The Wedding Party (1969) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Early Brian de Palma; interesting curiosity
graeme-9326 June 2006
This slight film is mostly going to be of interest to de Palma or Robert de Niro fans, but not many others. Shot in black and white, the tale of a man who plans to get married and has second thoughts, is peppered with more radical cinematography than the plot deserves: the speeded up walking and 'zany'/'madcap' car driving.

But the idea of a threesome of men talking through jump-cuts ended up being used to much better effect in de Palma's Greetings, which also starred a young de Niro again.

Also the film's strength or weakness - depending on your mood - is that much of it clearly was shot on film stock that had no sound, so the genius is that much of the film is 'silent' ie it only has accompanying music. This adds to the scenes when dialogue does kick into the film. Unfortunately, the insignificance of the improvised conversations hardly make you want to wait for the next such discourse.

Worth watching once, but don't spend too much on the ticket!
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An oddity, which can't be called good, but which does have a heart.
FlatSixMan17 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The Wedding Party (1966, but unreleased until 1969); Directed by: Brian De Palma, Wilford Leach & Cynthia Munroe; Starring e.a.: William Finley, Robert De Niro & Jill Clayburgh.

This film has two things which made me want to see it: it being Brian De Palma's first feature film and it being Robert De Niro's first feature film performance. The film offers quite a nice little story though. Charlie (Charles Pfluger) is getting married to Josephine (Jill Clayburgh) and visits his to-be in-laws, the Fish family, for the wedding rehearsal. He starts doubting his decision of marriage though, and his friends Alistair (Finley) and Cecil (De Niro) try to persuade him to go through with it.

The black and white film is speeded up in many scenes, to give it a fun and comic feel, as the old silent comedies did. In many scenes the film even becomes like a silent film, since most of the outside scenes were filmed on stock without sound. Voiceovers give you background talk in these instances, which is mostly inconsequential to the actual storyline. The speeded up film is complemented with jump cuts of people talking to each other, like when Alistair and Cecil try to convince Charlie that the institution of marriage is a bad thing, because it takes your freedom away. In this scene it works quite well, but it's used quite frequently and not always to best use. This style gives the film its fun and light atmosphere, but it's also used too many times and it thus becomes repetitive and you loose interest halfway through scenes. Most apparent of this is the scene where the groom runs away from the wedding and Alistair and Cecil try to catch him and bring him back. It goes on for too long and somewhere halfway through the scene, it no longer holds your full attention. This style is recognizable De Palma though, since he also uses it in "Greetings" and "Hi, Mom!". However, in these films it's used in a better way. There's a really nice scene where it does work beautifully though. At the banquet the evening before the wedding, there are numerous toasts to the bride and groom and with each toast the guests drink a glass of alcohol and thus many glasses are emptied, with the guests getting tipsy. With jump cuts this is shown really nice and it becomes quite funny. If this were edited in a more conventional way it wouldn't have worked half as good.

On to the acting. To be honest: it's nothing special. Charlie, our main character, isn't portrayed well by Charles Pfluger (who, according to this site, hasn't acted in another film) and he sometimes becomes somewhat unlikable, which isn't right for the story. Robert De Niro and William Finley were nice as the friends of the groom, but their performances were nothing special. Since it are early performances they are fun to watch though. The rest of the cast isn't special either, but then again, the material isn't really suited for a grand acting performance, it calls for some oddball comedy and that's delivered by the actors.

What was a bit surprising to me is that the subject matter, about having doubts about getting married, was portrayed quite well. While it's primarily a comedy, the dramatic element about it is still felt. Now don't expect a drama, since the film truly is a comedy, but the subject is treated with honesty and thus you can feel for the groom's doubts. As a whole though, the film is a bit of a mess. Many comedic moments fail to be really funny and the style is a bit overused, making the film feel somewhat overlong. But De Palma perfected this style in his later efforts and there it did work really well. In all honesty it can't be called a good film, but the film does make you feel good afterwards and has got a heart (something missing in many films). So, I recommend it to everyone who's interested in how De Palma started out and in early De Niro, or anyone with an open mind who wants to have a fun hour and a half. Don't watch it if you like your films more straightforward and more conventional, since the film is an oddity and quite unique.

