A Woman Under The Influence (TCM Tonight!)

A little surprised they are showing a movie by John Cassavetes on TCM, but not that surprised. It's the best movie channel by FAR, so why not?

I think Gena Rowlands performance is one of the best ever, if not the best. I think Brando overall is the greatest actor, but her performance is so wonderful. I'm sending a mass text to even those I haven't talked with in a while.

Maybe we can talk about this movie? It's very important.

I'm pretty sure that TCM has shown every John Cassavetes-directed movie, with the possible exception of Love Streams.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yeah, I am also not sure why you find it at all surprising that TCM is running Cassavetes, but glad you are excited. I agree that Gena Rowlands gives one of the all-time great performances in A Woman Under the Influence.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I've been watching TCM for many years. I think the only one I've seen was "Too Late Blues" - which is my favorite movie on music.

I guess I'm a bit surprised because they don't show many directors like Cassavetes, but I think it's great. Still no commercials, and it's on cable - I love it.

I am sure I have seen all of the major Cassavetes-directed films on TCM's schedule over the years, but they certainly don't run his stuff as often as Casablanca or Singin' in the Rain or something. Anyway, glad you found it before the fact, this time.

I've seen every Cassavetes, and there are some I don't like "Killing of a Chinese Bookie" but I might give it another chance. One of the hardest things for me to do is to decide on what to watch, considering there are a lot I haven't seen.

I just saw "A Woman Under The Influence" and there was about 1-2 minutes of added scenes that fit in perfectly, shouldn't have been cut. I'd like to do an in-depth review, I might watch it again, but was thinking of having a "Best of" Movies, and play some other favorites.

Gosh, what an amazing movie. I adored it the first time, but it gets better and better. I think it's hard for some people to digest it or even give it a chance (many on imdb couldn't finish it), but it's probably the most "realist" film, the greatest American neo-realist without a doubt. And it has some really funny parts. It's so you real that it doesn't give you the answers. I always discover a new thing or two. Watch it again!

Been watching this over the last two days (at nearly 3 hours I had to break it up). I'm at the 2.5 hour point.
I can understand what people see in this movie, and can understand the criticisms. My first criticism at this point (as always) is that it's too long.

I have a little problem with all the references to realism - I understand what people mean in regards to the cinematography, but so many of the reactions of the characters seem so unrealistic (except maybe as an explanation why Mabel went insane - anyone would, surrounded by these people.) The behaviors & reactions of people at her homecoming dinner are atrocious beyond belief.

Peter Falk gives a performance like I've never seen from him, (he never made me cringe this much in Columbo, and I don't mean at his acting - which is fantastic - but at the horrendous behavior of his character & his on-screen rage.)

I'll check back later after I finish viewing.

I thought Peter Falk's performance in A Woman Under the Influence was one of the best of his career, if not the best. He seems to get overshadowed by Gena Rowlands' performance, and she deserves all the praise that she gets, but he deserves some recognition for his performance in this movie too.

Captain, I would try watching it all at once. Interruptions can really affect a movie viewing. I didn't find it long at all, though I'm sure it's mostly agonizing to watch a family break apart. And about the acting, I think it's spot on - you have to consider how uncomfortable they are. Everyone knows what happened to Mabel, so of course they are acting just like anyone would in real life, and yeah, it comes off as awkward and uncomfortable. If we didn't have our 50's HOF I'd watch it again and describe "play by play" why it's not only great, but has some very parts in it. And one absurd part which can be considered funny. Mabel's father gets mad and says, "If you're having spaghetti I don't wanna stay here. I'm just not a spaghetti man, ok?"

Yes, that part with Mabel's father was during her homecoming and it just seemed an absurd reaction.

I guess the film was portraying people who were from (what the psychiatrist on the Sopranos called) a pre-theraputic age. Meaning they don't have an understanding of psychiatric issues or, even if they do, reject the concepts as some form of quackery.

I've been thinking about this movie all night - I watched the bulk of it yesterday and once I got into it, couldn't turn it off.

What gbg said about Peter Falk's performance was spot on. I'll never think of him the same again. I was almost traumatized by it. I had such loathing for Nick - and that means great acting. I always saw Falk as comical because my only association with him was Columbo, the mobster in Robin and the Seven Hoods, in Murder by Death, etc.

