Critically-lauded drama from fashionable filmmaker Richard Lester is certainly handsome enough, although it doesn't initially appear to leave its audience with much but a sour aftertaste. A divorced, frustrated doctor--who has taken up with an exasperating, unhappily married young woman named Petulia--quickly realizes this new direction is adding no particular meaning to his life. Choppy, infuriating picture seems to be leading somewhere but never does; admirers of the film say this is precisely Lester's point, that his tying the story in loose, inconsistent knots is his idea of symbolism. George C. Scott has some amazing moments, Julie Christie is smartly-attired and attractive, Shirley Knight and Richard Chamberlain try hard in underwritten roles, but the movie is pretentiously off-kilter. Lester underlines his scenes with a modern sort of cynicism--American cattiness--that comes off as unfunny and rude rather than satirical. However, the design and conception of the film is startling, and memories of it may sneak up on you days after seeing it. **1/2 from ****
54 Reviews
Peculiar Petulia
brefane8 August 2010
A very striking film from director Richard Lester that combines Cassevettes' realism, Kubrick's clinical detachment, and Resnais' fragmented film style. Set against a San Francisco that seems inspired by Felini as well as Antonnioni's BlowUp, Petulia, released the same year as Cassavettes' Faces and Kubrick's 2001, features a terrific performance from George C. Scott whose wry line readings provide some of the best moments in the film. The doctor he plays in Petulia is a younger version of the one he played in The Hospital(71), and Scott's straightforward performance garners sympathy while Christie's Petulia is an annoying kook, or worse, from the get go, and the way she suddenly co-ops the doctor's life is alarming. The only time I was on her side was when she told Wilma to "Get stuffed!". She's more disturbing than charming, and it's hard to believe that the doctor wouldn't be fleeing from her or getting a restraining order. And why Petulia married the privileged, sadistic, homosexual pederast in the first place is really no more explained than she is. Nonetheless, Richard Chamberlain is effectively cast as the husband, Nicolas Roeg's cinematography creates some spectacular imagery, Scott never looked better, Christie when not sabotaged by hairdo and make up is lovely, John Barry's score is very effective, and though some of the editing is pointlessly distracting, it is dazzling, and the background with jaded hippies, giddy nuns, automated hotels, 24 hour supermarkets... is arguably more interesting than the foreground with Petulia & Co. Cinematographer Roeg used subliminal imagery in his films Performance(70) and Walkabout(71) as did John Boorman in Point Blank(67) which like Petulia also used Alcatraz as a location.
Self-Consciously Offbeat Period Piece
maryszd8 August 2010
Petulia opens with a shot of a middle-aged woman in a wheelchair, then cuts to a sixties' rock club featuring a very young-looking Janis Joplin. The sixties counterculture definitely torpedoed middle-aged women. Their husbands, like Archie, the middle-aged doctor played by George G. Scott, have the luxury of deciding they're "tired" of being married and jumping into affairs with younger women. This is a cause of continuing sadness to his ex-wife Polo, wonderfully played by Shirley Knight. Archie becomes involved with Petulia (Julie Christie), a clichéd "kooky" young woman of a type that often appeared in films of this period. Petulia is married to an abusive, wealthy husband, David, played with suitable evil by Richard Chamerlain. Christie is such a good actress that she gives some dimension to the role, although she's far outshone by Knight as Polo, the wounded wife. In its technique and attitude it really is a European or British film shot in San Francisco with American actors. There are interesting cultural references to the sixties, that may have seemed daring at the time, but now seem more innocent than anything else. The film is really about Archie and men of his generation and their bewilderment at the changing cultural mores represented by Petulia. On one hand they're delighted to feel that they can have sex with no responsibilities, but Petulia, for all her charm brings nothing but chaos into Archie's life. Was it really worth for him to be involved with her? And he ends up stuck with a high maintenance greenhouse in his apartment.
Petulia you fool ya.....that was the original tag line
maxren1712 November 2005
I saw this film when it opened and recently bought the video and watched it again.
I remembered being very moved by the characters and the pairing of Julie Christie and George C Scott. Christie was so young and Scott was also still quite young as well. They had great chemistry. I didn't know that Shirley Knight was nominated for an award for her role. She's very good. Her scene with Scott where she's trying to appease him and he loses his temper is electric. She says more in her look, using her eyes to convey her hurt and confusion, than most actors say in too many words.
Julie Christie has always had a way of getting under your skin. She is able to make you care for her (a lot like she did in "Darling") despite the fact that her character initially comes off as flaky or "kooky." It starts out light and amusing then turns dark and insightful. I remembered this movie for years until I was able to buy the video. It is very 60's in sensibility. So, if you weren't around during that period, see this movie. It captures the sixties in way few films have done as well.
San Francisco looks beautiful in 1967.
I remembered being very moved by the characters and the pairing of Julie Christie and George C Scott. Christie was so young and Scott was also still quite young as well. They had great chemistry. I didn't know that Shirley Knight was nominated for an award for her role. She's very good. Her scene with Scott where she's trying to appease him and he loses his temper is electric. She says more in her look, using her eyes to convey her hurt and confusion, than most actors say in too many words.
Julie Christie has always had a way of getting under your skin. She is able to make you care for her (a lot like she did in "Darling") despite the fact that her character initially comes off as flaky or "kooky." It starts out light and amusing then turns dark and insightful. I remembered this movie for years until I was able to buy the video. It is very 60's in sensibility. So, if you weren't around during that period, see this movie. It captures the sixties in way few films have done as well.
San Francisco looks beautiful in 1967.
Beautifully Dated...It Adds to the Film.
chconnol29 April 2004
"Petulia" is one of the best American films of all time. It should be ranked with "Citizen Kane" and I'm not being sarcastic.
The beauty of the film is how dated it is. Some films that "define" or capture a certain period of time very well often appear very dated later on and lose their effectiveness because of it. But because "Petulia" is so definately set in it's time period, it's like watching a time capsule. There are films which are made today that take place in the late 60's and try for that "mod" feel. But they're removed from that time and therefore can't capture the true feeling of that tumultuous time. "Petulia" captures it beautifully and integrates the 60's experience into it's storyline and structure. For example, when Archie returns from a day out with his sons and returns to his apartment, on TV there is a newscast about Vietnam. It's not overplayed or anything. It's just there as it would have been on any TV in 1968. It's carefully woven into the structure of the film.
