Of Gracie & Mia & "John & Mary"

Email Article
Print Article
Discuss This (0 Comments)

I don't know about you, but all I could say about Mia Farrow up to this point was that she was the precursor to Angelina Jolie ~ a beautiful sex pot in her time who adopted a hundred kids ~ and that poor Mia was tragically linked (forever) to Woody Allen, a man whose intellect and humor may have reached the highest-highs, but whose penis and morality also sent him to the lowest-lows. (Rat Bastard.) Perhaps it's all this crap which kept me from seeing any film with Mia Farrow (and yes, this means I've never seen Rosemary's Baby etc..)

But being sick and held prisoner in my mind by one of those muscle paralyzing physical stupors which cough syrups provide, rendering body lifeless but brain painfully alert and starved, I was unable to reach for the remote which lay out of reach and switch television stations. So I was forced to watch a Mia Farrow film.

John & Mary (1969) stars Mia Farrow and Dustin Hoffman, and, surprisingly, was a film not just hot-on-the-heels of both stars recent film successes, but one which was thought to be a racy yet artistic film representational of its time, and as such the studio expected big things. I say this is 'surprising' because I'd never heard of the damn film.

The movie's billing at the time was a bit sexploitative, with a tag line of "It's not your mother's love story". Perhaps it was this expectation which rather doomed the film with audiences for the film is on the 'artsy' rather than the salacious side and was nominated for awards (Hoffman even winning the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Award for Best Actor). Other than a few nude shots, and the very premise of the film, this is clearly a minimalist, artsy, think-y film rather than a jolly old bit of titillation.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

There I was, stranded on the sofa, when John & Mary begins... Fear of Farrow giving way to admiration of Hoffman (and the already discussed mobility issues combined with a hunger for something to occupy my brain), I watched the story unfold.

The premise is simple: Boy meets girl in a singles bar, takes her home, they screw, and then the head games begin.

The entire film takes place in 24 hours, with flashbacks for each of their relationship histories ~ or, more accurately, their baggage. For that's what the film really focuses on ~ how two singles meet, fuck, and then try to settle their emotions and wrap their minds about what they've just done while they remember past relationships.

She's an artsy-hip-type, certain and confident enough to debate films, be bored by her companions, and to choose one night stands as she wishes. She's intelligent, but not so smart to avoid being caught up as the mistress of a married man with a political career. The flashbacks indicate the toll of this lonely, outsider, one-sided relationship is a certain haunted waifishness (which, of course, is aided by Mia's physical appearance). Even her girlfriends have oddly detached, sidelined relationships. She wants freedom & equality, but is unhappy with their attached detachments. (Hello, paging 70's feminists!) Overall, she's a smart girl, a good but unconventional girl, with a kitten-ish streak she protects with defensive posturing as she denies she wants, needs, something more.

He's a brooding creative type who is all about lines. It's not just his work as a furniture designer, but his careful construction of lines about & within his life. Things must have style, yes, but substance and function too. He's in polite control, trying to balance 'niceness' with the organization & functionality he requires, and it's clear from his flashbacks that the last girlfriend swooped in with little but style. He's a bit more old fashioned (enjoying less-than-hip music and on a schedule yet), but there are signs of a Renaissance man too. He's proud of his ability to cook & passionate about the pragmatics of organic eggs. In short, he is a modern man professing to be cool and comfortable with sexual equality, yet completely unsure what to do with it while it sits across the table from him the morning after.

He's order, she's chaos; he's repressed, she's wild; but this isn't a flick which can be boiled-down to such simplicity as 'opposites attract'. It's much more deliciously juicy and complex than that.

The biggest question for each is why should the other affect them so? Why would they, should they, care what this virtual stranger thinks when all either wanted to share was bodies and fluids...

It would be too easy to say that Hoffman's 'John' is the judgmental one, especially with his fearful accusations that she does this all the time, but as a woman it's quite clear to see that Mia's 'Mary' is equally fearful and defensive on the subject of sleeping around. Nerve struck, she delivers the appropriately indignant reply ~ with the obligatory sneer at his un-coolness ~ but it seems the nerve is so sensitive because she has rubbed it raw herself.

