MovieChat Forums > A Woman Under the Influence (1974) Discussion > What was the purpose of this movie?

What was the purpose of this movie?

posted 16 years ago by StrangerandPilgrim
37 replies | jump to latest

I first saw this movie (I won't compliment it by calling it a "film") when it first came out. I walked out of the theatre before it reached the middle. I just watched it again; this time all the way through. I thought, perhaps, because I was in my early 20's when I walked out of the movie theatre the first time I tried to watch it I was too young to understand the "depth or complexity" of it (BARF...) so I tried again just now, watching it on cable it all the way through, and I still don't like nor get this movie!! I read others takes on it but they're all speculation.

Is she really crazy? Is she an alcoholic? Surely, her husband is abusive (slapping her, telling her to "shut up and sit your ass down", etc.) but then he turns around and SEEMS to show her love. Their children will be complete, utter messes when they grow-up.

To me, this film is a waste of time and, once again, an example of John Cassavettes' "creative" and directorial self-indulgence (as always). I think there are FAR better films exploring mental illness, alcoholism and dysfunctional family relations. This is NOT one of them.

[–] brad_13 16 years ago

Is she really crazy? Is she an alcoholic? Surely, her husband is abusive (slapping her, telling her to "shut up and sit your ass down", etc.) but then he turns around and SEEMS to show her love. Their children will be complete, utter messes when they grow-up.

If you're looking for a film to give you clear cut answers, you're not going to get them from Cassavetes' films. But why should he give clear cut answers? Aren't all of the greatest works in any art form confusing in some way? I shudder to think what Tarkovsky's films or Picasso's paintings or The Rolling Stones' music would be like if they weren't in some way confusing.

[–] dontjuststareatiteatit 16 years ago

You tipped your hand when you said the phrase "barf". You said you saw this when you were in your 20's which would make you at least 54 years old. Yeah, and "barf" is defintely a term widely used by the near-senior citizen crowd, way up there with such popular phrases as "cowabunga" and "rad".

Obviously, your 18 year old ass stumbled across this gem during some inane drinking binge thinking it may be a good boozing movie. Well, sorry to disappoint but this film wasn't made for the cheap thrills crowd.

Like the above poster mentioned, this movie isn't clear cut, much like life itself. Let us limited, obscure crowd enjoy this truly insightful, deep, realistic film (yes, it is a film) in peace.

Maybe when you're 35 and have had life crap on you once or twice, you'll be able to appreciate this film more. In the meantime, stop trying to be someone you're not in hopes of detering people from seeing a truly moving movie.

Put the cable back on, tune in to perhaps another rerun of "Black Sheep" or "The Transporter" cause those "films" are tots radical, yo.

[–] telemahos 16 years ago

May I just say 'thanks' to the last post by "dontjust.."
A sharp and eloquent reply to a pompous question.

[–] Invernomuto 16 years ago

huu huuu... dontjuststareatiteatit.. what's wrong man?
this is the kind of answer that i would expect from Nick :D

ok astor didn't get the point of this movie
and there's no problem with that

there are way better words to open such thread there's no doubt
but.. at least the firs thing i would like to do is to share with other like astor the BEAUTY of this great movie

he wasn't ready for it
that's it..

[–] [email protected] 12 years ago

Well, " dontjuststareatiteatit " that's a very good answer to this **what?**

[–] TheBudderKing 15 years ago

What is the purpose of any movie? The director wanted to tell a story.

[–] bigjonlam 15 years ago

I have to kind of agree with the first guy (astor). Seems pretty indulgent to me (I'm watching it right now for the first time, maybe it gets better). It's certainly different and "arty" and probably something special in its day, but that doesn't make it that interesting. It seems like they turned the camera on and then experimented. Good, great, whatever. But, it's too long and some of the emotional impact is muffled by the indulgence I mentioned earlier. Not terrible or anything, but not a masterpiece either.

[–] annedurnbury 15 years ago

I wonder how you found this self-indulgent? I found the film to represent real life issues in a way that many other films of the era avoided or glamourised. The children aren't perfect, the husband isn't perfect, the mother-in-law isn't perfect and the doctor who has Mabel committed must surely be questioned for his actions. However, the awkward scene at the dining table with the spaghetti must have rung true with many people who have dined with an arguing couple, or someone who has drunk too much and is surrounded by "straights" or people just acting unusually for no apparent reason.
I suppose if you want to watch a film for comfort, then this isn't the film for you, but if you want to be challenged then this is a great film. Personally, I would rather not waste 2 hours of my life watching the latest Hollywood blockbuster and feeling cheated at the end of it than the two hours I spent watching Woman Under the Influence that made me think, question and marvel at true film-making in action.