Lester has been praised for his editing in this film and it's pretty ingenious. But overall, I found it at times a little too much. There is a LOT of jumping around in time. We learn the story of Petulia and her abusive husband and the little Mexican boy very slowly over the course of the film. It's only in the final moments of the film where we get the gyst of Petulia's neediness and of Archie's as well. I will never forget the final moment where Petulia softly says Archie's name before being putt under gas to have her baby.
A VERY 60's film. Anyone with an interest in the times and how they might've felt should see this film. One of the most underrated films of all time. Lester shows his true genius here. And like the film, he's the most underrated director. Too bad he's not making films anymore.
The beauty of the film is how dated it is. Some films that "define" or capture a certain period of time very well often appear very dated later on and lose their effectiveness because of it. But because "Petulia" is so definately set in it's time period, it's like watching a time capsule. There are films which are made today that take place in the late 60's and try for that "mod" feel. But they're removed from that time and therefore can't capture the true feeling of that tumultuous time. "Petulia" captures it beautifully and integrates the 60's experience into it's storyline and structure. For example, when Archie returns from a day out with his sons and returns to his apartment, on TV there is a newscast about Vietnam. It's not overplayed or anything. It's just there as it would have been on any TV in 1968. It's carefully woven into the structure of the film.
Lester has been praised for his editing in this film and it's pretty ingenious. But overall, I found it at times a little too much. There is a LOT of jumping around in time. We learn the story of Petulia and her abusive husband and the little Mexican boy very slowly over the course of the film. It's only in the final moments of the film where we get the gyst of Petulia's neediness and of Archie's as well. I will never forget the final moment where Petulia softly says Archie's name before being putt under gas to have her baby.
A VERY 60's film. Anyone with an interest in the times and how they might've felt should see this film. One of the most underrated films of all time. Lester shows his true genius here. And like the film, he's the most underrated director. Too bad he's not making films anymore.
Style Before Character and Plot but Not Substance
rajah524-32 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film has an attitude, and the attitude is, "the director knows something you don't, and he's going to amuse himself by tossing riddles at an audience of common folk he's looking down his nose at." (This was typical of Lester's work. "We take acid, and we're cool. You don't, and you're stupid.")
Lester tended to put style before both character and story, and that may be why his films haven't stood up for larger audiences.
There actually =is= a story in this muddle, and it's not bad. Petulia herself provides the major clues near the beginning when she tells the good doctor that her mother was a prostitute and her sister was, too. In my line of work, the instant I hear revelations like that I start listening more carefully.
Then we see that she's married a malignantly narcissistic sociopath. But the movie was 2/3's over before Joe Cotton's monologue in Petulia's hospital room gave the thing enough historical traction to make the foregoing and the remainder even remotely sensible.
I read about a dozen other reviews here on IMDb and saw that most people see this the way most people saw "Mad Men" when it first hit cable three years ago. The vast majority of comments were about how faithful the show was to the early '60s as the viewers recalled it.
But few could see what "Mad Men" was =about=, and unless one watches "Petulia" very carefully (and maybe even if they =do=), it may remain equally mysterious... if entrancing Lester has made the first three quarters of the film so hyper-artistic in the service of =his= sense of intrigue, that it will be a "long, strange trip" for most viewers. And in the world of a thousand cable TV channels, that usually means, "Where's my remote?"
Orson Welles, Louis Malle, Federico Fellini and Michelangelo Antonioni had all used chronology-flipping. But in films like "Kane," as in AMC's "Mad Men," the technique works well because the characters are so compelling and the flashbacks are relatively self-evident. Here, however, the flashbacks are intentionally confusing, and the characters are way too murky until the final 20 minutes.
There were people who bought into "Petulia" in the '60s because of their LSD and peyote trips. But a film about narcissistic sadomasochism among the unduly wealthy need not require a viewer's own masochism to make a point. And that point would be that "squares" like Scott's "Archie," who were socialized to common notions of "normality," will have a hard time understanding the "normality" of those outside their own mundane, middle class paradigm.
I'm sorry, but I really sense a lot of Lester himself in Chamberlain's and Cotton's characters.
A final word about the title character: The only people capable of forming obsessive attachments to sadistic narcissists are people who were raised to be masochistic with sadistic narcissists. And if they are as physically gifted as the beautiful, narcissistic-but-masochistic Petulia, they may become very compelling -- if frustrating -- attractions for those they seduce and mystify.
I understand Petulia was meant (as a character) to be as devoid of humanity as her husband and his father. Even so, I didn't believe Petulia's "seduction" for ten seconds.
Lester tended to put style before both character and story, and that may be why his films haven't stood up for larger audiences.
There actually =is= a story in this muddle, and it's not bad. Petulia herself provides the major clues near the beginning when she tells the good doctor that her mother was a prostitute and her sister was, too. In my line of work, the instant I hear revelations like that I start listening more carefully.
Then we see that she's married a malignantly narcissistic sociopath. But the movie was 2/3's over before Joe Cotton's monologue in Petulia's hospital room gave the thing enough historical traction to make the foregoing and the remainder even remotely sensible.
I read about a dozen other reviews here on IMDb and saw that most people see this the way most people saw "Mad Men" when it first hit cable three years ago. The vast majority of comments were about how faithful the show was to the early '60s as the viewers recalled it.
But few could see what "Mad Men" was =about=, and unless one watches "Petulia" very carefully (and maybe even if they =do=), it may remain equally mysterious... if entrancing Lester has made the first three quarters of the film so hyper-artistic in the service of =his= sense of intrigue, that it will be a "long, strange trip" for most viewers. And in the world of a thousand cable TV channels, that usually means, "Where's my remote?"
Orson Welles, Louis Malle, Federico Fellini and Michelangelo Antonioni had all used chronology-flipping. But in films like "Kane," as in AMC's "Mad Men," the technique works well because the characters are so compelling and the flashbacks are relatively self-evident. Here, however, the flashbacks are intentionally confusing, and the characters are way too murky until the final 20 minutes.