I rate it 5/10.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I did not really get it
jed-estes20 September 2006
This film is very slow paced and dated. I got this as I am a huge fan of Brian De Palma and must, simply must see everything he does and did. This film however is not very good. I would like to pawn it off on the fact that De Palma did not direct the whole thing and was just one third of the team but that would be a lazy cop out. This movie is slow because he and the others are new and inexperienced at film making. This was one of his first movies if not the first and you can tell he is a virgin as far as film-making goes. This movie does a few high points. Their is the typical fast forward motion that most De Palma films have in this but I think it was more to save film in this than to be artistic, but it was out of this that the fast forward shots for Carrie, Hi, Mom, and Greetings were born. Their is also a highly funny portion in this movie with an Arab ex boyfriend of the bride who comes to visit. I love this part of the movie the groom is trying to pass the bride off to the Arab so he can free himself from the shackles that will be marriage, but the Arab does not bite and gets the heck out. This movie is also good because it has early performances by Robert De Niro and William Finnley. They are great as the grooms guest and I love that they are in this. Watch this movie for De Palma's growth as a filmmaker but stay away if you are just an average movie goer.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing farce
raymond-1521 August 2007
I chose to watch the DVD because Robert De Niro was included in the cast. It turned out that he was a member of the supporting cast in a role of no great importance. It was however of historical interest to see him in one of his earliest roles.

Charles Pfluger played the role of Charlie a frustrated young man uncertain if he should fulfil his wedding commitments. Many a man has had an attack of the jitters just before marriage so he will have many sympathizers. The film is broken up into chapters each covering the events that lead up to the marriage ceremony. In the lead role Charles Pfluger outshone all the actors The film is a farcical comedy that uses accelerated motion to get laughs. The nonsensical behaviour of men overloading a car with luggage and falling out of the car as they do so was shear clowning and not particularly funny or clever. Speeding off and then returning to pick up luggage which had fallen off was pathetic.

I don't know what they were doing in the cutting room. There were some abrupt changes which suggested some of the frames had been omitted.

One thing is certain . The music dominated the film. It was deafening at times and drowned out the dialogue. This may have been intentional especially in the dinner scenes and party scenes in which everyone talks at once and nobody listens or replies. This is typical of all parties where drinks flow freely.

Many of the actors tried hard to become amusing characters by assuming annoying voices that were very false and did not ring true.

On the whole a disappointing comedy.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very boring!
RodrigAndrisan21 April 2019
Mr. De Niro's first film, credited Denero. It's his first because it was filmed in 1963 and only released in 1969. Unknown actors in the cast, except for a very young Jill Clayburgh (19 years old) who, although she doesn't have too much screen time, she is the most compelling. De Niro does not make much difference in his role, he is only present in the landscape, it could have been anyone in his place. First Feature Film directed by De Palma too. Zero stars!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An experiment fails, but when you fail, try try again.
mark.waltz1 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Only the most tenacious movie fan will be able to tolerate this early tryout from future cult director Brian DePalma which seems like a really bad first attempt at a film school project, one that somehow and mysteriously for reasons I'll never understand got an art house release. It gets instant curiosity because of the presence in small parts two future big stars, Robert DeNiro and Jill Clayburgh, delegated to minor roles in a film that stars the handsome but charisma lacking Charles Pfluger as the nervous groom, anxious over his pending wedding to Clayburgh.

DeNiro is simply present as one of Pfluger's pals, offering unsolicited advise, his voice very cleat, but physical appearance dulled by the lifeless photography.

I'm surprised by the amateurish look of this that it managed to see the light of day before DePalma took off as a director. I much prefer his other early films with DeNiro, "Greetings" and "Hi Mom". Those were equally experimental, but they at least had purpose. I found this deadly dull, impossible to get into, and not even interesting for the presence of future film icons. The camera work doesn't help with the static story, and the script doesn't indicate anything worthwhile in spending time with these characters. A date without pain killers in the dental chair is preferable to this nonsense. This tries too hard to mix in many moods, and all it succeeded in doing was altering mine to a bad one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
For die-hard De Palma/De Niro fans only.
Jeremy_Urquhart19 April 2024
I enjoyed The Wedding Party for about half an hour to 45 minutes, but then it just kept going and I eventually felt a bit tired from it all. It revolves around the dynamics between people all involved with a wedding, but it's just not tight or clever enough to work as a great comedy for all of its run. It doesn't really seem all that interested in setting up memorable comedic scenarios and paying them off, and I think once I realised it wasn't really going anywhere, I kind of turned on the film.

