The Chapman Report

The real-life Kinsey Report on modern-day sexual beliefs and behaviors is barely disguised here while being used as a facile backdrop, with the melodramatic film concentrating more on the hang-ups of four suburban women who have agreed to be surveyed for the project. Gene Allen, Wyatt Cooper, Don Mankiewicz, and Grant Stuart adapted the book by Irving Wallace, but tip their collective hand immediately when delineating the troubles of Claire Bloom's Naomi, a divorcée and man-magnet who is supposed to be a nymphomaniac; the way the character is rendered here, she's more of an alcoholic who (somehow unintentionally) ends up debasing herself with men, always with "no! no!" on her lips. The picture is about pinpointing where sexual repression and ideas of indecency ultimately come from, yet the screenwriters fall into their own trap with Naomi: judging her condescendingly, making her an unhappy lush, and failing to let us see what turns this woman on, what motivates her to meet strange men in seedy places (she isn't allowed to have any sexual fun--this is 'freedom' with an ultimate price). Jane Fonda is a frigid young widow who learns to loosen up with one of Dr. Chapman's own associates (!), while married Shelley Winters has convinced herself she's in love with her playboy and Glynis Johns is busy throwing herself at a beach bum. The sex survey is just an angle to get the movie going, and the professional question-and-answer sequences awkwardly turn into psychotherapy sessions for these frustrated ladies. What might have been an incisive glimpse into today's mores and morals has instead become a glossy, middle-brow soap opera, and everyone involved suffers from the slushy handling. ** from ****

The director was male. The screenplay was co-authored by two men. The story adaption was by two men. The source material was a book written by a male. The producers were two men. The music, cinematography, editing, and makeup were done by men. How many red flags do I have to wave before you get the point? (BTW, this reviewer is a male in his 50s.)

Even the costuming was done by a man. Yes, I'm going there, because it's important. The non-lead males wore boring shirts and ties; but the allegedly sexy, virulent men is another story. Hardin wore shorts that barely covered his manhood. Danton wore shirts and sweaters unbuttoned to the naval. Allen shows up in a plunging V-neck that showcased his chest hair. And Everett wore a tight, tailored work uniform.

This film is drenched with a testosterone-driven point of view. If you don't like those 50s and 60s movies where everything is the woman's fault, you'll want to skip this.

What you ultimately have is the story of four women and their sexual mores and behavior as presented solely by men. Based on the Kinsey Report made famous in the 1950s revolving around sexual behavior amongst its volunteering interviewees, it's ironic that Alfred Kinsey, himself, eventually was accused of having sex with both the female and male volunteers. Even some of his staff were accused. The Kinsey Foundation eventually issued a formal, public apology.

Approach this with the lowest of expectations. That way, maybe you'll find some redeeming quality in it. I did; and it was the performances of the female leads, despite the pathetic, ridiculous script.

When I saw this during its theatrical release, primarily because I was a fan of the Misses Glynis Johns and Claire Bloom, though I'd been forewarned by reviewers that it was just as trashy as its best-selling source, I was somewhat appalled that the esteemed George Cukor had consented to direct it. Hindsight tells us that it may have been the numerous young hunks in the cast who ensnared that Hollywood master's interest in assuming the directorial reins. (His personal preferences were not as widely known, outside of Hollywood's insiders, anyway, at the time of this film's production.) Glynis gives it a lively go but the rest of the cast would probably prefer that we not remember their participation in this embarrassing dud. I think I saw it as part of a double feature (Those were the days!), and though I don't remember its companion at that viewing, I suspect I found it somewhat more worth the price of admission.

A few notes about this film. Apparently, director George Cukor was unhappy with the finished product. The studio (Warner Brothers) and producer (Darryl Zanuck) caved to pressure from the Catholic Legion of Decency and altered the ending in order to provide a morally-correct resolution for the main characters (and audience).

It would certainly be interesting to see a director's cut of this film, or at least a shooting script to get a better idea of what Cukor and Zanuck intended. Probably Zanuck's goal was to create a film where people more openly discussed sex. However, America was not quite ready to do that yet in 1962, and with the Legion of Decency hovering over the scene, it would be nearly impossible.

I do think there are some excellent performances in this film, namely Glynis Johns and Claire Bloom who prove that British actresses often surpass their North American counterparts.

you can't get better late 60's than this one: neophyte fonda, madame shelly, glynis johns, and claire bloom as "the nymphomaniac".

a wonderfully vivid, most-fun foto of ugly 60's misogynism.... the moment just before we found out that we're all nymphomaniacs.

jane struggles, shelly sniffles, glynis gurgles, and claire tears it up. the movie, in retrospect, is soooo gay. directed by cukor incidentally.