There were people who bought into "Petulia" in the '60s because of their LSD and peyote trips. But a film about narcissistic sadomasochism among the unduly wealthy need not require a viewer's own masochism to make a point. And that point would be that "squares" like Scott's "Archie," who were socialized to common notions of "normality," will have a hard time understanding the "normality" of those outside their own mundane, middle class paradigm.
I'm sorry, but I really sense a lot of Lester himself in Chamberlain's and Cotton's characters.
A final word about the title character: The only people capable of forming obsessive attachments to sadistic narcissists are people who were raised to be masochistic with sadistic narcissists. And if they are as physically gifted as the beautiful, narcissistic-but-masochistic Petulia, they may become very compelling -- if frustrating -- attractions for those they seduce and mystify.
I understand Petulia was meant (as a character) to be as devoid of humanity as her husband and his father. Even so, I didn't believe Petulia's "seduction" for ten seconds.
Forgotten classic from the 60's
Boyo-223 December 2004
In many ways, this is a plot less, jumble of the movie, but at the same time there is something really fantastic about it, and some movies are better off jumbled up cause its fitting, never more so than in the case of "Petulia." George C. Scott plays a recently divorced man who willingly begins a semi-affair with Petulia, who is married to an abusive man. She is a 'kook', to use a 1960s term, but not in the Goldie Hawn silly mold.
Scott's character takes life as it comes. He's very easy going, and its nice to see him in a role in which he rarely raises his voice or gets manic or seems to care what happens one way or the other. He loves Petulia but does not take her very seriously, until she is badly beaten up by her husband.
The editing can be studied by film students. Its a main part of the story as its told primarily through flashbacks. The beautiful city of San Francisco is used to full advantage.
Christie has rarely been more beautiful. Richard Chamberlain has his best movie role. Shirley Knight, Arthur Hill and Joseph Cotten round out the memorable cast.
I urge all serious moviegoers to get a glance at this one. 9/10.
Scott's character takes life as it comes. He's very easy going, and its nice to see him in a role in which he rarely raises his voice or gets manic or seems to care what happens one way or the other. He loves Petulia but does not take her very seriously, until she is badly beaten up by her husband.
The editing can be studied by film students. Its a main part of the story as its told primarily through flashbacks. The beautiful city of San Francisco is used to full advantage.
Christie has rarely been more beautiful. Richard Chamberlain has his best movie role. Shirley Knight, Arthur Hill and Joseph Cotten round out the memorable cast.
I urge all serious moviegoers to get a glance at this one. 9/10.
experimental structure makes for slow start
SnoopyStyle26 September 2014
Newlywed San Francisco socialite Petulia Danner (Julie Christie) is bored with her husband naval engineer David (Richard Chamberlain). She aggressively flirts with Dr. Archie Bollen (George C. Scott) at a hospital fundraiser. He is about to finalize his divorce from Polo (Shirley Knight). She's fixated on him after bringing in the Mexican boy Oliver into the hospital. She continues to stalk him despite the fact that he's dating May (Pippa Scott). It's a mystery as David's dark side and his abusive father (Joseph Cotten) are revealed.
The movie is disjointed with flashbacks and forwards. The quick flashes are too experimental and are better off extracted from the movie. There is something interesting with the disjointed structure being attempted here. It doesn't really work at the beginning, but it becomes more fascinating as more is revealed. It makes me ache to put the pieces together. Yet it struggles at times. I think Oliver's story is interesting which makes it a grind to follow Archie in the present.
The movie is disjointed with flashbacks and forwards. The quick flashes are too experimental and are better off extracted from the movie. There is something interesting with the disjointed structure being attempted here. It doesn't really work at the beginning, but it becomes more fascinating as more is revealed. It makes me ache to put the pieces together. Yet it struggles at times. I think Oliver's story is interesting which makes it a grind to follow Archie in the present.
Inexplicably overlooked
T-Boy-324 March 1999
Certainly one of the top films of the '60s, this film was overlooked (misunderstood?) at its release and has yet to be "rediscovered." Lester's use of flashbacks and forewards is a little confusing at first, but it's also a vital element in what makes this film so worthwhile. The performances are first-rate all the way, including Richard Chamberlin, who has never been this good before or since, and Joseph Cotton, who speaks volumes in his brief scenes. Challenging and disturbing, definitely a film that deserves (and requires) a second look. Maybe someone will do a Lester retrospective (he also did the Beatles' first films)so that this masterpiece can finally find the audience it deserves.
" What does one do with morals, when they are used to hide surface wounds? "
thinker16913 August 2010
The 1960's were years of radical change, deliberate rebellion and outright discarding of many rules. This film called " Petulia " is one example of the deception of established but hidden lifestyles. It tells the story of Petulia Danner (Julie Christie) a young, fashionable, but very married woman with an extremely 'kookie' attitude to life. The inner burden she carries is difficult to reveal, so she masks it with a facade of erratic behavior. Among the various quirks she tries is attracting the attention of Archie Bollen (George C. Scott), a concerned doctor on the downside of a marriage. Interested, Bollen tries to understand Miss Danner, while adjusting his own life to the on-going divorce, the loss of his own kids and the knowledge that Patulia's jealous husband (Richard Chamberlain) is a rage-filled, physically abusive, spoiled rich man. Learning that Mr. Danner attacked and nearly killed his wife, Bollen must decided what to do with the on-going abuse. With a menagerie of 60's style rock bands and hippie, flower-child backgrounds, director Richard Lester, paints the movie with the addition of several cameo actors like Arthur Hill, Joseph Cotton, Howard Hesseman and Austin Pendleton. This is one film written by John Haase and Lawrence Marcos which well defines the sixties. ***
A con job
bwaynef11 April 1999
Someone obviously likes "Petulia," the 1968 film directed by Richard Lester that I recently watched on video. Leonard Maltin, in his "TV Movies and Video Guide," calls it one of the decade's best films, and a few of the contributors to the Internet Movie Database heap praise on the thing. If it isn't already obvious that I disagree with the admirers of the film, let me lay it out as clearly and as diplomatically as I can: this movie sucks.