[–] Garethsmith_20 15 years ago

How can you not get this film its more real than anything i've ever seen with it's crossing of dialogue between characters and overtly filmic style, and the passion to which Gena Rowlands plays her character is second to none.
As for you questions about her character (Is she really crazy? Is she an alcoholic? Surely, her husband is abusive) the clue is in the title she is under the influence of those around her those who cannot except her eccentricities and her lust for life. she was clearly saner before the film even begun , we only see her after her years of being under the influence. Well that my opinion. and this is coming from some one brought up on hollywood and enjoys the spectacle , i can honestly say this film effected me in ways that no other film ever has, so BARF to you.

[–] godardville 15 years ago

Since a majority of movies are deprived of any purpose perhaps we should abstain from making anymore.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fermented666 15 years ago

I hate to say this, roegcamel, but that is a pretty naive view of the movie. It is absolutely a depiction of mental illness.

As for the OP, astor1998, he/she may really be in their 50's, who knows, but clearly this is a perfect example of someone who sticks to the straight-forward films and avoids the challenging ones. Cassavettes is not for everyone, in fact he is not for just about everyone, because most people are lemmings. He was a brilliant auteur and his films are the kind that could never be made today because of the sad state modern cinema is in. Not that there aren't some great films being made in these times, but nothing as daring and cutting-edge as the avante-garde cinema Cassavettes created.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jedwards8 15 years ago

I wouldn't call Mabel completely free. She wants to be socially acceptable so that she won't rub people the wrong way and upset Nick, but the harder she tries to get others to like her and feel comfortable around her, the more she ends up disturbing them. She seems unaware of what behaviors are socially unacceptable. And she either doesn't realize that she has to choose between her standard behavior and a more restrained, socially acceptable demeanor, or she doesn't have the strength to decide which is more important to her.

Does Mabel naturally have strong and unusual impulses, or is she so determined for others to think she's warm and charming that she forces herself to act unnaturally? It's not clear to me all the time, but it seems like a mixture of both. During the lunch with Nick and his coworkers, she seems to be forcing a smile a lot of the time, but then when she comes up close to the man who's singing, she seems completely lost in fascination. In a later scene she is so self-conscious about talking to her kids ("You see how good it is we're talkin' like this?") that she must be acting unnaturally. I consider that slightly mad, though no more mad than being a normal, socially acceptable person, quivering uncomfortably every time one hides what one's really feeling, like Mr. Jensen does. Which to me has to do with the way this movie challenges our attitudes about what constitutes mental illness.

By the way, my favorite part of your post was the paragraph insulting of fermented666. That was great. It gave me a boner.

[–] brefane 15 years ago

"It's also poorly filmed and generally inexplicable"

bearheart, I disagree that it was poorly filmed. I think Cassavettes wanted a raw, real feel, but I agree, it's totally inexplicable. You don't know anything more about the characters by the end than you did at the start.

[–] daoudmac 15 years ago

I have recently watched this movie a few times over the course of the past two months and although I am a big Gena Rowlands fan and John Cassavates this is not my favorite film. It is realism in cinema in its purest form. I however dont understand when people attack others simply because they choose certain words to describe a film or dont like a film etc etc. I would assume that people who dont feel challenged by films like this are mature enough to try to bring some light to a persons inability to understand it or comprehend what the film maker was doing. For me this is a voyeuristic approach into the world of a family falling apart and how slowly the seams come apart. For those that have the patience to endure it its a can be a great experience but for some who have gone thru it it can be grueling. I did think Gena was incredible and deserved the Oscar nod for this and Peter Falk is as usual wonderful. I may get blasted for this one but Gena Rowlands does it for me in "Gloria". It was panned and dismissed by many but I loved that movie and loved her in it.

[–] blackderby 10 years ago

Bravo, daoudmac. If you're going to get blasted by people for praising
"Gloria", I certainly won't be amongst them. I think Gloria is a fantastic movie. I never knew it was panned and dismissed by many and frankly I'm surprised. I know hundreds of people that still praise that movie today. It was very original for the time and I think it's Gena's best performance. A Woman is also original, controversial and definitely to be watched at least once (it's not for everyone, though). But Gloria....SUPERB.

