I've got nothing against Yvette Mimieux. I even enjoyed her in "The Time Machine." But in this movie, not only is her character poorly conceived and poorly written, her performance is all lip-biting and hair-tossing. Richard Chamberlain rises to heroic levels to deliver a believable performance as a law student who marries her and finds ways not to kill her or himself when her insecurity rises to hysteria. And let's not forget that she's also a moron. At one point says to her student hubby, "I just want to learn enough so I don't embarrass you."
I'm sure there are women like that, so why not have them as characters in movies? By all means, have them, but they shouldn't make the audience cringe every time they open their mouths. Mimieux character lacks all dignity.
There have always been nitwits of both sexes, of course, and there always will be. But there will also, always, be people with conviction, curiosity, brains, and character. So why feature a woman as insipid as the Hair-Tosser? This was 1965, after all-- fifteen years after "The Second Sex" was published, and two years after the "The Feminine Mystique," so there's no excuse (other than assuming American women would lap up this pablum) for such a lack of enlightenment.
Every scene is contrived, not to mention badly written and boringly filmed, but the best of a bad lot are those with no sign of the Hair-Tosser. Oscar Homolka chews up scenery with his usual entertaining bluster, and Chamberlain is positively marvelous in the thankless role of the student. Arthur Kennedy phones in his part (who can blame him?), but Sidney Blackmer seems to take it all in stride, though he's given little to do.
Would that he'd been given less to do. In fact, would that they had all been given nothing to do because a script reader at Warner Bros. had long ago buried the screenplay in the back-lot in Burbank and spared us all.
I'm sure there are women like that, so why not have them as characters in movies? By all means, have them, but they shouldn't make the audience cringe every time they open their mouths. Mimieux character lacks all dignity.
There have always been nitwits of both sexes, of course, and there always will be. But there will also, always, be people with conviction, curiosity, brains, and character. So why feature a woman as insipid as the Hair-Tosser? This was 1965, after all-- fifteen years after "The Second Sex" was published, and two years after the "The Feminine Mystique," so there's no excuse (other than assuming American women would lap up this pablum) for such a lack of enlightenment.
Every scene is contrived, not to mention badly written and boringly filmed, but the best of a bad lot are those with no sign of the Hair-Tosser. Oscar Homolka chews up scenery with his usual entertaining bluster, and Chamberlain is positively marvelous in the thankless role of the student. Arthur Kennedy phones in his part (who can blame him?), but Sidney Blackmer seems to take it all in stride, though he's given little to do.
Would that he'd been given less to do. In fact, would that they had all been given nothing to do because a script reader at Warner Bros. had long ago buried the screenplay in the back-lot in Burbank and spared us all.