I should now express my gratitude to the woman who stood guard at the box-office on that long ago Saturday night when I, a mere lad eager to see "Bullitt," was refused entry to the second-run movie house where "Petulia" was the supporting feature on the grounds that one of these films (I know not which) was considered too adult for an 11 or 12 year old who looked even younger. The following summer I learned that "Bullitt" bit (what a dreary bore of an action film), and now I know that "Petulia" is just as bad. It's one of those semi-psychedelic, woefully pretentious "60's movies" about an adulterous affair between a middle-aged man, a surgeon played by George C. Scott, and a swingin' hip chick played by--who else?--Julie Christie. It's the kind of movie in which NOTHING happens. Because the lives of the principals are as dull and uneventful as the lives of any working stiff, well, it has to be art, right?
When I say that "nothing" happens in "Petulia," I suppose I'm exaggerating just a bit. The film in the camera was not defective. It did capture SOMETHING, but that something doesn't add up to a whole lot. What we get are a whole bunch of disconnected scenes that are devoid of meaning but cut in such a way as to suggest that some deep truth is being conveyed. We see Scott being hit on by Christie outside a party at which they meet. Suddenly, we glimpse a child under the wheel of a car. After cutting back to the couple's conversation, director Lester shows us Scott at work in an operating room while Christie, perhaps unbeknownst to Scott, watches him through the door. Richard Chamberlain and Shirley Knight are hauled out from time to time as the adulterous couple's spouses but nothing they say or do has any significance. And then there's Joseph Cotton looking as though he belongs on a slab in the morgue. The whole thing is as arty as the director's two films with the Beatles but pretentious in ways that those films are not. Fact is, there was more art in those wild leaps the Fab Four performed in "A Hard Day's Night" than in a single frame of "Petulia."
Director Lester started in commercials and judging by most of his output, he probably should have stayed there. Like a TV commercial, "Petulia" shows signs of technical skill but no matter how impressive it may be to the eye, nothing can change the fact that, like a commercial, it delivers less than what it promises. It's like a car commercial that uses sexy images to equate the product with youth, beauty, and affluence when, for most people, the vehicle will provide nothing more than a means to get to the grocery store faster than they could on foot. It's a con job. So is this film.
I should now express my gratitude to the woman who stood guard at the box-office on that long ago Saturday night when I, a mere lad eager to see "Bullitt," was refused entry to the second-run movie house where "Petulia" was the supporting feature on the grounds that one of these films (I know not which) was considered too adult for an 11 or 12 year old who looked even younger. The following summer I learned that "Bullitt" bit (what a dreary bore of an action film), and now I know that "Petulia" is just as bad. It's one of those semi-psychedelic, woefully pretentious "60's movies" about an adulterous affair between a middle-aged man, a surgeon played by George C. Scott, and a swingin' hip chick played by--who else?--Julie Christie. It's the kind of movie in which NOTHING happens. Because the lives of the principals are as dull and uneventful as the lives of any working stiff, well, it has to be art, right?
When I say that "nothing" happens in "Petulia," I suppose I'm exaggerating just a bit. The film in the camera was not defective. It did capture SOMETHING, but that something doesn't add up to a whole lot. What we get are a whole bunch of disconnected scenes that are devoid of meaning but cut in such a way as to suggest that some deep truth is being conveyed. We see Scott being hit on by Christie outside a party at which they meet. Suddenly, we glimpse a child under the wheel of a car. After cutting back to the couple's conversation, director Lester shows us Scott at work in an operating room while Christie, perhaps unbeknownst to Scott, watches him through the door. Richard Chamberlain and Shirley Knight are hauled out from time to time as the adulterous couple's spouses but nothing they say or do has any significance. And then there's Joseph Cotton looking as though he belongs on a slab in the morgue. The whole thing is as arty as the director's two films with the Beatles but pretentious in ways that those films are not. Fact is, there was more art in those wild leaps the Fab Four performed in "A Hard Day's Night" than in a single frame of "Petulia."
Director Lester started in commercials and judging by most of his output, he probably should have stayed there. Like a TV commercial, "Petulia" shows signs of technical skill but no matter how impressive it may be to the eye, nothing can change the fact that, like a commercial, it delivers less than what it promises. It's like a car commercial that uses sexy images to equate the product with youth, beauty, and affluence when, for most people, the vehicle will provide nothing more than a means to get to the grocery store faster than they could on foot. It's a con job. So is this film.
Richard Lester's Masterpiece
none-1022 February 2000
Lester's "serious" film is a stylistic and cinematic masterpiece that -like much of Lester's work- has been underrated for decades. "Petulia" features the performance of a lifetime for Julie Christie and stunning work by George C. Scott and Richard Chamberlain.
This film is amazingly shot by Nicholas Roeg (!) and is a riveting piece of timeless cinema. A must-see.
This film is amazingly shot by Nicholas Roeg (!) and is a riveting piece of timeless cinema. A must-see.
An unsatisfying, but remarkable film from an underrated genius.
the red duchess8 November 2000
Here's an unusual thing - a British melodrama made by an American comedy director in the style of fashionable European art-house cinema. Although the image of a mannequin-pretty woman waiting for a bus with a huge tuba seems Felliniesque, the main influences appear to be Antonioni and Resnais. Like the former, 'Petulia' is the story of failed relationships in a sterile, modern environment. Phrases like 'alienation' come readily to mind.
George C. Scott plays the sort of character you can imagine Marcello Mastroianni acting like a glove, a successful professional (here, a doctor) whose personal life is a mess, not through economic circumstances or personal antipathy, but something vaguer, paralysis, passivity. Offered a chance of escape or excitement, he quickly doubts himself out of it. His personal sterility is mirrored in his environment, captured in images of chilly, symmetrical beauty, huge, dwarfing, faceless, monolithic buildings, walls, rooms, motorways, amusement parks, hospitals, constructions, obviously built by people, but seeped of all soul, marks of humanity or culture; frightening and futuristic.
To further compound this hero's drifting aimlessness, he can't even settle into his own story, which is repeatedly broken up, by strange, choppy editing between time and space, between the uncertain status of many scenes (is this a dream? memory? real? flashforward? imagining? some one else's point of view?) - this is the Resnais part; by the camerawork that makes him shrink in his surroundings; by jokey gimmicks, such as the outing with his sons in a deserted construction; by the enigmatic symbolism that doesn't yield any immediate sense; by the ellipses in narrative so that we, with the hero, don't always know what's going on.
