Category Archives: Julie Christie

Shampoo-1975

Shampoo-1975

Director Hal Ashby

Starring Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn

Scott’s Review #1,362

Reviewed May 19, 2023

Grade: A-

Shampoo (1975) is a drama and comedy hybrid that reminds me greatly of a Robert Altman film without the customary overlapping dialogue common in his works.

The political environment against the posh Los Angeles backdrop emotes the vibes of The Long Goodbye (1973) and Nashville (1975) with enough sly satire and humor to generate a comparison.

Of course, the film, nestled in mid-1970s cinema greatness is in the right decade. Further, the 1968 setting is perfect for the Los Angeles mood where the Manson killings, hippies, sex, drugs, and rock n roll were all commonplace.

Listening to the soundtrack of The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane and other familiar bands of the late 1960s makes Shampoo a grand slam of authenticity and richness.

Director, Hal Ashby, who created the dark comic genius Harold and Maude in 1971, hits it out of the park again with Shampoo, a study of love and loneliness and a sense of belonging and fulfillment.

I wasn’t won over right away and the film took me a while to warm up to if I’m being honest but by the end, I was a big fan, especially of the writing. But, some of the slow-build films are the best.

The film takes place against the backdrop of Election night in 1968 when eventually shamed former president Richard Nixon won the presidency. The characters bounce from one election party to the next but barely notice the outcome choosing booze and lust over politics.

Beverly Hills hairdresser and notorious cad George Roundy (Warren Beatty) runs into trouble when his bedroom antics interfere with a possible business deal with the influential Lester (Jack Warden). George is sleeping with Lester’s wife Felicia (Lee Grant) and his best friend and ex-girlfriend, Jackie (Julie Christie), in addition to his current girlfriend, Jill Haynes, played by Goldie Hawn.

Part of why Shampoo sneaks up on the viewer is that it’s not a laugh-out-loud comedy in a physical way. Instead, the intelligent dialogue and the development of its characters are the winning formula.

We first meet George in bed with his older mistress, Felicia, who we assume might be his girlfriend. When he makes an excuse to check on Jill, we realize he is playing the field, but with no ill intent. He genuinely likes the women he beds and despite his antics is feeling empty and mindlessly trudging along.

A wonderful scene atop the Hollywood Hills brings George’s peril to a climax when he professes his love for one of the women but is it too late?

Beatty, who co-wrote the screenplay, fleshes his character’s motivations out well. He really only wants happiness and a successful business. Some of the action takes place in his salon where he meets his conquests.

The scenes between Beatty and Warden work particularly well especially when Lester discovers George in a precarious situation or three assuming he is gay.

Let’s not forget the ladies. The triple bill of Christie, Hawn, and Grant is a force to be reckoned with. Grant is an interesting character since she has all the wealth she wants but instead loves the financially struggling George. Should we feel sympathy for her?

Jill presumably will find happiness with a director smitten with her. They seem like a quality pair and Christie’s Jackie also makes out well at the conclusion of the film.

Surprisingly and effectively, the presidential election is more of a background effect and is largely ignored by the characters who have better things to worry about.

Ashby mostly has the news telecasts and election returns blurred intentionally. The point made is that Nixon’s cheating is a reflection of the self-obsession affecting the United States during that time.

Despite his flaws, the audience nonetheless roots for George. This is a testament to the writing of Beatty and Robert Towne and the rich slow build that Ashby provides to Shampoo (1975) amid a shiny yet tarnished Los Angeles veneer.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actor-Jack Warden, Best Supporting Actress-Lee Grant (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction

Fahrenheit 451-1966

Fahrenheit 451-1966

Director Francois Truffaut

Starring Julie Christie, Cyril Cusack

Scott’s Review #728

Reviewed February 26, 2018

Grade: B+

Based upon the famous and fantastic classic 1953 novel, Fahrenheit 451,  by Ray Bradbury, the film adaptation is futuristic and dystopian.

Directed by French filmmaker Francois Truffaut and starring the “it” girl of the late 1960s, Julie Christie, the film succeeds as a cool, new wave, edgy, progressive hybrid. Various elements aid in making the film seem set in the future, all with hints of the great director, Alfred Hitchcock sprinkled in the mix.

Certainly, the novel is superior, but Fahrenheit 451 is a worthy watch if only for Christie alone.

Christie tackles a dual role, as both Clarisse, a young schoolteacher with progressive and forbidden views, and Linda, the vastly different spoiled wife of the central character, Guy Montag, played by German actor, Oskar Werner.

