A Safe Place

Henry Jaglom is a director I've heard about before, but had never seen one of his films. He makes a film every couple of years, they play in like three cities in America, and no one seems to like them. A Safe Place was his first film, adapted from his own play, which he wrote in 1964. Tuesday Weld plays an insufferable hippie chick who doesn't want to grow up. Phil Proctor is a square who wants desperately to bone her, so he puts up with her nonsense (he knows that she's half crazy, but that's why he wants to be there). Eventually, a much more exciting Jack Nicholson shows up and steals her away. Orson Welles plays a magician who occasionally enchants Weld with his magic. Gwen Welles (whom you might remember from Altman's films California Split and Nashville), in her film debut, also appears and rambles on about her dreams of being sexually assaulted. The film is pretty, and that prettiness is very much augmented by Tuesday Weld's enchanting beauty. But, honestly, there's not much going on here. It's very repetitive (there are some nice, old songs on the soundtrack, but each of them plays all the way through like three times), and, well, boring.

A SAFE PLACE has certainly a bad reputation. It has a score of 4,9 that places it among Jack Nicholson's lowest rated movies, nearly all negative reviews and according to IMDB when it was shown at a film festival the audience became hostile and fights almost broke out because some loved it and some hated it. But not deterred, last October I finally saw it for seeing for myself if it was that bad and sadly I had to agree with nearly everyone.

Noah (Tuesday Weld) is a young woman that lives in her New York apartment. She is a flower child that retreats herself in her childhood memories in the search of a safe place while at the same time she dates two men: Fred who is practical but dull and Mitch (Nicholson) who is more dynamic and fit for her tho none of them can fulfill her passion, but at this point who cares?

To say that A SAFE PLACE is bad is just the tip of the iceberg. First, it's very disconnected and annoying at his worst because of the various jump cuts from a moment to the other. To get a sample of this we are shown moments of Noah in a hippie comune with snippets of a man only known as The Magician (Orson Welles) doing some magic tricks and even visiting a zoo.

Second, the acting is probably the laziest and when I say it, I mean that Megan Fox and Kristen Stewart are light years better than the cast in this movie. Tuesday Weld gives probably a prime example of sleepwalking acting as she is perpetually bored which seems difficult to do considering she is playing an immature girl. Only Nicholson was ok but his immense talent was wasted, same goes for Welles since we don't know what his motivations are or what was his purpose for appearing in this. Supporting cast? Forgettable on a whole.

Third, the pacing was so slow that the more time passes the more you'll end up asking yourself when the movie finally finishes. And as the movie ends you'll end up asking yourselves: What did I just saw? Did I missed something in the viewing? But in the end, these questions go by unanswered.

Overall, probably one of the worst art movies ever because of how much it's grating. My 2 would be only for Nicholson's performance and for the animals that appeared in the zoo scenes but for the rest, it's best to avoid as it would confuse most of you if you seek in a movie excitement and characters that look like real people.

The title of my review is no exaggeration. The only saving grace to watching this movie is that it's only about an hour and a half in length, even though it seems at least twice that long to view. The screenplay (assuming there really was a screenplay to begin with, because the dialogue feels totally improvised...not because it sounds "real", but because it's strained and ludicrous) is annoying to the nth degree, unless you like hearing profound voice-over comments such as "I love you from New York to Rome..from Rome to Madrid, etc. etc. etc. over and over and over again. If I was on a deserted island with a DVD player and this was the only DVD I had with me, I'd break it in a hundred pieces with a coconut because, otherwise, I'd end up searching for a shark to eat me as soon as possible. If I had a choice between being water-boarded and being forced to watch this movie repeatedly, I'd have a VERY tough decision to make. But, other than that, the movie was great.

A strange young woman (Tuesday Weld) lives in a fantasy world where she can never grow up.

Henry Jaglom's directorial debut was a "critical and box-office disaster". Time magazine called the film "pretentious and confusing", a film that "suggests that the rumors of his expertise were greatly exaggerated, or at least that it does not extend to directing." Apparently, for the critics, not even the presence of the incredible Orson Welles or Jack Nicholson could save this one.

Author Anais Nin was perhaps the most kind. She called the film "an impressionistic film, an X ray of our psychic life, which gives an insight instantly into the secret self." She called it a "masterpiece", and praised it for its dreamlike quality that could only be captured on film.

This experimental piece of work, from Henry Jaglom, is actually something of a gem, if not for it's unique direction, for the typically stunning performance from Tuesday Weld. Weld is wonderful in her characterization of a simple, juvenile young woman, caught in the limbo between innocence and adulthood. This film is from the period which I consider Weld's peak. She is beautiful, charming and completely earnest in her delivery.

Others in the cast are interesting at best. Orson Welles is good as the father figure in Weld's life. Philip Proctor is not much acting wise, but at least he has a pleasant voice. That seems to have helped his career in the years following this film. Jack Nicholson is his typical cocky, slimy character in this one. I didn't feel his acting was anything new here, but his presence makes for an interesting triangle relationship.

The editing is choppy, utilizing audio and image clips flashing by, altered, and repeated again. It would seem to get old after a while, and it does to some degree, but it's effective nonetheless. There are some good vignettes here and there throughout the film, namely a scene where Weld describes to Proctor the importance of telephone exchanges. Not every actress could pull this off well, but Weld does so with empathy and charm...brilliant! The Ouija board scene also stands out, as do the ones of Weld and Welles in Central Park Zoo.

A fascinating and surprisingly engaging film. If for no other reason, it's worth watching for Weld's performance.