Any talk of facts of the plot can only be provisional. Scott is an eminent surgeon, about to be divorced, with two kids he sees a couple of hours a week. At a fundraiser, he is hit on by Petulia (Julie Christie), a self-styled kook, alternately jaunty and melancholy, whose husband seems to be abusive, and whose father-in-law puts a lot of money into the hospital. She offers and withdraws sexual favours to Scott, and follows him everywhere, doing silly things like robbing tubas. She has a past of her own, of course - on a trip to Tijuana, a Mexican urchin hitched a ride; her husband throws him out, and he is accidentally run over. Scott is his surgeon.
Such a summary suggests that the film is all about connection - the main characters are somehow inextricably linked. This is strengthened by Lester's style, which cuts between characters in the middle of scenes, seeming to tie them together even when they are apart. But there is one scene that seems to summarise the film's attitude to connection, when Petulia's husband, with Petulia in the same room, phones Scott, but doesn't talk to him - Scott talks into emptiness, to himself. Petulia doesn't know what's going on. Like the telephone, the film is complex apparatus of connection, of potential communication, but nobody is saying anything to each other.
This is a strange film. The wholesale dumping of one culture's codes onto another is obviously contrived, and 'Petulia' often feels like it hasn't absorbed it's masters' lessons. Richard Lester is one of my favourite directors, and a masterpiece like 'The Knack' reveals a surer grasp of European ideas. But nobody else was making daring, difficult films like this - 'Bonnie and Clyde', for all its trickery, is a very accessible, conventional film. It is no accident that both Nicolas Roeg (who photographed it) and Steven Soderbergh found rich inspiration here. 'Petulia' is quite remarkable.
George C. Scott plays the sort of character you can imagine Marcello Mastroianni acting like a glove, a successful professional (here, a doctor) whose personal life is a mess, not through economic circumstances or personal antipathy, but something vaguer, paralysis, passivity. Offered a chance of escape or excitement, he quickly doubts himself out of it. His personal sterility is mirrored in his environment, captured in images of chilly, symmetrical beauty, huge, dwarfing, faceless, monolithic buildings, walls, rooms, motorways, amusement parks, hospitals, constructions, obviously built by people, but seeped of all soul, marks of humanity or culture; frightening and futuristic.
To further compound this hero's drifting aimlessness, he can't even settle into his own story, which is repeatedly broken up, by strange, choppy editing between time and space, between the uncertain status of many scenes (is this a dream? memory? real? flashforward? imagining? some one else's point of view?) - this is the Resnais part; by the camerawork that makes him shrink in his surroundings; by jokey gimmicks, such as the outing with his sons in a deserted construction; by the enigmatic symbolism that doesn't yield any immediate sense; by the ellipses in narrative so that we, with the hero, don't always know what's going on.
Any talk of facts of the plot can only be provisional. Scott is an eminent surgeon, about to be divorced, with two kids he sees a couple of hours a week. At a fundraiser, he is hit on by Petulia (Julie Christie), a self-styled kook, alternately jaunty and melancholy, whose husband seems to be abusive, and whose father-in-law puts a lot of money into the hospital. She offers and withdraws sexual favours to Scott, and follows him everywhere, doing silly things like robbing tubas. She has a past of her own, of course - on a trip to Tijuana, a Mexican urchin hitched a ride; her husband throws him out, and he is accidentally run over. Scott is his surgeon.
Such a summary suggests that the film is all about connection - the main characters are somehow inextricably linked. This is strengthened by Lester's style, which cuts between characters in the middle of scenes, seeming to tie them together even when they are apart. But there is one scene that seems to summarise the film's attitude to connection, when Petulia's husband, with Petulia in the same room, phones Scott, but doesn't talk to him - Scott talks into emptiness, to himself. Petulia doesn't know what's going on. Like the telephone, the film is complex apparatus of connection, of potential communication, but nobody is saying anything to each other.
This is a strange film. The wholesale dumping of one culture's codes onto another is obviously contrived, and 'Petulia' often feels like it hasn't absorbed it's masters' lessons. Richard Lester is one of my favourite directors, and a masterpiece like 'The Knack' reveals a surer grasp of European ideas. But nobody else was making daring, difficult films like this - 'Bonnie and Clyde', for all its trickery, is a very accessible, conventional film. It is no accident that both Nicolas Roeg (who photographed it) and Steven Soderbergh found rich inspiration here. 'Petulia' is quite remarkable.
When Julie Plays The Rumba On Her Tuba
bkoganbing27 February 2010
Petulia is one of those films that some critics find creative because it takes the story plot line and presents it in a non linear manner. We're all supposed to think that's creative when in fact all it is is confusing. This is what passes for art.
That being said had the film been presented in a straightforward manner I might have found more to like in it. When it all gets straightened out the story involves uptight middle-class doctor George C. Scott who is in the process of getting a divorce from Shirley Knight. At a swinging party in San Francisco where the story takes place, Scott is propositioned by Julie Christie on about thirty seconds worth of acquaintance.
Scott puts her off, the fact that she's already married to the wealthy Richard Chamberlain is certainly enough reason. But Julie is a persistent one, she shows up the next night at Scott's apartment with a tuba she ripped off from a pawnshop.
Sounds bizarre, but what we're able to perceive is that this is really a desperate cry for help on many levels. Scott only gradually comes around to seeing it, we do also mainly because the way the story is told.
Christie and Scott are both good in the leads, there is a performance by Joseph Cotten as Chamberlain's father who exudes a sinister presence in the few scenes he's in. As Joseph Cotten is one of my favorite players it's only natural I would commend him for his work here.
A straightforward telling of the tale might have served Petulia better, but someone like director Richard Lester among others was just trying to be arty.
That being said had the film been presented in a straightforward manner I might have found more to like in it. When it all gets straightened out the story involves uptight middle-class doctor George C. Scott who is in the process of getting a divorce from Shirley Knight. At a swinging party in San Francisco where the story takes place, Scott is propositioned by Julie Christie on about thirty seconds worth of acquaintance.
Scott puts her off, the fact that she's already married to the wealthy Richard Chamberlain is certainly enough reason. But Julie is a persistent one, she shows up the next night at Scott's apartment with a tuba she ripped off from a pawnshop.
