Nuts (1987)

Barbra Streisand herself must have seen the potential of the play Nuts for a big screen drama. In Nuts she fulfilled the ambition of every player I know to get a courtroom drama. In fact a whole bunch of players got their turn to strut their stuff in Nuts.The play by Tom Topor only ran 96 performances on Broadway, but the producers were wise enough to retain Topor to expand his work so it is not just confined to a courtroom in the same way A Few Good Men was adapted to the big screen. The issue is whether the lawyer hired by Streisand's parents is acting in her best interests in getting her declared not mentally competent enough to stand trial. Streisand insists she's perfectly sane. But assaulting her own high priced mouthpiece William Prince in open court might not have been the best way to go in proving it. Needing an attorney real fast she gets a legal aid attorney in Richard Dreyfuss who gets dragged unwillingly into the case.After that we get to James Whitmore's court where the issue will be joined. To some degree Whitmore, prosecutor Robert Webber, court psychiatrist Eli Wallach, and Dreyfuss is defending "the system" and their role in it.Barbra's a high class hooker who gets $500.00 a night and she is accused of killing client Leslie Nielsen who's a brutish sort of lout and we see what really went down in flashback. But speaking of vested interests it's clear that Streisand's wealthy parents Maureen Stapleton and Karl Malden have clear vested interests in getting her confined to a mental institution instead of a public trial.Like A Few Good Men a great ensemble cast brings this story to life and it's riveting. In fact one of the things you'll question is whether Streisand herself is acting in her own best interests.Nuts is a great drama asking questions with deep implications about our mental health system as it applies to criminal justice. We often hear of people trying to 'get off' from criminal responsibility by pleading temporary insanity. That is a course that has its own pitfalls as Nuts clearly demonstrates.The viewer because of the flashbacks knows the real story. One of the great strengths of Nuts is that anyone might draw different conclusions as to whether Streisand is acting in her own best interests.I'm astounded that Nuts did not merit any Oscar consideration. That to me is Nuts.

A weak film by the underrated Martin Ritt, "Nuts" stars Barbra Streisand as a prostitute who is arrested on a manslaughter charge. Richard Dreyfuss plays the lawyer appointed to defend her. The film trades in familiar courtroom clichés, until it climaxes with a series of "shocking revelations".Ritt would be responsible for a series of masterpieces, most notably "Hud", "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold", "The Molly Maguires" and "Sounder". Like most directors who did their best work in the early 1970s and 60s, his subsequent films would become increasingly tainted by the demands of New Hollywood. Of his later films, "Norma Rae", "Stanley and Iris" and "The Front" are generally agreed to be his best. Still, sugary and light, they're a far cry from his earlier, far more mature works. "Nuts" is emblematic of late-Ritt.6.9/10 – Worth one viewing.

After viewing this superior film, a viewer might wonder where in blazes the original idea came from; The Twilight Zone or ripped from todays headlines. This film is laden with so much talent I'm surprised it didn't establish itself as a mega movie. The premise is that of a talented lawyer, Aaron Levinsky, ably played by Richard Dreyfuss, who is forcibly thrust into a competency case which he does not want. His adversary is a formidably D.A, Francis MacMillan (Robert Webber) who has spent a considerable amount of time putting unwanted criminals and mental undesirables, behind bars. Thus he sees no reason why he should spend more time than necessary on a simple case of mental incompetency. Unfortunately for him the woman in question is spirited, independent Claudia Draper, (Barbra Streisand) who is desperate to have her day in court. Arrayed against her aside from the D.A. are her loving parents, Karl Malden as Arthur Kirk and Maureen Stapleton as Rose Kirk, who guard a terrible family secret. In addition, there is formidable Eli Wallach as Dr. Herbert A. Morrison, a psychiatrist who is convinced that Draper is insane. In Claudia's eyes, everyone seems hell bent on having her locked up in insane asylum. The courtroom drama is superior as Judge Stanley Murdoch, (James Whitmore ) tries to discover why the authorities want Draper incarcerated. A most convincing performance by all to create a memorable film. ****

This film is one of those old-fashioned, court room dramas that unfolds a mystery about the protagonist (Claudia Draper), played by Streisand. She is an expensive call girl who comes from a wealthy family. Why is she a prostitute? She kills a "john." Why did she do this? Is she nuts? Can she stand trial? Is she capable? What is with her family anyway? It's a well written, Freudian drama with acting that is solid all the way through. If you have no problems believing, as some narrow minded folks do, that this actress is pretty or sexy enough to be paid for sex, then you just might get hooked into this picture. It's not terribly shocking--no one is eaten alive and there is no gore or hard core sex going on. If you're looking for that, it won't happen. Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss, who plays her court appointed attorney, play well off each other. Karl Malden and Maureen Stapleton are just plain good. I watch it every year and I enjoy it immensely.