The title almost seems misleading - we start off thinking it must mean a woman under the influence of alcohol, and when we see Mabel slug down a glass of Seagram's 7 in a bar, it seems she's no stranger to the hard stuff. So, shortly into the film, I thought this would be placed next to such films as Lost Weekend, Days of Wine & Roses, and Leaving Las Vegas. But, in the end, I think Mabel was under the influence of Nick - who's anger and need to control drove her insane over the years.

The ending...


Lastly, a big thanks to matt72582 for recommending this - I doubt I would have ever checked this movie out if I hadn't seen it mentioned here first. And, before this, I'd never even heard of it before.

Thank you for the thanks, Captain. I appreciate anyone who trusts my judgement and watches a film I recommend. I can't express the happiness I receive when someone like yourself or anyone else has some enjoyment they wouldn't have otherwise. I wish I remember who recommended me the movie, but I saw it on here, I think on a 70's tournament.

And like you said, the "influence", her husband, the reason for her going out getting drunk. But society looks at her as the crazy one because she's actually very human. She's an individual, which is very threatening to groups and people who follow stampedes. We never see one moment where she is negligent towards her children, or any other children.

I love the scene where Mabel is going to pick up her kids at the bus stop. She doesn't have the time, and she tries to ask a few women for the time. THEY are the ones who are crazy, they lack humanity. She even says "You have a watch!" - she is overly concerned for her kids, and wants to make sure she's there on time...

It's not just Nick, but it's his domineering mother who spies on her, and is constantly berating her in her own home. She does nothing but say how great of a man her son is - "He doesn't say anything". The doctor is horrible too. He is very patronizing towards Mabel, and when everyone gangs up on her, she finds refuge by dancing like a swan. We then see the faces of those who have antagonized her, as if dancing was so crazy. They have no imagination, and follow the herd.

Second half, we see Nick take care of the kids. Instantly, he shows he's inept. He wants to make his job easier, so he gets them drunk, and sick. Kids could have had alcohol poisoning, but as he says "You'll sleep like rocks." And even though he sees their sick, he is lonely (like Mabel was constantly waiting for Nick) and tries to ask each kid if they want to keep him company. Nick is the crazy one, but is enabled by his mother who protects him but to society they think "Ah, he's a man" or "He has a job and some status, he can't be crazy." But the family doesn't need financial help, and it's never even discussed (money problems). They need emotional security, especially for the children who have to watch.

Nick also seems to be more concerned with the appearance of "normal", at any cost. In the same scene he tells Mabel to be herself, but doesn't want that. He wants her to appear normal... Even after he stood her up (again, as we get a little insight from Nick while he talks to his coworkers about their relationship), he wants Mabel to cook for 15 men, and she is very happy to do it. She tries to make all his friends feel comfortable, and Nick goes berserk yelling at Mabel so bad that his co-workers/friends go home. Mabel is funny when she makes the snooty women with their noses up and says she's not like that, even uses a British accent with a condescending tone. Maybe Nick realizes he was wrong and says "you did nothing wrong" - so not only is Mabel more self-conscious and nervous, but she doesn't know how to act. She wants to please her husband at all costs, but she has to be herself. Even with Nick hits Mabel, no one objects, not the mother, not the doctor. Later when he slaps her again it's only the children who object, especially the oldest boy, who wants to protect his mother, even after Nick threatens to kill everyone!

Notice when she comes back, she's very quiet, and this time for a chance, it's Nick's mother who is a little more helpful, and tells Nick what he's doing is a bad idea, considering where she's coming from.

I loved this movie the first time, and every time I watch it again, I see more. Cassavetes doesn't give messages directly, doesn't have the characters as conduits for how they are feeling, he shows it on the screen, sometimes with just a look, body language, or what the characters don't say.

There's so much to talk about with this movie. Most importantly is I will not forget it anytime soon (and I see modern movies where I can't remember much about them just a few days later.)

To me, the movie was more about Nick than Mabel. Indeed, I think the point of the movie is it is Nick who is mentally ill, and his inability to cope (manifested as rage & abuse) has affected Mabel.

I kind of saw Mabel as a potential free spirit who'd be collared, muzzled, leashed and caged (by Nick). Whether it's a dog or a human, you do that to any animal that wants to run free, and it will eventually go mad.