Sounds bizarre, but what we're able to perceive is that this is really a desperate cry for help on many levels. Scott only gradually comes around to seeing it, we do also mainly because the way the story is told.
Christie and Scott are both good in the leads, there is a performance by Joseph Cotten as Chamberlain's father who exudes a sinister presence in the few scenes he's in. As Joseph Cotten is one of my favorite players it's only natural I would commend him for his work here.
A straightforward telling of the tale might have served Petulia better, but someone like director Richard Lester among others was just trying to be arty.
Nothing says heartbreak like Petulia
cairnsdavid15 November 2002
I've never seen a film which captured the confusion of love gone wrong like this. The kaleidoscopic editing can be a distraction but it also helps create the torment of the main character as his life slowly ceases to make sense. Stunningly photographed by Nicolas Roeg, and a clear influence on his later BAD TIMING, in which the neurosis, present in all the characters of PETULIA, blossoms into full-blown psychosis. What this film has over Roeg's is a sharper compassion and a satiric portrait of late summer-of-love San Francisco which feels accurate and quite ahead of its time. Disillusion has already set in. George C Scott is majestic, and Julie Christie goes from irritating in the "BRINGING up BABY for the Pepsi Generation" opening sequences, to ultimately moving and affecting. The ending, where she goes under the gas (to give birth, but it feels more permanent than that), is as oddly chilling as Lester's earlier HOW I WON THE WAR (which ends with Michael Crawford eating a biscuit, and manages to make this terrifying). What can I say? If you have time and sympathy for people who are a bit screwed up, PETULIA may speak to you.
Petulia
Scarecrow-8822 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Archie Bollen(George C Scott, very good)is a square peg in a very circular world. He seems to be a Waldo amongst flower children. There's a scene I find humorous(..while others might find strange and/or pathetic)that shows Archie in the middle of a crowd of hipsters dancing in a psychedelic hall as some band was playing with weird-colored strobe lights flashing throughout. What makes this film so great is that he has no business having any connection whatsoever with "young-married" Petulia(Julie Christie). She has this feeling for him that spurns from an operation she watched him perform on a young Latino child named Oliver. Oliver, as the film would confirm later, is caught under a speeding car and it has everything to do with Petulia and her volatile, unpredictable, "quick-to-rush-into anger" husband David(Richard Chamberlain;he's unfortunately the unsung actor here because all the roles are so great that Chamberlain can be forgotten until his character changes Petulia's life through a horrible beating).
Archie's previous married life to "Polo"(Shirley Knight who is outstanding as the conflicted wife;clearly, her work on here outshines everyone..even Christie in my opinion)wasn't a bad one, but something was missing. He felt suffocated, not to mention, there was no joy. When he can not get rid of Petulia, he succumbs to her charms and beauty. This film shows their unusual relationship, specifically how their differences bring them peculiarly closer because of this transfixing, overwhelming attraction that morphs into love.
I have to say that Richard lester's direction just floored me. The way he edits the lifestyle of that period in San Francisco life and how he captures the people in that era..it's just Wow. I wish films like this were made today. It just vibrated off-screen to me and I was completely hooked to it's charms and visual fervor. The performances are already superb to begin with, but how Lester brings the past within the frame-work of the present..it's so fresh and innovative. This movie just wreaks of craftsmanship. A masterpiece.
Archie's previous married life to "Polo"(Shirley Knight who is outstanding as the conflicted wife;clearly, her work on here outshines everyone..even Christie in my opinion)wasn't a bad one, but something was missing. He felt suffocated, not to mention, there was no joy. When he can not get rid of Petulia, he succumbs to her charms and beauty. This film shows their unusual relationship, specifically how their differences bring them peculiarly closer because of this transfixing, overwhelming attraction that morphs into love.
I have to say that Richard lester's direction just floored me. The way he edits the lifestyle of that period in San Francisco life and how he captures the people in that era..it's just Wow. I wish films like this were made today. It just vibrated off-screen to me and I was completely hooked to it's charms and visual fervor. The performances are already superb to begin with, but how Lester brings the past within the frame-work of the present..it's so fresh and innovative. This movie just wreaks of craftsmanship. A masterpiece.
A slice of 60s angst.
tomsview9 June 2016
Although I wouldn't say this film is actually enjoyable, it does give a good feel for life in the 60's - at a certain level at least.
From topless bars to the TVs crackling away in the background about the war in Vietnam, "Petulia" has plenty of incidental detail of the mid-60s. The story itself seems rather pointless, also reflecting how many seemed to feel about their lives at the time. In a way, it captures the age as effectively as "Woodstock" or "Easy Rider", but from a totally different viewpoint.
Set in San Francisco, Petulia Danner (Julie Christie) is an impulsive woman who latches onto the prominent middle aged Dr. Archie Bollen (George C Scott) and ignites an affair of sorts. Everybody in the story has issues: she is caught in a marriage to David Danner (Richard Chamberlain), an abusive man who has issues to spare, while Archie Bollen has recently left his wife and two young boys. Archie's friends find it hard to accept the breakup as it highlights their own fragile relationships. In fine 60s style, everyone is searching for meaning to their lives, and on it goes until the bleak fade out.
Director Mark Lester didn't miss one chic effect; the film has flash-forwards as well as flashbacks - all very now back then, but looking too self-conscious these days.
The film has two of the most beautiful faces of the time: a luminous Julie Christie and a smoothly handsome Richard Chamberlain, and one of the craggiest, George C Scott, just before he strapped on the ivory-handled pistols for "Patton". Joseph Cotton as David Danner's insufferable father represented the despised establishment of the day.
John Barry composed a wistful score full of longing that had more depth than much of the film. During the 60s Barry came up with one brilliant score after another; "Petulia" was one of them.
People are often fascinated by the era just before they were born and for those with a fascination for the 60s the film has much to offer. At first glance, it may not seem connected with flower power, hippie culture or free love, but in a way, those attitudes can be seen shaping the actions of the film's characters.
With that said though, this is a film where the sum of the parts is actually greater than the whole.