Neither is innocent, nor predatory. Both are jaded, and insecure. They are drawn to one another; but they are suspicious. And it's quite clear that each is even more suspicious & distrustful of their own behaviors & motivations.

As I said, it's complex.

If the film is a character sketch times three, with portraits of John, Mary, and the 'relationship' (defined as persons relating to one another), then you have three simultaneous dances. Each doing their own versions of "should I or shouldn't I" and "what's wrong with me?" with the occasional reach towards the other ~ only to find the other has retreated or even been repelled by such an action ~ setting them back into their own reactionary, defensive dances of denial.

If all of this sounds rather like the dance(s) of any relationship, it does, it is. But this dance occurs while neither yet knows the other's name.

I found myself riveted by the subtle but grand performances (and yes, now I'll seek films with Farrow). Director Peter Yates does an excellent job of creating a film which gives a panoramic view, yet captures the nuanced neurosis of both parties. The simplicity in film style allows the play of shadows and lights, allowing great actors to create rich subtle characters rather than those caricatures we see too often in the slap-happy romantic comedies of today. It's true that John & Mary is more enlightened and enlightening than the majority of 'romantic comedies' or 'dramedies' seen today, but there are plenty of laughs to be had ~ if you too enjoy wit and believe that real life is quite absurd enough, thank you, without the silly hijinks.

This isn't a slick sexy film in the sense that you watch it purely for entertainment value; but rather the sort of film one watches for the nuances, the delicate structure, the sublime... It's the sort of film which could inspire Movie Clubs, where groups gather to discuss what they've seen rather like a fine piece of literature. It's certainly a film I continue to gnaw on in my own mind. I've no 'bone to pick' here at all; but it sure is nice to chew on the film long after it's over.

One could, easily, read too much into the context of the time period and claim this movie is a statement on the free-love 60's & 70's, a warning regarding sexual promiscuity. But I just don't see that. (And I'm usually among the first to do so!) Instead, the film offers a candid, but condensed, look at coupling. The issues of angst and awkwardness could just as easily have unfolded over weeks or months, with any relationship.

The politics of the period may have changed (and that's certainly debatable in and of itself), but the dynamics of two people, their baggage, and the struggle for each to decide if and when they should share, should become something more than what it is, well, that certainly has not. Because we're still trying to figure out that sex isn't the only thing we hunger for, that more than limbs get tangled up in our sheets, that in many ways we have not come a long way, baby... Neither men nor women. This is what makes John & Mary a rather timeless film.

As for the look of the film, its mod & sparce style lends a futuristic quality that, some witty-yet-dated remarks aside, allows one to feel the possibility of 'now' or 'anywhere'.

I think John & Mary is worthy of owning and I suspect with each viewing it only becomes richer. And hey, I'm available for any Movie Club talk about the film. *wink*

© Gracie

For reviews which may make more sense, please see Celestronica and FilmBrain.

For a review which makes little sense to me, see Roger Ebert's review at the time John & Mary was released. Frankly, for the man behind Beyond Valley of the Dolls (1970), Ebert surprised me. This review seems like Roger isn't at all hip, cool, and comfortable with the sexual revolution but rather lives in the dark areas of that film... I'd pick the review apart nearly line-by-line, but that's so tiresome; and an analysis of Ebert himself will also have to wait for another time.

Other fun flick facts:

You'll see a young Tyne Daly as one of Mary's friends, and uber 60's model Sunny Griffin plays John's former girlfriend.

Jeff Bridges sang his own song "Lost In Space" on the soundtrack.

 

Email Article
Print Article
Discuss This (0 Comments)



blog advertising is good for you
Sex Kitten
Video On Demand
Featuring
Vintage & Retro
Flicks!

New York City Sexblogger 2009 Calendar

Sex Kittens, Look:
1,713,457 adult galleries!

Sex.Alltop.com

Alltop, all the cool kids (and me)

Ephemera Bound

web metrics