The trio exists in a futuristic world where a totalitarian government has banned all literature deeming it bad for society. A force called Firemen, where Guy works has the right to search anyone at any time and burn all books as needed.

Clarisse and Guy begin to question the government’s motivations as Guy stashes a copy of Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield, causing danger and peril for the pair.

What I think I like most about the film is the mysterious and foreboding concept, which is a downright scary notion. What if books were suddenly non-existent and forbidden?

The film does, as the novel did, provide references to luscious and brilliant literary works of art, so much so that the viewer will undoubtedly feel how this reality would be a devastating one.

As with similar titles such as “1984” and “Brave New World”, the futuristic world and the “Big Brother is watching” theme is a key to its success.

Director, Truffaut, an ardent fan of the master Hitchcock, seamlessly incorporates elements of suspense and key “Hitchcockian” moments, most specifically with the musical score.

Truffaut used Bernard Hermann, the same composer that Hitchcock used in 1966’s Torn Curtain, but more importantly, the prevalence of strings is reminiscent of classics like Psycho and Vertigo.

A fight scene behind frosted glass so that only shadows can be seen is a direct homage to Hitchcock’s famous style.

To go along with the Hitchcock comparisons, an interesting film anecdote is that legendary Hitchcock superstar, Tippi Hedren, was desired in the central dual role, but since at the time she and Hitchcock were embroiled in a feud, and she was under contract to him, he would allow none of it.

The mind wanders with the possibilities this would have presented. But alas, Christie is no slouch as the female star of the film.

Major kudos are deserved by Christie as she plays both of her characters to the hilt and is one of the best aspects of the film.

Anyone who has read Bradbury’s novel will understand how the character of Clarisse is expanded in the film, and one wonders if this was decided to showcase more of Christie.

Regardless, the characters of Clarisse/Linda are completely different from each other and the actress is superb. Unfortunately, this film is not front of the pack in Christie’s most remembered films.

My main detraction of Fahrenheit 451, the film, is only that, having recently read the novel, there is no comparison whatsoever, as the novel is far superior, however, the film is very good and contains some wonderful visuals and imagery.

So few times can a film usurp the beauties of the written word, and how ironic given the subject matter of the destruction of books.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966) is a stylistic, artistic film with a cool vibe and featuring a tremendous performance from one of 1960’s biggest talents.

The film initially received fair to middling reviews and is now largely forgotten, but it’s nice to take down from the dusty old shelves of the Hollywood obscure now and then.

Don’t Look Now-1973

Don’t Look Now-1973

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Julie Christie, Donald Sutherland

Scott’s Review #693

Reviewed October 22, 2017

Grade: A

Don’t Look Now is an exceptional 1973 supernatural horror film that is as thought-provoking as it is intelligently written and directed.

Combined with riveting acting by famous Hollywood stars of the day, the film is simply an anomaly and must be seen to be appreciated. It is also the type of film that can be watched again and again for better clarity and exhibits the age-old “it gets better with age” comparison.

The film is rich with story, atmosphere, and cerebral elements, as well as being highly influential to horror films that followed.

An affluent married couple, John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie), live happily together in their English country home, raising their two children, Johnny and Christine.

After a tragic drowning incident, resulting in the death of Christine, the devastated couple relocates to Venice, after John accepts a position restoring an ancient church. Soon, Laura meets a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be clairvoyant, warning her of imminent danger and that Christine is attempting to contact her from beyond.

Don’t Look Now is hardly your standard horror film, which is the main part of its appeal- psychological in nature, the film holds only one gruesome death- not including the death of Christina, which is a terrible accident- not malicious.

Rather, director Nicolas Roeg quietly builds the suspense to a startling final sequence by using a chilling musical score to elicit a reaction from the audience. We know not what will happen, only that something sinister is bound to.

Due to the successful chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, in 1973, both cream of the crop in terms of film success and marketability, the actors deserve much credit for making Don’t Look Now both believable and empathetic.

John and Laura, each give their character a likable nature and immeasurable chemistry, which makes the audience care for them.

Despite the supernatural elements in the film, at its core, the story is quite humanistic. John and Laura have tragically lost a child and we see them deal with the painful grief associated with this loss.

The famous sex scene between the pair is shocking given the time, but also tastefully done, as Roeg uses a fragmented filming style that mixes the nudity with the couple dressing for dinner.

Visually, Don’t Look Now is a pure treat. The viewer is catapulted to the cultural and wonderful world of watery Venice, where scene after scene features gondola rides, exterior treats of the city, and filming locations such as the famous Hotel Gabrielli Sandworth and the San Nicolo dei Mendicoli church, wisely chosen as shooting locations giving the film an effective realism.

The characters of the elderly sisters, Heather and Wendy, are wonderfully cast. Hilary Mason and Clelia Matania are fantastic and believable as the mysterious duo. Seemingly kindly and eager to help, I was never really sure what the character’s true motives were.

Was Laura paying them for their assistance?

The film never reveals this information, but Heather especially contains a sinister look that shrouds her motivations in uncertainty. Fabulous actress Mason shines in her important role.

As John begins to “see things”, the use of the color red becomes very important. Christine died wearing a red coat and John sees a child wearing a red coat walking around the city, but cannot make out her face.

When he sees Laura and the sisters at a funeral, we begin to question his sanity. But are the sisters up to something and attempting to trick him or is his mind playing tricks on him?

The terrific conclusion will only lead the viewer to more questions.

Don’t Look Now (1973) is a unique, classic horror film, with incredible thematic elements, an eerie psychological story, fine acting, and location sequences that will astound.

Mixing the occult with an unpredictable climax, the film is influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and succeeds in achieving a blood-curdling affair sure to be discussed upon the chilling conclusion.

The film is non-linear in storytelling, which only makes it more challenging to watch and appreciate.

Red Riding Hood-2011

Red Riding Hood-2011

Director Catherine Hardwicke

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Julie Christie

Scott’s Review #477

70167073

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

I was hesitant to see Red Riding Hood (2011) in the theater because it seemed like more of a rental to me.

While it is far from high art, it is an above-mediocre thriller riding the current popularity of the vampire-lite genre.

It tells the tale of a teenage girl living in a medieval village that is being attacked by a mysterious wolf. The wolf, however, is human at times.

The fact that it stars young actors known in current American cinema, it is unsurprising that a love story is written.

I thought the movie was decent, but not great. The whodunit is good as we wonder who the wolf in disguise is, and the cinematography is excellent.

I bought the period’s authenticity.

Being treated to Julie Christie in a current film is always a treat, but at times the movie is quite sappy and Twilight-ish. It is directed by the same director Catherine Hardwicke so this is not surprising.

Overall, Red Riding Hood (2011) is not a bad watch.

A Decade Under The Influence-2003

A Decade Under the Influence-2003

Director Ted Demme, Richard LaGravenese

Starring Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin

Scott’s Review #392

60027599

Reviewed April 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Produced by the cable network Independent Film Channel (IFC), A Decade Under The Influence explores the decade of 1970s film, a decade that was arguably the most creative and liberating to filmmakers and audiences alike.

A period in film defined by the directors securing creative freedom instead of the studios, where artists instead of corporations finally ruled the roost. A Decade Under The Influence gives us an overview of the era.

Despite some conspicuous omissions, I enjoyed this informative piece a great deal.

The documentary is divided into numerous segments including sections on women in film, the transition into a different period in Hollywood, and the subsequent close of the decade.

The interviews are plentiful including a who’s who of stars: Martin Scorsese, Ellen Burstyn, Clint Eastwood, Robert Altman, Julie Christie, Francis Ford Coppola, and numerous other influential directors, actors, and filmmakers.

Each individual describes his or her perspective on 1970s cinema, and personal anecdotes of experiences or challenges are shared.

Ellen Burstyn, for example, describes how the success of The Exorcist afforded her a plethora of other film offers, but all of the roles were of prostitutes, dutiful wives, or women in peril.

She needed roles more stimulating than those so she chose to star in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which was a much better-written role. What I found a bit sad is how there are still limited, layered roles for women in Hollywood to this day unless one goes the independent film route, which this documentary touts as a savior.

Francis Ford Coppola relays how The Godfather was never expected to be a success, but rather, how he was chosen to direct the film merely because he worked for cheap and was Italian-American.

How ironic that the film became such a monumental success and influential to film making as a whole for generations to come.

The documentary, at times, seems like an overview of the decade, with many clips of classic 1970s cinema interspersed with the talking points.

Despite being three hours in length, I still felt that there was so much more than the documentary could have explored. Not surprisingly, the stars granting interviews were granted heavy screen time for their films.

The documentary was fine, but could have delved much deeper- I could see a multiple-disc set totally of ten or more hours dedicated to the decade.

One conspicuous omission was Robert Altman’s Nashville, arguably, the best film of the decade. While it was briefly mentioned, and a still frame of a scene from it did appear, I felt that it warranted more dissection and discussion.

This was more surprising given that Altman was interviewed for the documentary.

Another miss was Halloween or any mention of John Carpenter films. Halloween influenced many horror films to come and The Exorcist received heaps of coverage, undoubtedly because star Burstyn and director William Friedkin appear at length throughout the production.

Additionally, in the horror genre, Black Christmas (a highly influential horror film) was not mentioned at all.

A celebration of my favorite decade of cinema, A Decade Under the Influence is a documentary that is a basic must-see for fans of 1970s cinema, or film students perhaps immersing themselves into the world of great film for the first time.

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates

Scott’s Review #315

70111488

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: A-

A sweeping, gorgeous epic made in 1967, Far from the Madding Crowd is pure soap opera (this is not a negative), done very well, which features a woman with three male suitors and contains many similarities to another brilliant epic, Gone with the Wind.

The cinematography, score, and writing are excellent, and, at close to three hours, are a lengthy experience.

The film is based on the popular novel, written by Thomas Hardy.

The setting is lovely, rural England, the landscape green and lush- mostly farmland, where Bathsheba resides having recently inherited her Uncle’s enormous estate and is, frankly, overwhelmed with the heavy responsibility required to successfully run it.

Three men appear in one form or another to lend a hand and each falls madly in love with her- she had her choice of any of them. Throughout the film, each is given a chance to win her heart, and the trials and tribulations of each occur.

The wealthy neighbor, William Boldwood, is older and insecure. Frank Troy is a bad boy who is a cavalry sergeant, and Gabriel, a former farmer, has lost all of his sheep.

Having only seen this film twice (so far), I notice more and more the similarities to Gone with the Wind. Both are set around the same period (the 1860s) and both films feature very strong, independent, gorgeous female characters with multiple male suitors.

Unlike Gone with the Wind, though, Bathsheba is not self-centered, but wholesome and honest.

Julie Christie was certainly the “it” girl during the time in which the film was made, having recently starred in Darling, and Doctor Zhivago, among others, and Far from the Madding Crowd is a perfect film for her, focusing on her beauty and earnestness.

She is exceptionally cast.

What I enjoy most about the film is we do not know which of the men Bathsheba will wind up with…if any of them. Gabriel Alan Bates) is my personal favorite, but at the beginning of the film, she rebuffs his marriage proposal.

In a heartbreaking scene, one of his dogs goes mad and leads his entire flock of sheep to their death. He then is forced to work as her shepherd, a job beneath him. He is the most likable of the three men and it is fun to root for their ultimate union. But is he prone to bad luck?

Frank Troy is dashing- a clear lady’s man, yet I did not root for him. A character, which I found to have strange motivations, having impregnated, and almost married a young lady named Fanny, only to turn her away based on a misunderstanding, then ultimately change his mind about Bathsheba.

In one scene he manipulates his way into getting the townsmen drunk on brandy, which leads to a crisis. He is charismatic and used to getting his way.

Finally, Boldwood is wealthy and sophisticated and appealing to Bathsheba in a certain way (main stability), but there is also something I find “off” about the character throughout the film- unstable maybe, needy? I did not find his character likable either.

The overlap and the relationships between the men are also interesting aspects of Far from the Madding Crowd. Will they become friends? Would they kill each other for Bathsheba’s affection?

Many emotions run through all four characters, which makes the film rich in character development.

Grand, sweeping, and beautiful are words to describe Far from the Madding Crowd, a film that I enjoy exploring and evaluating upon each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

Nashville-1975

Nashville-1975

Director Robert Altman

Starring Lily Tomlin, Keith Carradine, Karen Black

Top 100 Films #7

Scott’s Review #47

60001541

Reviewed June 19, 2014

Grade: A

Nashville (1975)  is a brilliant film.

I have found that with each subsequent viewing, it creeps higher and higher on my list of favorite movies of all time.

The style is unique (largely improvised) and epitomizes creative freedom in the film during the 1970s.

Director Robert Altman lets his actors express themselves, even allowing them to write their songs, the dialogue overlaps at times, which results in a natural feeling as the viewer watches the cast of twenty-four principles intersect over five days at a political rally/country music festival.

