The Savage Is Loose

A shipwreck in 1905 leaves a university scientist, his wife and infant son shipwrecked on an island. Seven years later, the child is now a growing boy learning about nature and island wildlife from his father while his mother plays disciplinarian (she also seems to be cracking up, feeling hopeless and accusing her husband of enjoying their isolated predicament). Early on, Mom screams for the men to light the signal fire even though there's not a trace of ship smoke on the horizon; her husband gets caught up in the excitement, later shaking his head sadly as the fire dies out. Does he question her about it, or do they discuss her emotional and mental stability? No, they exchange silent looks at dinner time (and one gets the feeling this movie is going to last a long time). A colossal flop for producer-director-star George C. Scott, who gives a pushy performance. Working from a screenplay fashioned by Max Ehrlich and Frank De Felitta--two very strong writers--Scott inevitably (though almost unbelievably) goes in for the Oedipus storyline; but why did this particular subject intrigue him...and why did he think it would intrigue us? Although Trish Van Devere (Scott's real-life wife) is an attractive, talented actress, I didn't buy her character for a second; that her son should mature and want her sexually isn't totally preposterous, though it is ludicrous the way Scott stages the action. I assume we're supposed to ask: if there's not another woman around, are incestuous feelings between a boy and his mother natural? It's heady subject matter, to be certain, but no one involved quite knows how to present it in this dramatic context. On the plus side, Gil Mellé has composed a nice score, and Alex Phillips Jr.'s cinematography is skillful. *1/2 from ****

"The Savage Is Loose" is an exceptionally well made film, hence my score of 5. The acting is very good, the direction very nice and the story is interesting. However, it's also about incest...which isn't a topic that's bound to interest most viewers! Because of this, it's not at all surprising that the movie bombed at the box office....and imagine the surprise of those who watched it and didn't know that the film would be so Oedipal!

When the story begins, a family has been shipwrecked on some island. There's enough for them to eat but the chances of rescue seem very dim...and as the story goes, this seems even more unlikely. So, the father (George C. Scott) teaches the boy about survival...and over time, the kid grows into a sort of Tarzan wannabe. But as he ages, there is a HUGE problem...the only available sexual outlet is his mother...and you can rest assured the father isn't about to just hand her over to the frisky young man!

The film is realistic and surely Oedipal impulses would be a serious problem in such a situation. But it's also nasty...and something we really don't want to see in a movie...at least not the average person! Not a film I particularly enjoyed, though it's very well made.

This movie provides a family the basis for discussions regarding eternal human behavior usually impossible to begin with teenagers, male and female. While not a "remake" of Oedipus, teenagers will better understand the essence of their tensions from this experience.

You are warned to view this movie first as parents without the siblings. Then, if you are prepared to begin the transition of establishing an open relationship with your teenagers at an adult, not parental, level, view it together.

Upon taking a final cursory glance at the dusty back shelves of a semi-local video store going out of business, already with an armful of moldy oldies such as "House on the Edge of the Park" and "Slime City" (at five bucks a piece), I caught sight of this long out of print study in Oedipal politics set on a jungle island where a young boy, taught to obey the rules of the wild, discovers that his only sexual partner is his sexy mother. So it's a battle of wills between he and his father to decide who, as Lou Reed said, can "bag their beloved Big Bird."

It's not anywhere near as kinky as it sounds; Mostly this takes the high dramatic road, and pulls it off reasonably well, although much of it's intentions are dampened by George C. Scott's inert direction.

On a final note, I would like to point out that I put down an original video copy of Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" to buy this one. Think I made the right choice?

Yeah I thought so.

This is one of the worst movies I've ever endured & 90% of the blame goes to the arrogance of the director & star, George C Scott. The remainder of the blame goes to the scriptwriter's unbelievably bad screen writing. As the 2 hours drag on for what seems an eternity, nothing happens except a sex showdown between the father's & the son's sex urges for wife & mother! The son could've just masturbated. The entire production is seedy, ridiculous & unbearable. Giving it 1 star is the best that can ge said for it. Avoid @ all cost unless you are a masochist who's into incest.