Still, the manic energy and scrappy charm of it all sustains The Wedding Party for at least some of its runtime, but at the same time, it's a film I'd find hard to recommend to most people.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Early De Palma
BandSAboutMovies20 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The Wedding Party has an interesting story behind it. It was a joint effort between Sarah Lawrence theater professor Wilford Leach and two of his students, Brian De Palma and Cynthia Monroe. Stanley Borden, owner of American Films, as well as De Palma's mentor and employer, let the young director make the movie on company time.

It was actually made in 1963, but Borden and De Palma fought over the film, as Borden believed that it was not ready for release. It came out in 1969 after the success of Greetings.

Charlie (Charles Pfluger) and Josephine (Jill Clayburgh) are getting married just in time for Charlie to start to realize that he dislikes her family as much as he loves her. They never think he's good enough and constantly treat him like trash, like how her cousins Cecil (Robert De Niro) and Alistair (William Finley) invite him to his bachelor party and don't bring him.

He decides to run and leave her behind on the wedding day - dealing with her cousin (Judy Thomas) trying to seduce him, the stress of her mother (Valda Setterfield) and the weirdness of her dad (Raymond McNally) is all too much. But how far can he go when he's trapped on an island?

Not a great or even a good movie, but it's worth seeing as it's the first credit for both De Palma and De Niro.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Poor
aleskander27 July 2019
The weakest De Palma's film, as Murder a la Mod, Greetings & Hi Mum are still interesting underground movies worth seeing, not this one, clearly poor.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
surprisingly, enjoyable early De Niro
til-516 October 1999
Being the first feature film with Robert De Niro (although not released for years later), this is worth the watch. De Niro's role isn't huge, yet amusing as one of two friends who first try to prevent another friends marriage only to later chase him down to force him into it. Any die hard De Niro fan will get a kick out of an early performance by arguably the best actor today.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quirky watchable film
major_calloway17 October 2001
This is a pleasant little film by De Palma, and is a light hearted comedy. It has a traditional comedic feel to it with it being in black and white and it's use of speeded up footage. It does however get a little tiedious at points but is an appealing quaint little comedy about eccentric family and friends. The young De Niro in the film gives a fairly empty performance, but works well in the double act with his other zany friend. The improvised dialouge adds a more realistic/un-predictable feel to the film and it's worth seeing for it's light-hearted entertainment and humour.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Really Bad
Michael_Elliott10 March 2008
Wedding Party, The (1969)

1/2 (out of 4)

Incredibly bad comedy was the second feature for director Brian DePalma. A groom (Charles Pfulger) shows up at his wedding party only to discover there's more to marriage than he thought. This film doesn't work on any level and the worse part is that I only laughed once throughout the 90 minute running time. Not even the young and chubby Robert DeNiro (spelled DeNero in the credits) can help this thing. The film uses faster frames per minute than normal, which I'm guessing is an attempt at silent slapstick but this doesn't work either.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wedding Day Blues
tieman6410 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Brian De Palma's early films tend to deal with a very clear set of themes: homosocialised male power, voyeurism, sex and various gender conflicts, whereby all gender is a performance and white male heterosexuality needs to be rigorously, determinedly, infinitely reenacted to be maintained with any coherence, often by repeatedly destroying that which it defines itself against (homosexuality, femininity, the Other etc). Meanwhile, personal and social voyeurism (pornography, fantasies, government surveillance, an obsession with gazes, dreams, desires and watching) overlap, and his characters can often be found making their own movies, appearing on screens, doing their own prying, or displaying themselves as spectacle.

