A very striking film from director Richard Lester that combines Cassevettes' realism, Kubrick's clinical detachment, and Resnais' fragmented film style. Set against a San Francisco that seems inspired by Felini as well as Antonnioni's BlowUp, Petulia, released the same year as Cassavettes' Faces and Kubrick's 2001, features a terrific performance from George C. Scott whose wry line readings provide some of the best moments in the film. The doctor he plays in Petulia is a younger version of the one he played in The Hospital(71), and Scott's straightforward performance garners sympathy while Christie's Petulia is an annoying kook, or worse, from the get go, and the way she suddenly co-ops the doctor's life is alarming. The only time I was on her side was when she told Wilma to "Get stuffed!". She's more disturbing than charming, and it's hard to believe that the doctor wouldn't be fleeing from her or getting a restraining order. And why Petulia married the privileged, sadistic, homosexual pederast in the first place is really no more explained than she is. Nonetheless, Richard Chamberlain is effectively cast as the husband, Nicolas Roeg's cinematography creates some spectacular imagery, Scott never looked better, Christie when not sabotaged by hairdo and make up is lovely, John Barry's score is very effective, and though some of the editing is pointlessly distracting, it is dazzling, and the background with jaded hippies, giddy nuns, automated hotels, 24 hour supermarkets... is arguably more interesting than the foreground with Petulia & Co. Cinematographer Roeg used subliminal imagery in his films Performance(70) and Walkabout(71) as did John Boorman in Point Blank(67) which like Petulia also used Alcatraz as a location.

Petulia opens with a shot of a middle-aged woman in a wheelchair, then cuts to a sixties' rock club featuring a very young-looking Janis Joplin. The sixties counterculture definitely torpedoed middle-aged women. Their husbands, like Archie, the middle-aged doctor played by George G. Scott, have the luxury of deciding they're "tired" of being married and jumping into affairs with younger women. This is a cause of continuing sadness to his ex-wife Polo, wonderfully played by Shirley Knight. Archie becomes involved with Petulia (Julie Christie), a clichéd "kooky" young woman of a type that often appeared in films of this period. Petulia is married to an abusive, wealthy husband, David, played with suitable evil by Richard Chamerlain. Christie is such a good actress that she gives some dimension to the role, although she's far outshone by Knight as Polo, the wounded wife. In its technique and attitude it really is a European or British film shot in San Francisco with American actors. There are interesting cultural references to the sixties, that may have seemed daring at the time, but now seem more innocent than anything else. The film is really about Archie and men of his generation and their bewilderment at the changing cultural mores represented by Petulia. On one hand they're delighted to feel that they can have sex with no responsibilities, but Petulia, for all her charm brings nothing but chaos into Archie's life. Was it really worth for him to be involved with her? And he ends up stuck with a high maintenance greenhouse in his apartment.

Critically-lauded drama from fashionable filmmaker Richard Lester is certainly handsome enough, although it doesn't initially appear to leave its audience with much but a sour aftertaste. A divorced, frustrated doctor--who has taken up with an exasperating, unhappily married young woman named Petulia--quickly realizes this new direction is adding no particular meaning to his life. Choppy, infuriating picture seems to be leading somewhere but never does; admirers of the film say this is precisely Lester's point, that his tying the story in loose, inconsistent knots is his idea of symbolism. George C. Scott has some amazing moments, Julie Christie is smartly-attired and attractive, Shirley Knight and Richard Chamberlain try hard in underwritten roles, but the movie is pretentiously off-kilter. Lester underlines his scenes with a modern sort of cynicism--American cattiness--that comes off as unfunny and rude rather than satirical. However, the design and conception of the film is startling, and memories of it may sneak up on you days after seeing it. **1/2 from ****