San Francisco commune 6 years earlier and she would look normal.

A word on the acting. Having known people with rather more serious cases of manic depression I can testify that Gena Rowlands' acting is actually rather understated. Falk meanwhile is a revelation to those who know him only from Colombo - his portrayal of the inarticulate, confused, occasionally violent but still very loving Nick is perfect - he just IS this guy.

Incidentally, you can see where Scorsese took many of the ideas for his most personal films from (notably "Mean Streets" which apparently he made after Cassavetes criticised "Boxcar Bertha") although he tidied them up and made them commercial. He even copied Cassevetes' lead here by putting his own mother in "Goodfellas".

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Brava, Mabel!, 19 September 2004
Author: Watt from Portland, OR

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS Everyone views movies differently. I for one didn't think we were meant to wonder who was crazier Mabel or her husband. Cassavetes makes a strong, bold (and rarely voiced) point...it is the husband! Mabel loved her children, loved to dance and sing and for that she was committed. Her "unidentified mental illness" seems to intensify when her husband mistreated her and was physically or verbally violent...in my opinion going a bit crazy after someone slaps you is probably healthier and saner than being polite, demure, and rational.

Mabel loves life, shows her love without apology, and is severely punished for it. Everyone else in the movie struggles to calm everyone down and avoid showing too much emotion. While this may be more socially acceptable it isn't sane or even healthy. Humans are emotional beings...I for one say Brava! Mabel.

I think the director tips his hand and proves his point when Mabel's character comes home from the institution. She hasn't seen her children, husband, and family for 6 months and people assault her, some she has never even met, before she even leaves the car. When she does get inside the safety of her own home the people who put her away and told to forget the past greet her with small talk and politeness! Then when she finally sees her children after being told to "wait a minute" she says to herself that she wants to remain calm and show "no emotions." It seems obvious that this is a perfectly acceptable time to be emotional but fresh from the institution she know being normal doesn't allow you to be emotional. Emotions are scary, messy, and inconvenient and I for one am thrilled that John Cassavetes didn't shy away from them.

This movie is a true original.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Look closer..., 13 February 2008

Author: stalker vogler from Xanadu

A Cassavetes movie is never about "something" in the way classic movies present their material. A Woman under the Influence is not "about" mental illness, or at least not particularly about that. Cass explores both the ups and downs of family life choosing as vehicles impulsive and potentially dramatic characters that enable him to emphasize what is there in many of our homes. The relationship between Nick and Mabel is a blueprint of many marriages, not only from the "lower" classes. On the other hand the realist approach forces Cassavetes to show this family in a specific environment, Nick is a stressed-out worker, Mabel is a housewife taking care of their children who go to school.From what we see their larger family is quite present in their lives and that also has its good and bad parts. Mabel's illness is just something that happens, we are told that her mental condition was never exceptional, that she was liable to break at some point and we are confronted with the unfolding events from the moment she does break. Everybody around Mabel has problems, just like "in real life". The only difference between Cass and other directors is that he never feels the need to simplify things, to give the viewer a hook, a link through one of the characters to enter the film. We are tempted to see the story through the eyes of the kids, innocent and heartbroken, but even they are presented at some point as being "bad". This lack of involvement on the directors part to engage the viewer with the story coupled with a very dry (no punch lines) and highly improvised acting style and sometimes (I think intentional) sloppy camera-work gives the movie its unique character. AWUTI is unlike any other Cass movie that I have seen. Highly duplicitous in its nature, presenting everything in an ambiguous manner it cannot be swallowed too many times. Gena Rowlands herself asked Cass that he would not turn this into a play because she felt unable to get into Mabel's skin too many times. It is indeed very hard to make a character work without simplifying, making it either good or bad, or at least defining it by a certain "character trait".

The movie is hard to sit through but rewarding first and foremost for the performances and for Cassavetes' directorial abilities. He manages to make everything tensioned and uncanny, a simple family dinner feels more tensioned than a final duel in a Western, waiting the kids from school is more tensioned than the expectation of a terrorist threat in a thriller. And Cassavetes' ability to turn many of the obvious disadvantages into something worthwhile is truly remarkable. By 1974 he had an honorable career and understood much of how a film should affect the audience. If earlier films such as Shadows and Faces seem to dispense with the viewer's presence but attract through the subject matter and a character that we care about, AWUTI attracts precisely with its capacity to reject. We are unconsciously more aware of what's going on because we see it not through the eyes of a character but through our own eyes as if we are actually living it.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
A Bruising Portrait of Mental Illness, 10 July 2007

Author: brocksilvey from United States

Eeesh, what a tough movie to sit through.

This two and a half hour movie left me sweaty, exhausted and hollowed out. In its own way it's an extremely well done film, but I don't know that it's an experience I want to repeat. Director John Cassavetes follows a few months in the life of a family whose mother and wife (Gena Rowlands) is suffering from mental illness, and the movie consists of one long scene after another of her cracking up, or trying not to crack up, and the various family members' reactions to her cracking up. Peter Falk plays the husband and father who thinks that mental illness is just some silly nonsense his wife should be able to stop if she just tried hard enough. Rowlands has the showier role, but Falk is the revelation here. His depiction of a husband who blusters and shouts to hide his overwhelming sense of helplessness and fear is superb.

Cassavetes's camera is relentless. We watch Rowlands suffer again and again in long takes and intimate closeups. There are times when you simply want to look away from the screen to help this poor woman preserve a shred of dignity. The highlight of the film (or low point, depending on your point of view) comes when Rowlands's character returns home from a stay in an institution, and her family works overtime to convince themselves that everything's fine when the audience can see clearly that everything is not.

Bruising is the best word I can think of to describe this film.

Grade: A-

---

10 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
*** 1/2 out of ****, 13 November 2002

Author: kyle_c from United States

A fascinating study of mental illness, "A Woman Under the Influence" rests on two strengths - the spectacular performances by Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands, and Cassavetes's groundbreaking style of direction. Everything about this movie is so real and honest. It feels like a home movie or a documentary looking into the lives of some very real people. Most films feel the need to dramatize and stylize the story. This film paints the picture exactly the way it is. Some people may be bothered by the direction, but, like it or not, you can't deny Cassavetes's talent.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history