The Most Toxic Movie Ever?

I remember seeing this around the time when it came out and wondering what was all the attention it got. I have to say after just having finished watching it for the second time, I think it was Ann Margaret's body is all, and the sexy talk that one never heard at this time in movies. It seemed a kind of Playboy-esque movie. So many movies like this really do not make much sense. They flash a few symbols on the screen and people ascribe some kind of meaning to it. That these two guys would remain friends after what Nicholson did behind Garfunckle's back with his girlfriend and lying to him? Was he never supposed to have learned about that? I gather since later on in the movie when Nicholson is giving his slide-show of women he hurries past Candice Bergen, so I guess he never knew. What is the point in seeing a movie about a friendship that never existed?

I think we have to consider the sources here.

Mike Nichols was married like, five times or so.

Jules Pfeiffer, who wrote this(he offered it to Nichols as a play first) was a very caustic commenter on his times.

These were two smart, rich, somewhat snobbish New York intellectuals with a lot of similar friends and...romance just doesn't work too well in that world.

The movie is kind of schematic: Nicholson is the guy who gets all the chicks; Garfunkel is his less attractive follower. Bergen is the virginal uptight college girl; Ann-Margret is the va-va-voom sexpot. Though the movie toys with that: after sex with Nicholson(who is betraying his "friend" Garfunkel), there is a close-up of Bergen later on in a restaurant booth looking at Jack and she's "staged" as a sensual sexpot with sex on the mind. Meanwhile, va-va-voom A-M deteriorates into a depressive clinger desperate for marriage.

Still, Nicholson's a pig, Garfunkel's a prig, the women are doormats...its a toxic movie alright.

PS. I have not seen Closer. Now I'm wondering if I should.

A pretty bleak take on humanity actually.