As an example of De Palma's early obsessions with gender construction, consider one of his later sex thrillers, "Dressed to Kill", where Michael Caine plays Robert Elliot, a trans-gender who epitomises a post 60s trend amongst transsexuals - and certain strains of feminism - to subscribe to pseudo-Freudian essentialization and a medicalization of gender and sexuality (medical understandings of the gay/transsexual rely on a collapsing of sex and gender). Here, Elliot's male body is literally possessed by Bobbi, a feminine personality which desires a sex reassignment operation so that Elliot may become a "woman" with "the right body". In other words, transsexuals are victims of a society which equates the genitalia with gender behaviour and confuses the organ with the signifier; ridding themselves of the organ they can thus supposedly be rid of the signifier which divides them. The film then enters "Scarface" territory. The transsexual, like the "normal" subject, searches for illusory wholeness which he/she believes will be attained by altering the body in order to possess "it", the "it" which in American society is invested with the meaning of the subject's whole being. Unsurprisingly, in real life, transsexuals more frequently wish to be "girls" rather than "women"; an attempt to ward of confusion and establish a pre-social self. The incapability of achieving discursive mastery is itself a common De Palma theme, the subject continually floundering in the dark to sustain his identity. For De Palma, traditional male subjectivity is predicated on the notion of male wholeness and feminine lack, whilst "Woman" serves as the Other for the male subject, a place where he projects and disavows his castration. As inadequacy continually feminizes the male subject, the cycle must be continually repeated.

De Palma's little-seen early films, "Greetings" and "The Wedding Party", deal with similar material. "Greetings" revolves around a group of men who seek to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war, and "Wedding" revolves around a group of men who seek to avoid being sucked into marriage. Both deal with men struggling to define and uphold masculinity, both star Robert De Niro ("Wedding" was his debut, "Greetings" was the first film to be given an X rating), both are shapeless, dialogue heavy, satirical, Godard inspired, experimental and revolve around various US counterculture movements

"Wedding" centres on Charles, a young man who is days away from getting married. He discusses his anxieties with his buddies and spends much time weighing the benefits of a bachelor's life against that of married men. In the end – like most of these post-feminism marriage movies from the 60s – Charlie opts for marriage and stability. But the film itself jostles between viewing both marriage and bachelorhood as a means of affirming traditional hegemonic masculinity; marry a woman and you're not gay, bed many women outside of marriage and you're a "real man". Women (see "Casualties of War") function purely as the site of exchange between men, and exist solely to be conquered and bolster manhood.

"Greetings" opens with a moment of typical De Palma reflexivity, the American President doubly framed (on TV) as he addresses the nation. His country is portrayed as a giant male fraternity, a band of brothers who, because they've "never had it better", should go abroad, define themselves as men and fight in Vietnam. The film's heroes, a bunch of lowly figures who've "never had it good", then set out trying to avoid being drafted. One even attempts to turn himself gay so that he won't be conscripted. In both films we see an obsession with male performance and its attendant anxieties, and a heterosexuality that defines itself by employing homosexuality to define itself against. Masculinity is itself portrayed as a masquerade and normative heterosexual manhood as an impossible, and impossibly maintained, ideal. As the "homo-social" is inherently incoherent and points toward untenable aims, it has a preponderance toward dissolution and a tendency to assimilate everything.

Furthermore, as the homosexual identity haunts the presumably heterosexual male identity, so too is the Government haunted or shown to be under siege. As a result the Presidency deems all those who oppose the Vietnam War to be "effeminate" and "sexualy deviant" (the Vietnamese are also feminized, emasculated heathens). The Government's obsessions with surveillance, spying and enforcement then becomes a form of gender anxiety, the State pressured to sustain and achieve national manhood (which in turns inspires racism and death wishes). In any male-dominated society, there is therefore a link between male homosocial desire and the structures for maintaining and transmitting patriarchal power.

"Greetings" ends with our draft dodgers in Vietnam. In a sublimated version of filmed murder, our heroes "film with a camera" a Viet Cong woman in the jungle. They order her to undress and pose, a scene which is juxtaposed with shots of an American woman manipulated into being photographed, both women's sexual exploitation linked to war, carnage and camera, and all other forms of masculinist cruelty and male obsession. Such scenes anticipate De Palma's "Redacted" and "Casulaties of War"; "war" as the mauling of the Feminine by hyper masculinity. In "Full Metal Jacket" one goes philosophically further, all modern, future warfare redefined as a benign, "feminine", merciful, conciliatory gesture, simultaneously disavowed and sanctioned.

5/10 - "The Wedding Party" is anonymous De Palma.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed