This is yet another one of those 70s movies that I’ve heard about all my life, but had never really considered actually watching.

And it’s once again because of something @hazelflag wrote, but I can’t find it now, because Twitter has once again fucked up their search.

It wasn’t this one, in any case.

And this has Art Garfunkel!?

That’s some grade A framing.

Oh yeah, that’s Candice Bergen?

Oh… they’re all supposed to be going to college? So they’re supposed to be like 20? And Jack Nicholson er 34 and Garfunkel is 30?

Movies are confusing.

Art Garfunkel really isn’t a very good actor…

It’s a funny movie.

But it’s like… some of the drama seems pretty… fake.

Oh, OK, now they’re older… then I guess the casting makes sense…

Garfunkel’s still not a better actor.

Oh, I’d forgotten that Mike Nichols had done All These Movies… I’ve seen… at least half? Two thirds? But I haven’t seen Catch-22, for instance.

These shots are really wonderful. They’re not exactly naturalistic, but… better.

Oh, the cinematographer has done a million movies — but more importantly, dozens of movies by Fellini. Now it makes sense.

So great.

Hey! Carol Kane!

I think we’re in the future!

Now I remember where I remember this movie being mentioned… It’s the Comics Journal, of course. Because it’s written by Jules Feiffer.

Anyway, it’s a pretty oddly shaped movie, but it works.

Carnal Knowledge. Mike Nichols. 1971. ⚄

Oh my. The 70s were brown, man.

I think I’ve seen all the Mel Brooks movies? On VHS in the early 80s. And I don’t really remember this one, except that I think it’s not really one of the better ones? So why did I buy this? Because I kinda sorta want to watch all of his 70s movies again… so why not start with the one I don’t remember?

I mean, there aren’t that many:

Yeah, it’s getting kinda meta.

Heh heh.

Well… Well, OK, it’s a parody of a Hitchcock thriller. But it also kinda tries at being one of these thrillers? So while there are jokes — a lot of them — it’s not like a Zucker/Abramhams/Zucker movie from the same era: It’s kinda subdued.

So while it’s amusing, it’s not exactly hilarious? The jokes aren’t *snap* *snap* *snap*.

Yeah, the movie is just getting flabbier and flabbier. It’s not like the first half was chock-a-block with gags, but now there’s even fewer.

*sigh*

Heh heh, that’s a good one. The joke’s even more relevant today, somehow.

I quite liked the way this movie started, but halfway in, it lost all momentum. And it feels stupid to complain about a movie like this getting “too silly”, but… that’s not it exactly. The writing just felt very lazy: They went with the first joke they thought of and called it a day. It should have been sillier.

Eh:

Pauline Kael of The New Yorker shared the same objection, writing that “Brooks seems to be under the impression that he’s adding a satirical point of view, but it’s a child’s idea of satire; imitation, with a funny hat and a leer. Hitchcock’s suspense melodramas are sparked by his perverse wit; they’re satirical to start with.”

I don’t think that’s it, either. The problem is that there’s long stretches of movie where there isn’t much funny stuff going on.

High Anxiety. Mel Brooks. 1977. ⚂