How is it?

[deleted]

If late '60s-early '70s cinema is your bag, you'll probably dig it. It's very much a product of its time, but thoroughly enjoyable if that kind of thing doesn't bother you. If you are a fan of Julie Christie, it is a must-see; a real showcase for her talent and beauty.

I would actually say it's probably The seminal film of the 1960s.

This film is a revelation. The cinematography is so vibrant and thrilling, the acting is superb. I never thought of George C. Scott as a particularly handsome actor, but his face and physicality is so beautiful here. The bedroom scene with his ex-wife is just spot on. I feel like I understand these people. Amazingly successful film. And ... groovy to see Janis Joplin and Grateful Dead!

I just saw this movie again on DVD. First saw it in college when it was first released in '68. I remember people walking out of the theatre midway through, probably because they'd come expecting some kind of fluffy romantic comedy and instead got the antithesis, a dark, even bitter, rumination on ruined relationships and the disconnectedness of modern society. At the height of "flower power" this was a pretty daring harbinger of things to come. After all, a year later the hippie movement was collapsing under the weight of the Manson murders and Altamont. I can't say that I got all of "Petulia" on first viewing, but each subsequent viewing has rewarded my return with new insights. This story just gets deeper and more heartbreaking every time I watch it. Christie and Scott are superb, but if you watch Shirley Knight closely, she does some amazingly subtle things that telegraph exactly what she's thinking. A very underrated actress. Richard Chamberlin is astonishing as well, playing against type - he makes his character's rage both terrifying and comprehensible. This is a brilliant film, and oddly enough, one for the ages.

awful film
horrible acting
horrible script
horrible editing

Spoilers herein because you have to know why I hated this movie:

It is interesting to have Janis Joplin, Jerry Garcia and other 60s San Francisco musicians captured briefly in a few scenes. But that's the only interesting or worthwhile thing about this movie, to me. Others might not be so sensitive, and might be able to look at the violence against women without feeling outraged. Yes, the film technique is stunning and Dick Lester was ahead of his time but the story itself is horrific to watch. I read all the rave reviews about how meaningful this is, but the movie glorified wife beating. Petulia is supposed to be a free spirited "kook". Her reaction to being beaten to an inch of her life by her psychopath husband is to go back to him and have a baby with him. Her father in law says that it's the unwritten code that a husband has the right to kill an unfaithful wife. The film takes no moral stance at all and we are given Joseph Cotten and Richard Chamberlain as despicable villains. I suppose this is the director's little commentary on the sixties. If so, it doesn't make it right to present wife abuse in such a neutral light.

Archie, who supposedly fell in love with her, is on the verge of rescuing her from her horrible life with the psycho, and then simply changes his mind and walks out the door. If you want a deeply upsetting movie, go ahead and see it...be warned that it is not pleasant and will haunt your thoughts afterward.

"Petulia" is one of my top 5 favorite movies. It's a mature, focused film that attempts a lot things (character study, social commentary) and manages to accomplish a number of them very successfully. It's a character study of various people with George C. Scott's "Archie" at the center and his family and friends and the woman/girl "Petulia" and her effect on him. "Petulia" is also about how the "times" (the late 60s) and the social upheavals have left people confused and maybe a bit angry (see Joseph Cotten's talk with Petulia in the hospital).

What's particularly remarkable to me about Petulia (and there's so much one could write about it) is that there's so much going on in the film but it never feels overwhelming, cluttered, messy or unstructured. Lester's direction is assured but lean: he uses some of his favorite "tricks" (like the back and forth editing structure, the quick cut aways) but he doesn't over do it. He never seems to fall back on his tricks because I think he believes in the story and his actors. And all of his actors are standouts. Christie is breathtakingly beautiful and vulnerable. It makes you want to see more of her work and lament the fact that she pretty much sat out the rest of her career following "Petulia". Of the supporting actors, Shirley Knight is (again) a standout (and she's still doing it). And then there's Joseph Cotten in the small but memorable role of Petulia's father-in-law. How many actors could take a small role and make one actually understand them? When Cotten talks to Petulia about the changes in society, you actually understand where he's coming from. He's a brute perhaps but he makes it clear that this is someone from another generation talking and his tirade is about how fragile he feels. It's about his loss of control. And finally there's George C. Scott. He had a superstar period starting around the time "Petulia" was released and culminated in his winning an Oscar for "Patton" just two years later. He's awesome here. Scott's Archie is full of contradictions. A confused man who is not sure what he wants so much so that he's walked out on what was by all appearances a decent, solid marriage. Scott carries "Petulia" from beginning to end. His solid, consistent and sympathetic portrayal is the glue that holds the film together.

If there's one criticism I have of the film it would be it's odd comedic moments that, while somewhat funny (like the bit about the TV in the hospital room) these moments seem out of place and distracting.