Of course, the family members weren't much help. We can kind of see why Nick is so screwed up by looking at his mother. And Mabel's parents just seem lost - the "Stand up for me, Dad." scene was like a knife through the heart when Mabel's father couldn't seem to understand what she meant.

With the aftermath of the co-workers at dinner scene, I thought Nick could have turned the whole situation around by apologizing with, "You did nothing wrong. I was the one who was wrong. I should not have yelled at you and told you to shut up in front of my friends. I'm sorry."
But I don't think Nick was the type to acknowledge his own failings or say I'm sorry.

Good analogies. Also notice how everyone tries to give the appearance of "What do you want Mabel, we'll do anything to make you happy" and when she finally speaks up and says "I wanna be with my husband" no one listens, and it's her house! It's her life that was changed, she just got back. I don't think anyone would want that kind of overwhelming feeling, I wouldn't under any circumstance.

It's not mentioned a lot, but it seems like the "treatment" didn't help because she didn't need it in the first place, and that it might have removed what made her interesting. She's very quiet, and very subdued. It's heartbreaking to see her with the kids for the first time. It's such an honest conversation between Mabel and Maria.

"Do I have to come?" asks Maria.
"Only if you want to"
"Ok, I'll just stay here" says Maria.
"I'll come to you then"

She went 6 months without seeing her kids, and in a way has to kinda start over with no change to her situation. Cassavetes (even though he didn't have final edit, and was fired by Kramer) shows in "A Child Is Waiting" that people don't need guilty, justice maybe, but not sympathy, and that if "normal" people can't handle "different" people, that's their problem, and maybe a plea for those who have some power over someone's life NOT to interfere with the little freedoms we have being ourselves. He makes very personal movies too, and would be nice to have new kinds of movie every movie, an entire experience, instead of re-runs.

Well said.

Much of the movie involves things we're only left to wonder about (like what Mabel went through in the hospital).

Oh, and you mentioned the Dr. (That guy! Ug!)
You can kind of write the family off as being dysfunctional & blue collar, etc. But the Dr. is supposed to be an educated man of medicine, yet he's as absurd as the rest of the family (and he's a friend of the family). It's a little strange that a family like this would have a Dr. as a personal friend - but that's a nit pick. Seeing THIS doctor, it's no wonder he was a friend of THIS family.

It's clear Mabel & Nick love each other (on some level), but we learn that they got married because Mabel was pregnant. So perhaps Mabel's spent her whole life looking to her father to protect & defend her from men like Nick, but her father was ineffectual, and maybe he's always been that way. Perhaps part of Mabel's problem was requiring a strong father figure to make her feel safe, but none existed. And somehow that translated into her ending up with a man like Nick - a man different from her father - who may protect her from the outside world, but who's going to protect her from Nick himself?

Mabel also says that it's the first time Nick's hit her (when we see him first hit her in the movie), but it also seems his emotional abuse has probably been going on for their entire marriage since he seems to have a very set personality.

Little lines keep coming back to me - like toward the end when the kids are being put to bed, and Maria asks her mom to leave the light on, and Nick (who's off camera) is heard from the hallway to say something like, "There'll be no horsing around. And you'll obey ME! Because I'm your father. I don't forget you were just punching me downstairs."

It's a small moment, and it's kind of humorous, but then we remember the kids were punching him because he just hit their mom and knocked her to the ground.

The kids, btw, were great. So realistic. I don't think they were "acting," just responding. I felt bad for them being dragged around so forcefully by Peter Falk so much.

Well said - I must have forgot the "that was the first time he hit me" - who did she Mabel say that to? I thought it was right before she was taken away.

That was funny of Nick to say that to his kids - there is actually a lot of funny parts. Even when he's outside trying to get rid of some people, he makes a mistake and they leave it in, it's perfect, the frustration he's going through. Most of the humor is something subtle, a lot of one-liners...

"Let's DIE for Mr. Jensen"

And when he doesn't clap enthusiastically later she says "They just DIED for you"

And then by chance, Nick walks in, and his mother is with her. I see a pattern (like real life) of mistakes, accidents that change the whole course of one's life.... For example, when Mabel mentions how she got pregnant (shotgun wedding), and that maybe Nick just wanted her sexually, for her looks, but the looks don't last forever. At the end of the movie, she says she loves him, and asks him... Nick also seems to do everything out of convenience. He causes Mabel to "dance", conspires with his mother (remember when she calls complaining about a pain, and Nick says "Mabel is here" and then he says "I'll come alone" - so we know she doesn't want her). He doesn't it say it back. I think he cares for her, but I don't think he likes the way his life turned out, but at the end, we see their going to have their ups and down, but probably stick it out.

