Back in the day, Dave Kehr wrote,
Jules Feiffer's black farce about the random violence, emotional and physical, of life in New York City was filmed in 1971 by Alan Arkin, who (as in so many of his performances) has trouble distinguishing between funny ha-ha and funny peculiar. Scenes that begin harrowingly on target dissipate into the imponderable and plain weird, though there are some devastating moments and an impressive performance by Marcia Rodd, as the urban survivalist who traps a befuddled photographer (Elliott Gould) into marriage. With Elizabeth Wilson, Vincent Gardenia, Donald Sutherland, Lou Jacobi, and Arkin himself in an eerie bit as a paranoid cop.
Given that that's a capsule review (and given the mention of the date therein), it probably wasn't actually "back in the day", but rather for a screening at some theater that does that kind of thing.
This sounds like a movie I would enjoy; but I must cop to "not getting it".
The title led me to believe that Ben would be doing us the service of recommending Standpipe Bridgeplate: The Movie.
Alas, my hopes were soon dashed.
Given that Kehr was the Reader's reviewer back in the 70s, and that Little Murders was a play first, it most likely was "back in the day," bitch.
So explain "was filmed in 1971", hooker.
For its release, also in 1971, wouldn't that be a little odd?
What, precisely, is your claim, young w-lfs-n? I maintain that Kehr wrote the review in the 1970s.
Alan Arkin, who (as in so many of his performances) has trouble distinguishing between funny ha-ha and funny peculiar
That's why Arkin is so fabulous. Must see this film.
I'm off to swim. Marshall your best arguments, little man.
The review was written between 1974 and 1985, so you're both right!
Standpipe Bridgeplate: The Movie: I thought Scarlett Johannson was fantastic as the gender-ambiguous title character.
I got Little Murders on Netflix once, but the DVD was damaged and wouldn't play anything much past the wedding scene (which is great). I enjoyed it up to that point, but I've never tried to get it again because I'm not sure I want to see the big twist the summary hints at. I figure it's like putting down Jane Eyre just after she leaves Mr. Rochester.
The wedding scene is great; it's broader humor than most of the rest of the movie. I didn't enjoy much of it after the twist; not enjoying it doesn't necessarily mean it was bad.
The scene in the subway is great, though.
Thanks for the recommendation. Ben. We watched it tonight and I thought it was pretty great. Yes, the wedding scene was probably the funniest portion -- is this Donald Sutherland's first role? The titles said "presenting Donald Sutherland".
I thought it was pretty great
(Ellen thought the first half was really funny; a little bit after the wedding scene she said she thought the movie had shot its wad early (not in such crude terms, please -- she is a lady) and went off to read a book. Probably a good thing since I think she would have found the last half-hour depressing.