[–] tolbs1010 15 years ago

A Woman Under The Influence is another example of John Cassavetes' ineptness as a filmmaker. His admirers like to defend his movies with words like "real", "raw", "uncompromising", or any other word or phrase that intimates that they reflect life as it truly is. The truth is his films all come across flat and forced because there seems to be no guiding intelligence behind the visual storytelling. A film doesn't have to look beautiful or have great cinematography to have visual intelligence. But the compositions, pacing, and editing should enhance the storytelling. The only Cassavetes film that achieves this is The Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

His actors try their damnedest to be natural but they are left stranded by his direction. He never shapes his material at all so the actors are left to do the heavy lifting. As a result, they always appear to be ACTING! Nothing is real because everybody looks like they're trying so hard to be real.

I can understand people's love of his films, I just don't agree.

He was influential in that he inspired thousands more similarly untalented independent filmmakers to make god-awful "personal" films. And he inspired a few good ones along the way as well.

Late

[–] Screenwriter_Brandi 14 years ago

Untalented? God-awful? What planet do you live on?!

[–] [email protected] 12 years ago

Please, stop being a coward with life!

[–] pinbackwiggly 15 years ago

I can understand why astor walked out of this flick. I watched it the whole way through out of curiosity. I guess it is not my type of movie. It comes across as being a very real and uncomfortable to watch movie. I guess I look to movies to escape from everyday life for a bit or to enrich me in some way. On that level, the only thing I got from this movie is that I am thankful my life is better than theirs. I haven't read much else here suggesting there was more to get.

[–] BalsoSnell 15 years ago

I often think (perhaps lament) just what much of modern day audiences regard as a movie or just what exactly they hope to expect from one. Pure entertainment with same old recycled and banal storylines, I suppose. A Woman Under the Influence views like a novel is read, and certainly one that I'd like to read.

[–] DerTotenhauer 14 years ago

Someone has pointed out in this thread that at the end of the movie we do not know more about the (leading) characters than we did at the start - I believe this opinion to spring from a false or better yet inadequate (I do not inted to insult anyone here, even if I do hold an opinion to be incorrect - I am no film-theorist and therefore do not have and cannot command the academical-discursively accepted vernacular to scientifically rule out different perceptions) point of view towards A Woman Under the Influence.

A main focus of criticism on "art-house films" (like AWUtI can be categorized as) is a perceived lack of so-called development or progress story- and characters-wise. I suggest that one should not watch (and whilst and thereafter interpret) a movie in regards to change (for lack of a better word) within the movie, but in regards to detail (once again for lack of a better word) of it. "Change", "development" or "progress" seldomly happen in informative life (a kind of lackluster term by which I mean to imply our social reality as yet not interpreted and narrowed-down to fit a movie's plot and its pure technical possibilities) and so it is only adequate (and neccessary) that Cassavetes in his attempt of realist cinema not tries to portray an ongoing progress (and thereby reducing his modern medium of film to a mere regurtitation of schematic historic methods of common theatre) but on the contrary tries to portray a simple span of time within a social system of action of a family and its affiliates and acquaintancies with utmost regard to portray said's complexity and detail. - And in my opinion he fully succeeds at doing so: this movie has emotionally moved me in a great many ways like few conventionally narrated movies are able to do. Some may say: "Nothing happens in this movie." To which I would reply: "Everything you could imagine about a family happens in this movie."

Of course the "vivid still-life" sytle somewhat questions the purpose of this movie as a medium of progression, but only from a very confined (red: mechanical as in the "progression" of the film-roll, as if this movement were the only purpose of a film) point of view towards purpose of specific forms of media; and for going beyond ideas like this I respect Cassavetes's work he has done with A Womand Under the Influence.

And above all that and to go back to my initial argument: why would the audience need to "know" more about the characters of a movie at the end than at the beginning? I often see this comment (or moreso criticism) come up in discussions about films like this one, yet I never really understand it.

Oh yeah, and Gena Rowlands simply kicks everyone's ass at drama class.

[–] Screenwriter_Brandi 14 years ago

Exactly. Its like real life, your problems aren't going to be solved in a day or in this case, two hours.