It is pure Robert Altman at his finest.

Nashville is a satire of the political arena of the early 1970s and the Vietnam conflict and politicians, specifically.

The film certainly questions and challenges the government with an ironic patriotic setting (Nashville).

The country music industry was in an uproar upon the initial release of the film. It is a layered film that can be discussed and appreciated and every character is cared about.

I cannot adequately describe the multitude of nuances in each scene that are noticed over time.

Each character- even some with limited screen time is important to the story as are the political elements- the questions of wars, policies, etc. abound.

The chaotic bits and individual storylines come together at the end and many background happenings are incredibly interesting to watch and take note of throughout each viewing.

With each experience, the audience will notice more and more. I certainly do.

Lily Tomlin, for example, plays Linnea, a haggard mother of deaf children with a supportive husband, a woman who on the surface is heroic, yet she is a complex character; she is bored with her life and falls in love with a young musician despite the guilt and repercussions.

The musician in question is Tom Frank, played by Keith Carradine. Handsome, and self-absorbed, he arrives in Nashville to dump his bandmates in hopes of a solo career and beds many willing females.

He also lashes out at a soldier at the airport, saying, “Kill anyone lately?”

Despite his unlikeable character, Carradine gives one of the most beautiful performances in the film when he sings “I’m Easy”.

Several of the female characters assume he is singing the song for them, but who is he truly singing it for…if anyone?

Another character to analyze is Barbara Jean, played by Ronee Blakley. A frail yet very successful country singer, she is in and out of hospitals as she frets about her replacement singer stealing her thunder.

Her insecurities rise to the surface.

Insecurity is a common theme among the characters. Many of them are either unsure, afraid, or not confident about their musical talent, their relationships, or even themselves.

These are only three examples of the twenty-four richly layered characters- some ambitious, some falling apart, others meandering through life.

Many songs throughout were created by the actors themselves.

Nashville (1975) is storytelling and filmmaking at its best. A creation by Altman that is deservedly admired, revered, and heralded as a major influence.

It is studied in film schools as it should be.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Altman, Best Supporting Actress-Ronee Blakley, Lily Tomlin, Best Original Song-“I’m Easy” (won)

Doctor Zhivago-1965

Doctor Zhivago-1965

Director David Lean

Starring Julie Christie, Omar Sharif

Top 100 Films #47

Scott’s Review #42

449931

Reviewed June 18, 2014

Grade: A

Doctor Zhivago is a great film to watch on a cold winter night or throughout the crisp winter or holiday season.

The film is a classic masterpiece directed by the talented David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia, A Passage to India) whose perfectionism is evident in his epic films. Nearly every scene could be a painting so the cinematography alone is reason enough to become enchanted with the work of art.

Of course, the story is also a goldmine as a sprawling decades-long love story unfolds amid the ravages of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution.

The film is set in the bitter cold of Russia (though in reality all scenes were shot in Spain) and the bitterness of the cold climate and the war are mixed perfectly with a doomed love story set against the backdrop of the many battles and wartime effects.

Nearly all sequences are set in the winter so that the blustery and icy effects are nestled magnificently against numerous scenes of cozy, candlelit cabins or more extravagant glowing surroundings.

In this way, the viewer simply must be surrounded by fire, flaming candles, or another form of warmth as a snowstorm or blizzard besets outdoors for a perfect viewing experience.

A large-screen television or a cinema is simply a must to watch this film as it is epic on the grandest scale.

Omar Sharif and Julie Christie (a gorgeous star in her day) are cast perfectly as Uri and Lara, young forbidden lovers enthralled with one another but involved with significant others.

The film dissects their initial meeting and their story over the years, experiencing marriages, births, and deaths throughout the ravages of Russia in the early twentieth century.

Despite their affairs, neither is deemed unsympathetic- quite the contrary as audiences will fall in love with the pair and become enchanted as we watch their love-tortured adventures.

Sharif and Christie are just magnificent and completely believable as a couple.

The set pieces are magnificent and flawless in design and detail (my favorite is the Ice Palace).

The cinematography is breathtaking and the content is very close to the superior novel by Boris Pasternak and a feeling of “really being there” encompasses the viewer.

Doctor Zhivago (1965) is quite simply a brilliant film and perfect for a snowy, winter evening.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-David Lean, Best Supporting Actor-Tom Courtenay, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Art Direction, Color (won), Best Cinematography, Color (won), Best Costume Design, Color (won), Best Film Editing