Save the Tiger (1973)

Melancholic, sometimes depressing portrait of Jack Lemmon, a clothing manufacturer who will go to any length to keep his business afloat. Rarely have I seen such an enticing portrayal of the financial and mental downfall of a hard working man. Jack Lemmon has reached rock bottom mentally. Can't make ends meet financially while he has been working harder than ever before. Still he clings on.Jack Lemmon's acting is to die for. Oscar winner: best actor 1973. Truly deserved, because it is one of his best roles ever. The magnificence of Jack Lemon's acting deserves so much praise that I am searching for words to define this actor's indestructable talent. And as in the case of any great acting it is almost impossible to catch this visual brilliance into words. The despair and fatigue drip from his face. Lemmon is mostly known for his feverish upbeat comedy roles, but in "Saving the Tiger" he is depressed and desperate, because he knows he is close to bankruptcy, he is the last of a dying breed; the small american manufacturer. There are still several tongue in cheek jokes scattered throughout this story, so it is definitely not totally depressing as a story. It is mostly melancholic in nature, with some moments of subdued joy and fond memories. Really delicate, slowburning story that doesnt come along very often. Probably best suited for the arthouse moviegoers who can appreciate a subtle, psychological portrait.Please do check out some of Jack Lemon's other older and newer classics if you enjoyed "Save the Tiger". because the man has been around for a while and is part of american movie history. Just to name a few: "The China Syndrome" with Jane Fonda, "Glengary Glen Ross" with Al Pacino, "The Front Page" and "The Appartment" with Walther Matthau.

A businessman (Jack Lemmon)'s professional struggles begin to conflict with his personal life over the course of two days.Lemmon was determined to make the movie, despite its limited commercial prospects, and so he waived his usual salary and worked for scale. The movie failed financially at the box office, but critics and viewers who saw it liked the Oscar-winning performance of Jack Lemmon as Stoner.I have to agree with the viewers and Academy on this one. Lemmon, primarily known for his comedy, is excellent in this more serious film and really carries the picture. There is not much of a plot and although it is enjoyable, I suspect there is little re-watch value. But Lemmon is great, and this is very much a one-man show, so any fan of his is going to appreciate it.

"Save the Tiger" is not a particularly enjoyable film. It's all about people who, frankly, are pretty shallow and often despicable. Yet, I cannot dismiss the film completely, as it is an interesting character study. And, in many ways it's an 'anti-Hollywood film' that just happened to be filmed there! The film is about a guy in his mid-40s (Jack Lemmon) who is, at least on the surface, successful. However, he is disaffected with life. His marriage has grown cold and daughter has moved out--and his only life appears to be his job. As for the job, he's only a few steps away from bankruptcy and is willing to do just about ANYTHING to keep his business above water....and I do mean anything. And, to justify this to his ambivalent partner (Jack Guilford), he comes up with 1001 excuses to make doing evil seem necessary and even acceptable. He's a pathetic and rather despicable soul that appears headed for a nervous breakdown. And, in a HUGE departure from the norm for Hollywood, the film ends with nothing resolved and Lemmon even more lost and unlikable than ever. And, because he's a soulless jerk, you may not even care that he's left this way.So why watch this film? After all, it's quite unpleasant. Well, for most viewers I don't think there is a reason to see it, actually. But, Lemmon gave a dynamite performance (and he received the Oscar for it) and some middle-aged folks might just be able to relate to him and his life situation. As for me, I am about the same age as his character and the film actually affirmed to me how good my life is compared to his! I am sure that is NOT the purpose of the film--to make me say "wow, his life sucks and mine is so much better!".By the way, I should offer a BIG WARNING--This is a very adult film. While there's no nudity, the subject matter is very adult and the language VERY harsh. It was not surprising hearing Lemmon talk that way (after all, I saw him in "Glengarry, Glen Ross") but seeing the usually sweet Guilford dropping F-bombs amazed me, as I grew up seeing him playing nothing but sweet characters (like the Cracker Jack guy). So, you are forewarned.

This is about a dress manufacturer named Harry Stoner (Jack Lemmon). He hates his job and has to pimp out for people just to get them to buy his outfits. He's even considering arson to cover up some mistakes. He misses his youthful life and wants to go back to a time when things were easier and quieter.This isn't a plot driven movie--it's more of a character study than anything else. It's a slow movie and I found the observations in the script pretty obvious (but they may not have been in 1972). Also it's depressing seeing what Stoner has to do to succeed. This would probably be unbearable to watch if the acting weren't so good. Lemmon rightfully won a Best Actor Oscar for this. He's just incredible! You see him struggling to survive and dreaming about the good old days. Jack Gilford matches him as a business associate. In fact he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor--but didn't win. Also Thayer Davis is just wonderful in his two short scenes as Charlie Robbins. He doesn't move a muscle on his face but you can't stop watching him. This is not for everybody. It's slow and bleak with very little of a plot--also it bombed in theatres. But, for acting alone, this is a must-see. I give it a 7.