I think a lot of the criticism is because the professional critics of the day were from a prior generation, and perhaps not quite ready to accept the subject matter in a mainstream film. The film still contains some shock value more than 40 years later, to the viewer who hasn't been exposed to pornography, and still embraces traditional sexual values. In fact, given that Hollywood has receded from much of the cutting edge sexual themes present in mainstream films of that era, I have my doubts that Myra Breckinridge could play in the multiplexes today.
Part of the problem with the film's low regard, is that it went into seclusion for more than 30 years. There were no video players. That market didn't exist, and cable movie channels were more than a decade away. After the run at the theatres, the only venue was the three broadcast networks. Myra Breckinridge had dialog of such an all encompassing, risque nature, that it made editing for broadcast television impossible. The film wasn't conducive to editing like other films of the day. Which usually consisted of cutting a couple of nude scenes, and either cutting or dubbing profanity.
In effect, the original negative reviews were etched in stone, and the film was never considered worthy of video release until decades later.
I was 17 years old when Myra Breckinridge was originally shown in theatres. There were few, in any, multiplexes at the time, and most films didn't play much longer than a week. Myra Breckinridge came and went. Preceding the premier, the TV talk shows were awash with appearances by Raquel Welch and Rex Reed. Most of the discussion was of a general nature, as to avoid the network censors. Stand-up comedians would work jokes about the film into their routines. Again, keeping the subject vague, as to avoid the network censors. At the end of the day, the prospective audience was left with the thought that: The film was about sex, and Raquel Welch was in it. Many men went into the theatre expecting to see Welch nude and came away disappointed. Other viewers, who had likely never as much as looked inside a Playboy magazine, left the theatre offended. Regardless of their expectation, both demographics of early viewers spread the word of disappointment rapidly, and the film disappeared in short order.
I was one who never made it to the theatre. In fact, I saw the film for the first time last night on an offbeat streaming site, 43 years after the fact. It was much better than I expected. The interspersing of old Hollywood musicals was well done. With the dialog between the characters and the bygone actors very timely and funny. I would've never guessed Mae West was 76 years old. Her performance is a riot, basically doing what West had done in her youth. She has to be the coolest woman born in the 19th century.
The film has a certain ambience that relates to the films of Mel Brooks, and later Michael Myers. I found it no sillier or worse than the films of those two directors, that are generally held in a higher regard.
reply
share