From topless bars to the TVs crackling away in the background about the war in Vietnam, "Petulia" has plenty of incidental detail of the mid-60s. The story itself seems rather pointless, also reflecting how many seemed to feel about their lives at the time. In a way, it captures the age as effectively as "Woodstock" or "Easy Rider", but from a totally different viewpoint.
Set in San Francisco, Petulia Danner (Julie Christie) is an impulsive woman who latches onto the prominent middle aged Dr. Archie Bollen (George C Scott) and ignites an affair of sorts. Everybody in the story has issues: she is caught in a marriage to David Danner (Richard Chamberlain), an abusive man who has issues to spare, while Archie Bollen has recently left his wife and two young boys. Archie's friends find it hard to accept the breakup as it highlights their own fragile relationships. In fine 60s style, everyone is searching for meaning to their lives, and on it goes until the bleak fade out.
Director Mark Lester didn't miss one chic effect; the film has flash-forwards as well as flashbacks - all very now back then, but looking too self-conscious these days.
The film has two of the most beautiful faces of the time: a luminous Julie Christie and a smoothly handsome Richard Chamberlain, and one of the craggiest, George C Scott, just before he strapped on the ivory-handled pistols for "Patton". Joseph Cotton as David Danner's insufferable father represented the despised establishment of the day.
John Barry composed a wistful score full of longing that had more depth than much of the film. During the 60s Barry came up with one brilliant score after another; "Petulia" was one of them.
People are often fascinated by the era just before they were born and for those with a fascination for the 60s the film has much to offer. At first glance, it may not seem connected with flower power, hippie culture or free love, but in a way, those attitudes can be seen shaping the actions of the film's characters.
With that said though, this is a film where the sum of the parts is actually greater than the whole.
Absolutely Cool
DysfunctionalDiva5 September 2002
I adore this film and I'm so surprised that it doesn't have a higher score for user votes. I stumbled on this film on cable and was mesmerized. It's truly is fabulous - if it sounds like I'm gushing over it, it's because that's precisely what I'm doing. Julie Christie is just awesome in this film. She so kinetic, and of course, beautiful. The biggest surprise for me was watching Richard Chamberlain. I always thought of him as just the King of Television Mini-Series, and he was so utterly different in this than what I grew up thinking him to be. The film is so stylistic - wonderful the way it plays with time and images. Petulia is the best hidden surprise that I've stumbled on in the last 5 years. Now if someone would only release it on DVD - PLEASE!
"You have a very superior pelvis ..."
justthrockmorton29 January 2023
Yikes! Huh, no thanks ... Too much going on, and none of it works. Much too clever dialogue (horrible sound, almost all of it dubbed), cinematography by Nicholas Roeg and even a score by John Barry of James Bond fame. None of it works. It's not George C. Scott's fault, certainly not Julie Christie's-even Richard Chamberlain manages ok. Joseph Cotten is sadly ridiculous, probably due to bad direction and Shirley Knight (the mother in As Good As It Gets) is well cast as Scott's ball and chain.
Films don't need to be this convoluted, especially when they're trying to be european-Ingmar Bergman springs to mind, so does Michelangelo Antonioni. But it's fun to watch them try. American film making didn't really get hip until the 70s (Director Mike Nichols excepted) and even then it took Roman Polansky and John Schlesinger to set them off.
Richard Lester's masterpiece is A Hard Days Night. I'm not much of a fan of anything else. A bit too wacky, silly for me. It's difficult to know just why this film fails-It's based upon a novel, and it's got two strong influences-Richerd Lester and Nicholas Roeg (About Roeg, I can't say it any better than Wikipedia, so here is a direct quote- "Roeg quickly became known for an idiosyncratic visual and narrative style, characterized by the use of disjointed and disorienting editing. For this reason, he is considered a highly influential filmmaker, cited as an inspiration by such directors as Steven Soderbergh, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle.)
Yes, this film is very disjointed and idiosyncratic, and not to good effect, but whose fault is it? This film is busy, noisy, badly edited and badly written, but watch it all the same, if only for nostalgia's sake and a surprise visit from Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead (can you say Blow Up? I knew your could ...).
Films don't need to be this convoluted, especially when they're trying to be european-Ingmar Bergman springs to mind, so does Michelangelo Antonioni. But it's fun to watch them try. American film making didn't really get hip until the 70s (Director Mike Nichols excepted) and even then it took Roman Polansky and John Schlesinger to set them off.
Richard Lester's masterpiece is A Hard Days Night. I'm not much of a fan of anything else. A bit too wacky, silly for me. It's difficult to know just why this film fails-It's based upon a novel, and it's got two strong influences-Richerd Lester and Nicholas Roeg (About Roeg, I can't say it any better than Wikipedia, so here is a direct quote- "Roeg quickly became known for an idiosyncratic visual and narrative style, characterized by the use of disjointed and disorienting editing. For this reason, he is considered a highly influential filmmaker, cited as an inspiration by such directors as Steven Soderbergh, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle.)
Yes, this film is very disjointed and idiosyncratic, and not to good effect, but whose fault is it? This film is busy, noisy, badly edited and badly written, but watch it all the same, if only for nostalgia's sake and a surprise visit from Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead (can you say Blow Up? I knew your could ...).
What a long strange trip this has been
highclark6 January 2005
I could not give a wide range recommendation for this film. If you don't like abrupt flashback edits and a story that unfolds slowly, then this is not for you. However, if you can hang with the film you will be rewarded for your effort with some truly bizarre moments. There are images from the film that really stuck with me. The absurdity of situations seemed to come back to me days after having watched it. I remembered the gift of the Tuba, the hospital staff trying to explain the 'dummy teevee' procurement procedure, and of course, George C. Scott making his way into not only a 'Big Brother and the Holding Company' concert, but also a 'Grateful Dead' show. Huh?
Added to that you have Richard Chamberlain in all his dandy elfin fabulousness, Joeseph Cotten collecting a paycheck and a very young Howard Hesseman(Dr. Johnny Fever) in a cameo that really served no purpose that I could fathom.
A lot of cat and mouse love affair nonsense between the beautiful Julie Christie and the 'throat lozenged' George C. Scott....what?......it could happen. A lot of obsession and a bit of denial make up the bulk of the movie.
It is interesting to see Scotts' character change throughout the film.
