Rachel, Rachel (1968)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Good concept, poorly executed.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Sorry, Paul Newman, I couldn't stand this movie. Newman directed his wife Joanne Woodward in the title role, and he repeatedly praised her acting, saying at times it was difficult to watch because it was so real. It was hard for me to watch as well, but not for that reason.Rachel, Rachel is about a spinster who lives with her demanding mother. Rachel has never been with a man, and she's terribly depressed at how her life has turned out. While she usually uses her mother as an excuse to stay stuck, when a man shows interest in her, she actually agrees. