As Billy Crystal quipped during his Oscar presentation song, "Did this film direct itself?" Barbra Streisand, producer, director, and leading lady in The Prince of Tides was almost completely snubbed at the 1991 Academy Awards. The film was up for Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actress, Music, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, and Art Direction, but she wasn't honored for her beautiful directing. From the opening scene, it's clear a professional with a vision is at the helm. Nick Nolte narrates through a scene of his childhood: he and his siblings run from home while their parents are fighting, jump off the dock into the water, and hold hands in a circle. "We found a silent soothing world where there was no pain. A world without mothers or fathers. We would make a circle bound by flesh and blood and water and only when we felt our lungs betray us would we rise towards the light." Three little heads pop up from the water's surface, and the opening titles start. It's truly beautiful.

There are so many scenes in The Prince of Tides that are moving and memorable, and they greatly outshine the less-than-stellar elements of the film. Nick Nolte plays a family man whose family life isn't particularly stable. He's spent a lifetime burying the secrets of the past, but when his sister, Melinda Dillon, tries to commit suicide, he travels from South Carolina to New York City and meets her therapist, Barbra Streisand. He and Barbra frequently clash, and while he is given very good lines to say, the way he says them is even better than they were written. He's quick to raise his voice, and when he does, it's clear he's releasing decades of pent-up emotion through his throat. Even when he's being a loving father to his three children, you can see the unresolved tension on his face.

You'd think it would be impossible to play against Nick's powerful performance and not give a very good one, but Blythe Danner proves my supposition wrong. She looks very pretty and has an absolutely adorable hairdo, but her acting leaves much to be desired. Then again, when you're watching Nick Nolte-who lost the gold to Anthony Hopkins for sixteen minutes of The Silence of the Lambs-you don't really care about Blythe Danner. Kate Nelligan, who plays Nick's mother, does do a very good job, so if you're a fan, you might want to see her only Oscar-nominated performance.

Normally, I don't really like movies that flash back and forth between the present and the past, but it's only because most directors don't handle the transitions very well. Ms. Streisand masters the difficult task, and every time the film flashes back to Nick's childhood, it's in an inventive, intriguing style. The "dual timeline" narrative is extremely popular nowadays, so if you like that style, you'll be in a great position to appreciate this marvelously crafted film. Before you rent it, though, just know that it's very heavy. You'll probably need to bring your Kleenexes, and you'll feel unsettled more than once. You might not want to watch this with your parents, and you should definitely put the kids to bed before movie night starts. It's extremely heavy.

My one problem with the film is the upsetting scenes involving child actors. I've always maintained that Hollywood should pass a "child labor law" where if a child is under the age of fifteen, they cannot be employed; instead, a computer-generator child actor should be used. I could go on for hours about the damage acting does to children, but I'll refrain. In 1991, computer technology wasn't very advanced, but I still feel the child actors should have been used as infrequently as possible. I recently read Ms. Streisand's memoir, and she insisted the section I'm referring to be included in the final screenplay. There were versions that wouldn't have used the children as much, and I firmly believe the movie would have been as effective if the section were revealed in dialogue with Nick instead of a visual flashback with the child actors. I'm sure there are audience members who disagree, but I just can't watch this movie (I've only seen it once) because I think of the emotional repercussions of the children. Besides that, Ms. Streisand's directing is flawless, and during the Hot Toasty Rag Awards, the board members proudly and unanimously awarded her Best Director.

Kiddy warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to upsetting situations involving children and adult material, I wouldn't let my kids watch this movie. Also, there may or may not be a rape scene.

I personally really like Barbra Streisand, and I think that this is a very good movie, even if not particularly for her own presence. The story is touchy and involving. The screenplay is well written and never exaggerated or out of track. Even the final cliché of the two main characters falling in love with each other is pretty well portrayed. Probably because it doesn't just happen during the final-five-minute-scene, but is developed enough to make it believable and not ridiculous. The soundtrack, by James Newton Howard, is lovely and really fulfills and underlines the whole movie. Technically, the finest work is done by the cinematography, which is warm and wrapping. The entire cast is good, especially Nick Nolte, who is very believable and delivers a great performance. Barbra Streisand is great behind the camera but only good in front of it. Playing the role of a rich, sophisticated, and independent woman she is kind of playing herself. Indeed, she is at her best when she doesn't have to deliver any line. Unarguably, because her charming presence by itself is enough to fill up the entire screen. She was probably too busy worrying about the way she looked than anything else. This probably wouldn't have happened if someone else were directing her. But then again, in that case we probably wouldn't have enjoyed her sweet and profound point of view.

Part I of My Critique -

I've read some of the comments here, but unfortunately, have never read the book. Firstly, it's easy to detect the Streisand haters among these "critics"....your hatred is truly sophomoric, and doesn't serve in your recounting an objective critique of the film.

As for this film itself, I think that Nick Nolte was absolutely the best element in it, as well as Kate Nelligan. I had never been a Nick Nolte fan, and was very surprised by his layered characterization. He did more with just a certain look, no words, than most actors can hope to accomplish reciting non-stop for two hours straight. In the simple shot of his looking at his daughter blow out her birthday candles and smiling when she's done, right after we are treated with a flashback of his horrid past, was enough to make me break. You could see him hiding some long-held, buried pain behind his genuine smile and love for his daughter. It was, for me, a very subtle, yet powerfully moving moment.

I think Streisand did a fine job directing this film, and was definitely robbed of a best director nomination. Several of the academy members who presented Oscars that evening, including Billy Crystal, Liza Minnelli, Shirley MacLaine, and Jessica Tandy (who REALLY made a point in a beautifully sarcastic delivery to mention how ridiculous it was that the film was nominated, but not the director. This almost NEVER happens, and it certainly happened that evening because there are so many academy members who despise Streisand.) Minnelli and MacLaine made a point of saying, before they read nominations for the particular award they were giving, that they would love to be directed by Streisand some day....more digs at the Academy. ANYWAY, beyond the snub, I thought the film overall was very poignant.

Where it falls short, however, are in the following areas. First, Streisand and/or the screenwriter (LaGraveness) shouldn't have focused really any time developing a love story between Streisand and Nolte. This was completely unnecessary. For this reason alone, I might not have even voted the film as one of the best of the year....I don't remember what else came out that year. My contention is that, if you're going to honor a film with the Oscar, you should also honor the director, since this film had Streisand's vision all over it. In fact, LaGraveness I believe was also a bit disgruntled with the many rewrites that Streisand made of his screenplay. More time should have been devoted to the horrific background story of Nolte's family, and of his sister. I understand that her character was actually schizophrenic for many years, probably triggered by her rape at 13, but that was not portrayed at all in the movie. Also, I thought Jason Gould did a fine job in his little part. However, I think it was disingenuous to even include that whole storyline in the movie. He was introduced in a slice of voice-over offered by Streisand's character when she talks to Nolte during a transitional scene when she invites Nick Nolte inside her apartment after he walks her home from Eddie's (George Carlin) party. She asks "why don't you come inside. I'd like you to meet my son." I know the plausibility we're supposed to accept is that, her son is a bit difficult and he's in football, and Nolte's character is a football coach who might be able to coach him privately....but I just didn't buy this whole plot line. It was an opportunity for Streisand to give her son a part in her film...that's it. He did all right in the part....I just didn't think this element was necessary. More showcasing for Streisand.

What else....the love story. I know that Tom Wingo (Nolte) is not her patient, so, romance between a doctor and his/her patient isn't an issue. And, it is plausible that she is pained as well, since her husband is having an affair, we later learn, with another woman. However, it would have been far more realistic and plausible if no romance came up, and no opening up on Streisand's part occurred at all. Or perhaps we might have been offered only a glimpse of her also troubled life, even though it's shielded behind the veneer of her being a successful psychiatrist. But to have her character let loose in a full-blown romance with Nolte's character was a plot line that took so much time away from what I really wanted to see, which was more of the background of the Wingo family, and particularly more of the sister herself....the raison d'etre of the film itself.

Part I Ends. See Part II for the rest of my critique.