Oh, and about the father figure, notice she is most comfortable with him. She sits on his lap, kisses his face many times, because for that moment she feels protected. And what happens, he says "You should go stand with your mother" and the smile disappears and I felt the sorrow she felt. The father does finally yell at Nick and tells him not to talk with her like that. But it's the mother in the end who says "Can't you see what she's trying to say. She wants us to leave" - well, she asked nicely several times, but they thought they knew what's best for her, instead of her (more of that influence).

If you ever watch it again, try watching it all in a row, it will get better. I've seen it 5 times, and it gets better every time, and I also see something that I missed, again, very subtle things which have a lot of value.

I'm curious why Nick's mother breaks away from Nick in an almost reversal. She is the one (again) who tells Nick what to do, he listens because he never knows the right thing to do. Nick's mother also says "Let her see the children" - if everything is normal, what's the big deal, no shielding necessary.

I don't remember who I heard this from, but someone was saying a few feminists didn't like the movie... I can't think of a reason why.
Anyone else have any thoughts, this is fun, finally discussing a movie like dissection

It's funny because, after analyzing it a bit, I thought it was a feminist movie. It explains the necessity for feminism. (Perhaps feminists don't like it because Mabel never realizes she needs to divorce Nick.) Lessons are taught by demonstrating the folly of people who haven't learned them.

Mabel said directly to Nick that it was the first time he hit her. And she did it in a way to rationalize for him. She said that she wasn't mad about it because she kind of deserved it because she was acting crazy at the time. (Again, she was being overly submissive when it was he who hit her.)

I also caught the line flub by Peter Falk - yet it worked perfectly as a lip slip that would really happen, especially since he was so frantic at that moment. I'm glad they left it in.

Poor Mr. Jensen. I would've called the police if I were him. Not for Nick attacking me, but because when Nick said, "I'll kill you and I'll kill your kids too!" Threatening to kill a guy's kids warrants a call to the police. I also can't blame him for wanting to take his kids home due to the way Mabel was acting (she was behaving nutty for someone who you're going to leave your kids with), and I respected that Jensen confronts her about it directly.

Perhaps Nick's mother became more compassionate later on out of guilt. She was pretty nasty during the "living room scene." What a scene, btw (right before Mabel's committed, with the Dr., Nick, his mom and Mabel.) It's one of those epic scenes where you don't know how long it will go on or how it's going to end.

The use of comedy in the movie: I often couldn't tell if it was intentional or accidental. Let's face it, this is not a comedy. Yet, by the homecoming scene I kept laughing - it wasn't comical laughing, but laughing at how inappropriate the family was being - and each thing said was worse than the last (gradually driving Mabel back over the edge).

Also, the use of extreme close ups... (I criticized Birdman (2014) for this)... yet here it was used, but not overdone (and thank God there were no jazz drums!)
When extreme close ups were used, they created extreme, claustrophobic discomfort and tension. It totally conveyed the feeling of Nick's dominance, especially when he'd get very close to Mabel as if to completely control & intimidate her. I have to say, this movie made me squirm (so it made us feel what, I think, Mabel was always feeling - and I guess that was the intention.)

Interesting thoughts regarding A Woman Under the Influence...never really got the feeling that Mabel needed to divorce Nick. I think Mabel and Nick loved each other deeply and Nick seemed very protective of Mabel...that scene where his friends are over for dinner and become aware of some of Mabel's bizarre behavior seemed like a man who was deeply in love with his wife, even though he might be in some denial about her mental problems. I do agree with you though that Nick's mother was a total bitch.

I was saying that maybe that's why feminists don't see the movie as having a feminist theme (because Mabel remains with Nick and doesn't really seem to realize that he is probably the most direct cause, or at least a major contributor to her problems). I think it has a strong feminist theme, but as a warning as opposed to an example.

Nick could have sure used some anger management courses! (Although I doubt such specific type help was available in 1974.)

You really think Nick was the cause of Mabel's mental issues?