Losing Ground (1982) User Reviews

See this hidden gem

[ReganRebecca · 7/10 · 16 December 2016]

I'm glad for the previous review on IMDb because like that user I started the first few minutes of the film and was not impressed. I decided to give Losing Ground a second shot and am glad I did.

Losing Ground is the only feature length film by director Kathleen Collins and only the 2nd feature length film to be directed by an African-American woman. Despite this the film never received significant attention during Collins' lifetime. It's a real shame because the movie is quite good. It's about a professor of logic (played by Seret Scott), named Sara who is married to a painter. Sara is regarded as beautiful but cold and clinical by everyone. And this rankles as she is married to a temperamental artist and has a free-spirited actress mother. Despite her professional success she is not really respected by her family, in particular her husband, who decides that they should take a country home for the summer so he can work despite the fact that it will make it nearly impossible for Sara access the library books she needs to complete her own work, a paper on ecstatic experiences. Throughout the film Sara tries to ignore her husbands flirtations and affairs which she chalks up to him needing as part of his own ecstatic experience, which she values for its freedom and artistry. But when she tries to let loose and pursue freedom for herself, conflict arises in her marriage.

The acting here is not always that great and neither is the audio. But when you lose yourself in the movie it has a lot to say about marriage, about logic vs creativity, men vs women, theory vs practice. There are also some beautifully framed shots that break my heart because they show how Collins was capable of true greatness if she had been able to create more.

Definitely worth giving a shot to this hidden gem, I hope more people watch and enjoy it.

A gem in the rough

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 4 August 2019]

It's such a delight to see African-American characters through an African-American director's lens. There are no stereotypes, and this is a story that, while not devoid of racial commentary or subtext, could have been applied or adapted to people of any race. These are just normal, intelligent characters dealing with life, and more specifically, their marriage. The film has got a heavy indie or low-budget feel to it, suffers from below average production quality, and a slow pace especially early on, but it's worth sticking through. The character portraits director Kathleen Collins gives us are strong, and there is a lovely sense of quiet realism here.

The plot is fairly simple; a married couple move to the country, and the husband (Bill Gunn) begins carrying on with another woman. He's an artist, and his wife (Seret Scott) is a philosophy professor. She in turn starts getting involved with another man when she begins working in one of her student's amateur movies, and the making of this is a bit like a film within a film, with its parallel themes. The husband has no issue with applying a hippie mindset to openly spending time with the other woman and introducing her to his wife, but he gets a little rankled when it's the other way around.

Seret Scott is a joy to watch here, and I love how her character unfolds over the film. Ironically as her husband pursues artistic ecstasy or perhaps even sensual ecstasy, she's researching ancient texts and philosophical writings about spiritual ecstasy. She has this fantastic exchange in the library with a stranger (Duane Jones) she'll later meet again in the student movie:

Jones: What's the thesis of your paper? Scott: That the religious boundaries around ecstasy are too narrow. That if, as the Christians define it, ecstasy is an immediate apprehension of the divine, then the divine is energy. Amorphous energy. Artists, for example, have frequent ecstatic experiences. Jones: That's a lucid approach; it's definitely pre-Christian. Christianity has had a devastating effect on man as an intuitive creature, wouldn't you say? Scott: Who are you?

I just loved that exchange, and wish there had been more like them. As the film lays the groundwork for us in Scott, showing us her in the roles of teacher, researcher, wife, and daughter, we see that despite her success in life, she still bumps into boundaries. Most notably that's with her husband, who moves them despite her preference for the city, and then applies the double standard to getting involved with others. There is another moment revealed when she says "When I was little, mother used to say, oh, she's busy building her castles reaching up, up, up to some white private sky," and Collins accompanies it with a shot just on her during a toast, where her expression betrays pain mixed with wistfulness.

As Scott plays the 'other woman' in the student film, we get to see another side of her character, and I loved the scenes where she dances with Jones and then later kisses him warmly after a long walk. Because of the time Collins has invested in her to make us understand that she's intelligent, thoughtful, and caring, seeing her (quiet) passion in combination with these things is much more compelling.

If you're looking for an indie film that focuses on characters and is told from a very underrepresented part of society, this is definitely your film. I certainly liked it, but would have liked it more had it been a little more fleshed out or polished. It's a gem in the rough though, and it's unfortunate that Kathleen Collins didn't get a chance to make more.

A Great "Indie" Movie And a Non-Commercial Property

[spiritof67 · 7/10 · 26 February 2023]

This is a unique film, directed by a black female director. It never had a real commercial release. It was seldom seen during the director's short life. It gained a new life after her daughter found a way to get it to TCM and introduce it to a new audience. I don't really think most white - and few black - audiences would be ready for a movie that begins with a black female professor discussing Kant, Hegel and the animus behind Jean-Paul Sartre's work. The movie brings together one of the most eclectic black casts ever and shows black people who are rarely-if-ever shown in films in a real-life drama. No drugs, gangs, rap music, violence or drugs. No wonder no distributor would touch it.

Saw 1982 Classic on TCM

[cmomman1988 · 6/10 · 25 September 2018]

Pros: Glad I saw the film, glad she made the film, it's importance to the black community, the ending

Cons: Can be slow at times (the most appropriate word I could describe seeing LG)

Terrible

[Indie29401 · 17 December 2020]

Don't believe the hype. This film is awful. Poorly executed, boring and filled with clichés. Couldn't make it 1/2 way thru. Don't waste your time.

A BIT OFF THE BEATEN PATH...!