Richard Lester has made many, many great films. And although this film doesn't carry the Richard Lester stamp, it is still one of his best films. I loved it. 9/10.
But really, George C. Scott at a 'Dead' show? Trouble ahead, trouble behind indeed.
Clark Richards
Added to that you have Richard Chamberlain in all his dandy elfin fabulousness, Joeseph Cotten collecting a paycheck and a very young Howard Hesseman(Dr. Johnny Fever) in a cameo that really served no purpose that I could fathom.
A lot of cat and mouse love affair nonsense between the beautiful Julie Christie and the 'throat lozenged' George C. Scott....what?......it could happen. A lot of obsession and a bit of denial make up the bulk of the movie.
It is interesting to see Scotts' character change throughout the film.
Richard Lester has made many, many great films. And although this film doesn't carry the Richard Lester stamp, it is still one of his best films. I loved it. 9/10.
But really, George C. Scott at a 'Dead' show? Trouble ahead, trouble behind indeed.
Clark Richards
Interestingly 60's
liftedface20 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film screams the 60's up and down from the very first scene with Janis Joplin and Big Brother and The Holding Company performing before we even get a chance to understand what is even going on in the movie. In addition the flashbacks cut disjointedly like a many films of the same era. I find it no surprise that Nick Roeg shot this film as its cuts remind me very strongly of "The Man Who Fell To Earth." I found the whole theme of people struggling to define themselves a bit weak, but felt more like it was just a story of very unique people trapped in the more unlikely of positions. George C. Scott is bored... so what, I'm bored with my life too. And a girl seeking worth outside of entanglements of an abusive husband is not so strange in any day and age. The acting is however, above par and expect exceptional performances from a very young Richard Chamberlin and a very seasoned Joseph Cotton.
Sadly, "Bad Timing" this is not
bastard_wisher24 June 2006
In 1980, Nicholas Roeg (who served as the cinematographer on this film) made a groundbreaking, stunning portrayal of a dysfunctional romance told in fractured, elliptical narrative fragments called "Bad Timing". In many ways, "Petulia" serves as a predecessor to that wonderful film, as it tells a similar story using a similarly disjointed technique. However, as a film this one, while not bad, barely holds a candle to Roeg's later masterpiece. Although Roeg's cinematography is often excellent, the story is very promising, and there are even a number of good scenes, as a whole it just doesn't quite come together. For one thing, the film feels more like an attempt at hip, edgy '60s art film-making from conventional Hollywood filmmakers than the real deal (note the overabundance of melodramatic, overwrought soundtrack music). It seems more like a self-conscious imitation of "Pierrot le fou" or "Blowup" than anything that comes close to comparing to the artistic integrity of those films, and consequently has dated very badly in a way those films have not. Also the dialogue is often frustratingly awkward in a way that I am not sure was intentional, or rather what the intended tone of the dialogue was suppose to be. Was it meant to be post-modern and ironic? Or is it really just insipid Hollywood melodrama dressed up with flashy psychedelic cinematography and set design? Considering the degree to which the film disintegrates into pure conventional sappiness by the end (the last scene being almost painfully mawkish), I fear it may be the latter. It is really a shame, because based on the premise alone the film did not at all need to be that way. There are actually enough good moments that it makes it all the more regrettable that ultimately the filmmakers could not overcome cliché.
I've been thinking of this movie a lot of late
jimma7ig-13 April 2005
I was reviewing Julie Christie's career on the net, and, of course, came across one of my favorite's. As expected, the leads are the best...over time and effort. I saw it the year it was released. It still stays with me...clearly and distinctly. From Chamberlain to Knight and Joseph Cotton, everybody stands out. The director uses the Bay area quite nicely as the backdrop. If it was on tonight, on the cable, I would be sure to watch it. I viewed the movie through the eyes of Scott's character. He is in the middle of the late 60's and lost and his wife, Shirley Knight, just doesn't get it. What is the fuss. Kooky or straight, average wage earner or wealthy, they all are portrayed well... as their lives intersect. Yes it is a slice of life, in the vein of the theatre of the absurd...yet it made so much sense as I was watching it. Later Scott played a head surgeon in a New York hospital opposite Diana Rugg. It was as though the character in Petulia got transferred to New York, still lost but still the good doctor. Julie Christie continues to work when she wants to and picks her projects well. Unlike one of the reviewers on this site, Christie did significant work in Afterglow with Nick Nolte in the mid 90's. How could he drop that from his memory bank. Petulia is well worth the concentrated effort it takes to watch.
Julie, George and Richard can easily do things like this
lee_eisenberg19 January 2007
Like many movies, "Petulia" tells the story of a young woman (Julie Christie) unsatisfied with her marriage getting involved with another man (George C. Scott). The major difference is that this movie is set amid the counterculture of San Francisco in the late '60s - so why's she getting involved with an older man, I wonder. It seems like the movie's main point is to try and capitalize on what happened in the '60s. I mean, it's not like Julie Christie, George C. Scott and Richard Chamberlain were born to play these roles - although I can't imagine who else would play them.
Anyway, it's maybe worth seeing once. "Lost in Translation" managed to elaborate on the idea. Also starring Shirley Knight and Janis Joplin (happy birthday, Janis!).
Anyway, it's maybe worth seeing once. "Lost in Translation" managed to elaborate on the idea. Also starring Shirley Knight and Janis Joplin (happy birthday, Janis!).
Gorgeous Julie can't save this one.
ags12319 April 2007
There's a reason this "undiscovered gem" remains undiscovered: It's lousy. On just about all counts. Considering the talent involved, it's surprising how bad it is. How can a Richard Lester film be so boring? The characters are completely unsympathetic and underdeveloped. The scene between George C. Scott and Shirley Knight is designed to reveal the essence of their failed relationship, but it's so shallow, all I could focus on was who's gonna clean up the food he threw at her? Richard Chamberlain's portrayal of an inattentive, abusive husband is totally unconvincing, though the real fault is in the writing. And Julie Christie, looking beautiful in her prime, has to be referred to by everyone as a "kook" several times, otherwise we might not get it. Wasted too, are the amazing San Francisco locations. Nicholas Roeg had every opportunity to showcase this picturesque city, but instead fills the frame with ugly, dated interiors. This humorless look at troubled losers never gets off the ground.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
