Rachel, Rachel (1968)

Rachel Rachel is more likely to be one of those movies that managed to get made because the producer happened to be a hot property and was in a position to negotiate deals with film companies, who knew well, that by giving him a free hand to try something 'different', they would garner bigger money from other projects they cast him to 'star' in. And they did. As Paul Newman's first directorial effort, it's an homage to his extremely talented wife Joanne Woodward. It's Woodward's picture all the way - she is magnificent. Adapted from the pages of controversial Canadian writer Margaret Laurence's novel 'A Jest of God', it delves into the very private and personal life of a 35yr old virgin spinster's existence in a backwoods American town. Some details may border on the semi-sordid but are mostly handled with sensitivity. While the rest of the capable cast all give dedicated performances...take Woodward away from this work and there would be somewhat little left. This is also at the early stages of a 'new' era in movie-making, where themes of lesbianism and sexual awakenings, etc, were to dominate the screen from here on. Not being as sensationalized as other works would become, this one tends to be less vulgar. Sad is the word for Rachel's life as we drift through her journey of self discovery. The open ended end title scene leaves us with two possible thoughts...she walks with her own child or the child of her sister.....?. Under Newman's direction, versatile director of photography Gayne Rescher (Face in the Crowd '57) fills the screen with delicate, and personal images. Also a major asset, although scant, is Jerome Morosss' truly lovely music score as played by The Phaetons. The deliberate (or otherwise) pace of this film won't please action fans and might not be regarded as entertainment by others, but could reward those seeking a degree of human introspection.

Joanne Woodward effectively plays a bored and boring middle-aged school teacher who still lives with her mother at a funeral home in Connecticut. She's on the verge of mental collapse, but hides it well and pretends everything's okay. A guy from her childhood comes to town from the big city (James Olson) and her appetite for change comes to the fore.This potent drama was Paul Newman's first stab at directing and it's the best cinematic depiction of the inward struggle of flesh and spirit -- id and superego -- I've ever seen. This struggle explains why it's called "Rachel, Rachel." Rachel is experiencing the undercurrent conflict between spiritual and carnal impulses. She's stuck between goody-goody Rachel and libertine Rachel and is therefore in living limbo. Various outside factors encourage this lifeless state: Disturbing childhood memories of living in a funeral home, a mother who essentially views Rachel as her personal servant and a genuine friend who's love is starting to become unhealthy (Estelle Parsons).The film features a mind-blowing pentecostal church sequence that lasts 10-12 minutes. I can't believe Newman had the cojones to include this scene and it's pulled off expertly with Terry Kiser as the guest preacher who "speaks in tongues," which is what Calla (Parsons) tells Rachel when it's reveal that he's the speaker. Parsons is fabulous here, by the way.Due to the subject matter and the fact that this is a drama there are some boring stretches, so you have to be in the mood for a serious drama. Nevertheless, the film deserves credit for having the gonads to show real life and refusing to be politically correct -- an amazing drama.In case you didn't know, Newman and Woodward were husband & wife for 50 years, up to his death in 2008.The film runs 101 minutes and was shot in Connecticut.GRADE: A-

In a variation on her "Long Hot Summer" role, Woodward plays a sexually repressed schoolteacher in a small New England town who realizes that life is passing her by… She is thirty-five, a virgin, and dominated by her mother… During the summer, she has an affair with an old schoolmate… It proves disappointing, but she now knows that she can be loving, and determines to leave town and do something about her life—a move that seems only tentatively hopeful… Woodward gives her finest performance as the confused, frequently beaten but ultimately indestructible woman… She has an extraordinary ability to look natural or simple and still reveal an inner radiance…There are many touching moments: her timidness at the religious meeting; her awkward experiences with men; her late-night discussion with a likable male friend; and, most unforgettable, her face causing change from joyous expectancy to merely suppressed hysteria to a painful outburst of tears when she discovers that, contrary to her hopes, she is not pregnant... Newman shows a natural cinematic sense in his perceptive depictions of small town life, the frenzied activity of a revival meeting and the anxieties of a first sexual experience; and in his clever, rarely impressive juxtaposition of Rachel's present with her fantasies and childhood memories… He gets excellent performances from Estelle Parsons as another lonely teacher and James Olson as the cynical big-city man who lets Rachel down…Both Newman and Woodward won Golden Globe Awards… Woodward won the coveted New York Film Critics' Award, and was nominated for an Oscar

Joan Woodward and the rest of the cast give wonderful performances, but this would-be character study is slow, ponderous, and obvious. Rachel is depressed and needs a new attitude. She rappels off a number of characters (a woman friend, a man friend, her mother) and at the end finally develops courage enough to start the second half of her life somewhere else. I thought this movie was a tedious downer when I saw it in a theater in 1968, and now with my wisdom and maturity of 40 years later, I still think it is more heat than light. As another reviewer here observed, Paul Newman had the clout to get it made, and vanity projects generally don't acquit themselves well. It was show-offy daring for its time, I think that's why it got so much buzz.