[masonfisk · 6/10 · 8 April 2024]

A dramedy from 1982 by the late filmmaker Kathleen Collins. Spanning a summer where a professor has taken a sabbatical w/her artist husband. He, in turn, is inspired by the lovely women he comes across to sketch which irks his liberal minded frau who in turn agrees to star in one of her student's films where she meets a charismatic actor. Featuring a predominantly African American cast who are not playing pimps, gypsies or thieves, these well rounded people of the art world are an anomaly to what we as film fans have come to expect from these types of projects. Definitely a case of what could of been, this lumpy gem does has its faults (the acting by the lead actress is not very strong) but its sense of place & the people that inhabit it is fascinating. Look for Night of the Living Dead lead, Duane Jones, in probably one of his last performances as the actor who catches the instructor's eye.

A "lost film" that deserves to be seen

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 8 February 2015]

Losing Ground (1982) is one of the few independent films made in the 1980's by a Black woman director. Kathleen Collins was a brilliant, highly talented professor of film. Unfortunately, she directed only this one commercial film, and tragically, she died when she was just 46 years old.

The movie itself was largely ignored, and would have been truly lost except for a fortunate event. Collins' daughter found the negatives, and Milestone has remastered the film for theatrical release.

This movie starts slowly. The protagonist, Sara Rogers (Seret Scott) is giving a college lecture about Existentialism. (Director Collins had a graduate degree in French Literature, so we can assume the lecture content is accurate.) However, the scene is a real clunker. Nothing looks real or accurate or natural. I just sat there waiting for a student to ask, "Will this be on the exam?" Then a student asked, "Will this be on the exam?" My thought was, "Ninety minutes of this is going to be hard to take." Wrong. The film got much better quickly, and continued to get better as it progressed.

Seret Scott is an excellent actor. She is beautiful in an elegant, sophisticated way, and she looks like someone who could and would teach French philosophy or French literature.

We learn that she and her husband live in NYC, but they are going to live "Upstate" for the summer. (I believe "Upstate" was Nyack, in Rockland County. It's really a suburb of New York City.) Nyack is portrayed as "where the Puerto Ricans live," and the Puerto Rican population is a major plot element.

A triangle forms, and then a quadrangle. Sara has intimate conversations with her mother about her husband's infidelities, so we learn that they are nothing new. She, however, meets a very handsome actor.

This plot twist was surprising and interesting, because it involved making a movie within a movie. One of Sara's students is making a short film whose plot (and music) is the Frankie and Johnny story. The student is young, but he appears to know what he is doing, and the Frankie and Johnny movie, and the Losing Ground movie, start to coalesce.

The film contains some great dancing, some impressive art, good acting, and an interesting plot. I enjoyed it, and I think it's worth seeing. Yes--it will be useful to scholars of cinema as a historical reference. However, I'm not a scholar of cinema. I enjoyed Losing Ground on its own merits.

The film was shown at the Dryden Theatre in Rochester's George Eastman House. The Dryden Theatre is the ideal venue for any movie, including this one. It's not clear to me whether the movie will actually be shown in commercial theaters, or even at many film festivals. (The film was shown for a week at Lincoln Center.) However, Losing Ground will work well on DVD. If that's your option, take it. Losing Ground is worth seeking out.

An Art House film directed by an African American Woman.

[thedudebryant · 9/10 · 22 September 2018]

Production quality isn't the best but the story and acting is great. It definitely feels like a passion project for the first time director.

Terrible

[mysterymomrhbc · 1/10 · 22 December 2019]

This one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Terrible story line, terrible acting. Just plain terrible all around. Do NOT waste your time. Kept hoping it would get better, but nope. Can't believe this was on AMC. Not classic by any means. Just stupid and awful.

Wooden acting

[classicrun-44914 · 3/10 · 22 November 2020]

Although I appreciate the significance of black cinema, I just couldn't get past the stiff, wooden acting. It was like they were just reading from the cue cards. She was not believable as a university professor. She mispronounced words and was a horrible, boring teacher. He was more believable as a painter. I ended up not caring about them or their marriage.

No, it's definitely NOT true that this flick features . . .

[tadpole-596-918256 · 5/10 · 24 January 2018]

. . . a five-minute static shot of a camera's lens cap. It's pretty hard to fathom how this vicious rumor seen on other web sites got started, since none of the two or three LOSING GROUND scenes that would fit this description stretch out longer than a minute. Such things as people, pools, and paintings are centered on the screen for at least half the running time of LOSING GROUND, meaning that shots of random green shrubbery or stationary highway guardrails make up 50% of LOSING GROUND at most. The end credits for this film indicate that it was some sort of student project produced with guilty rich people's grant money, and that it was made in two separate batches. While the "philosophy professor" chick is not synched to the picture when she says "Lie-berry" and mispronounces the names of all the major philosophers during the "First Week" batch, she clearly has a dialogue coach for the second batch of film, saying "library" and other three-syllable words with the best of them. Though her typewriter, rotary-dial phone, and this flick's cheap beat box score prove it to be an effort from the early 1980s, it's WAY ahead of its time. Had its Gay Elements been stressed slightly more, it would have swamped MOONLIGHT for the "Best Picture" Oscar if it had been released in 2017.

Poorly Made

[sarron-29450 · 1/10 · 26 February 2023]

This movie looks like it was made by a theater student, and a poor one. Even the movie being made within it is poorly made. The dialogue is badly performed and the direction is without merit. There isn't a single charecter with any merit. It appears that not only are the characters unbelievable but that the actors didn't believe in them or believe in their lines. I tried several times to watch but could not see it throughf. It is so obvious without any interesting characters. I see why this film went unnoticed for so long. The only question is why it didn't remain that way. Don't waste your time or energy watching this movie. You will be better off for not watching.