Brilliant and touching

Am I Missing Something?

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied both by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help) and also by his instructors, hypocrites in power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed screenplay, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the university's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world (as well as get laid), the characters in this picture are nevertheless just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged--and in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders. Gould's shaggy character rants and raves, too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids, but he doesn't see his own shortcomings...and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like many of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen gives a wan performance as Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be a wife in the suburbs. Bergen is continually put down for that, as if she's a sellout, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment. The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness, filmed and edited with precision, and yet they don't come organically out of this story; they are interjected for shock value. The rage presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. ** from ****

The sixties were a radical time which left an indelible mark on American culture!! Underneath all the tumultuousness and counter culture extremism of the 1960's, was the rudimentary need to cogently clarify our nation's privileges which are pertinent to the freedom of individual expression!! The movie "Getting Straight" illustrates how a bunch of young students went to college to learn something, above all else, they should have learned the myriad of desirable prerogatives to a democracy!! Elliot Gould plays a disgruntled and maverick associate professor who is baffled by the college's late twentieth century version of totalitarianism! This film depicts how the polarization of prevailing opinions between the student body of the university, and the faculty, was ubiquitously alarming!! This movie articulates the element of non-cohesiveness with all of the major characters in this film!! The sixties were a time of change, hence, change meant uncertainty.. Why was there such a vehement protestation to the war in Vietnam? For the simple reason that most Americans felt that we did not belong there!! The rumination of concepts that Elliot Gould engaged in left him with a precarious pot luck stew of convoluted ideologies!! Alternative philosophies which had galvanized the American youth could no longer be swept under the rug!! Ultimately, Elliot Gould had to come to grips with the fact that in your life, it does not matter what you do, but, it matters who you are!! Candace Bergen plays his love interest, as well as his succor for comprehending social changes!! The two of them are constantly stalemated by perpetual revolutionary pontifications which they are barraged with on an ephemeral basis!! It stands to reason that a happy ending in a movie such as this would bring on a bevy of unresolved perplexities of rebellion!! Both of these characters don't know what they want in life, but, they know what they don't want in life!! Such a plight cultivated a pleasant solace for both of these free spirited societal malcontents (Candace Bergen and Elliot Gould). I liked this movie, and I felt that the basic concept to this film evoked an individualism which accommodated the era in which it was made!! Effective acting performances made this film an empathetic précis of entertainment for virtually everyone who watched it... I give it a 10!!

one of my favorite oldies.Candice had just left the University of Pennsylvania where she literally stopped traffic on campus because of her beauty (I actually saw it happen!).She never looked as good in films as she did in real life at that time.I believe that the line Eliot Gould uses when he's had enough of the professor's comments about Fitzgerald's homosexuality is that yes it could be possible that he was a homosexual but that it sure would be news to Sheila Graham (not Zelda) with whom he had an apparently scandalous affair when he was in Hollywood trying to make money.I was in college during that era and there its a fairly good representation of the way things were then and indicative of the nuttiness of that era

OK. Mainly, if you want to see Ms. 10-cents-a-minute and (to a greater extent) Mr. Gould make fools of themselves, check this relic out. It's suffused with dated political jargoneering and tedious, tortured ruminations on the expediency of individual political action circa 1970. Historically interesting (maybe).