La reencarnación de Peter Proud

Popular for about 6 months on first release in 1975 and never seen or heard of again, this sort of creepy thriller was effective enough for 19 year olds who thought they might need a warm up for AUDERY ROSE or a re-zap after THE EXORCIST. Michael Sarrazin was an interesting 30 something actor who looked as though he was about to be a big star. THE'RE'S ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE (check US title) with George.C Scott, THEY SHOOT HORSES with Jane Fonda, then FOR PETE'S SAKE with Streisand(!), this thing and then a slide into B movie oblivion. He acted with some of the biggest and most durable stars of the 60s and 70s. Nobody knows him today in current filmdom and I would be keen to see how he has fared. Like the co stars here: Jennifer O'Neill the gorgeous woman from THE SUMMER OF 42 (also a forgotten film, huge in 1972, as were her three young co stars) and the derailed Margo Kidder whose SISTERS to SUPERMAN rocket to fame was only matched by her plummet to earth. Maybe PETER PROUD cursed them all and nobody's career was reincarnated either. Sad for all concerned. Each were interesting actors and all their films worth seeing. Even this one.

Recurrent dreams of your murder that may signify your reincarnation! Others who've noted the superior cinematography and soundtrack are correct in identifying the elements that glue one to Peter Proud's predicament. I was an usher when this first showed up in'75--we always got 'gasps' from the audience at the preposterous climax! An opening screenshot saying "L.A. 1975" would make the film appear undated and retrospective. Otherwise exciting and a must-see especially for film students and aficionados.

In the 1960's and 1970's, a wave of interest in the occult and the supernatural swept popular culture in the United States, Canada, and parts of Europe. Many books appeared on subjects such as telepathy, mysticism, pantheism, possession and exorcism, and reincarnation. Even rock bands such as Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult rode the waves and even created their own sub-cultures, forging highways of exploration into unknown and mystical territories. Such wide-spread appeal on these taboo subjects would have been nearly unthinkable only a couple of decades earlier. Eventually films began to appear which mirrored the tastes of younger audiences interested in these subjects, such as Rosemary's Baby, the Exorcist, and the present film, The Reincarnation of Peter Proud.

Peter Proud (Michael Sarrazin in a very convincing performance), a young professor of about 30 years old living in California, isn't having dreams. He's having vivid image-visions of miscellaneous episodes instead of dreams while he sleeps. He sees vivid images of bridges, monuments, buildings, churches, and houses in color of places he's never been. And he sees people he's never met. Most people dream in surreal settings where houses are distorted and even the laws of nature can be thwarted, but most often occupied by people from their lives, such as family, friends and lovers with the occasional supporting character. However, Proud's dreams are for the most part more like visions of another life than surreal dreams. For example, he sees a child running down the stairs of a house to school while his mother plays the piano. Of all these vision-dreams, one in particular is the most disturbing. He witnesses the murder of a young man in a lake at the hands of a lover of some sort he has spurned. And when this vision-dream occurs while he's asleep, he speaks with the voice of the man being murdered, which freaks out his girlfriend.

Because he's not really dreaming but having visions, he's become irritable and seeks psychiatric help. The psychiatrists use him as a kind of lab rat in their experiments on sleeping and dreaming, they and determine he's not dreaming as normal. Although, Proud insists his visions are real. Then by chance he sees a documentary about small New England towns, and he notices a couple of buildings which appear strikingly similar to the ones in his dreams. He decides to investigate. He drags his live-in girlfriend to Massachusetts where they wander around the state looking for the town. He finally finds it, but his girlfriend returns to the West Coast.

Proud then begins to do more investigating, and he finds the house which appears the same as the one in which there was a little boy and his mother. He then explores newspaper records and finds a man was drowned in the 1940's just after the war in a lake near the town. The record says it was an accident but the vision implies the man was in fact murdered. He discovers the name and begins asking older locals about who this man was. He meets the deceased's daughter at a local tennis club and eventually meets the man's widow played by Margot Kidder in an equally compelling performance. The man's widow appears like an older version of the woman in the vision. Could this be the man who Peter Proud was in a previous life? His psychiatrist friend from California wants to document Proud's findings, but Proud is reluctant to reveal his discoveries.

Certainly not for all tastes, but this is a very compelling mystery-thriller with quasi-supernatural elements. There is very little action, save the recurring vision of the murder, and the climactic ending. Much of the film is about Proud's investigations and his eventual relationship with the murdered man's daughter. Spooky electronic music, similar in style to music in other films of the period, such as "Escape to Witch Mountain", are often used when Proud sees a building and there's a flash to his dream-visions.

Two larger questions are asked by the film. Did we live in previous lives? And, if we did, the more frightening question posed: is it in our best interests to discover who we may have been or leave well enough alone, as the old saying goes? Reincarnation and other questions about life after death are still popular, but the present film fed into an audience which was very hungry for this kind of material during the 1970's.

Peculiar film which mixes murder-mystery with the supernatural concept of reincarnation, along with a large dose of early-70's movie sexuality. I saw this several times years ago on TV, and was quite impressed with it, somewhat against my will; now I wish that I could see it again. It is deeply and disturbingly creepy at points, and contains chilling scenes which I will never forget; it has the quality of a bad dream that you can't quite get out of your mind. At the same time, it is not in any way a typical "horror" or fantasy film; in an odd way it is somewhat subtle and intellectual without being at all high-brow (the lead character is an inquisitive college professor).

The main protagonists are played by Michael Sarrazin and Margot Kidder (both Canadians). Sarrazin was becoming quite popular at the time, and something of an unlikely heart-throb, but his career later fizzled out. His rather sleepy and laid-back acting style works well here. Kidder at first seems bizarrely and very severely mis-cast playing a far older alchoholic widow, but her performance begins to get under your skin once you get past the terrible age-makeup that was used on her (she plays her own age in flashbacks). She was actually much younger than Sarrazin at the time, and the same age as the radiant Jennifer O'Neill who plays her adult daughter. It would be interesting to know the behind-the-scenes info on the casting decisions.

The production is rather slow-moving, although it eventually gathers speed and certainly ends with a bang! Unfortunately, as a whole the thing never quite works. It probably could be a much more interesting and intense film, and I have read that Paramount has acquired the rights for a remake.

Originally available on both VHS tape and LaserDisc.

The original novel was a very good (and spooky) tale of a man reincarnated (Michael Sarrazin) and falling in love with his daughter (Jennifer O'Neill) from his previous life. Unfortunately he was killed by his previous wife (Margot Kidder) and she's starting to suspect something...

The movie has a good cast and is well-done but it's slow-moving and seems more interested in showing sex, nudity and violence that giving us a good story. Heck,within the first 5 minutes there's gratuitous female nudity! Kidder masturbates in the tub, O'Neill has a nude love sequence with Sarrazin and there are disturbing shots of a man violently raping his wife. Also there are shots of the guy totally nude walking to a lake. But, then again, I saw it when I was 13...ANY nudity shocked me! I went with my mom, my younger sister and her friend--they all walked out pretty stunned (and embarrassed)...I walked out very interested! To be honest the book was more explicit, but it WAS well-written. The movie just didn't do it justice. Also Sarrazin's acting was pretty bad but O'Neill and Kidder were very good.

All in all it's OK. Avoid the TV version which is so heavily cut it's impossible to follow. It is available on YouTube uncut.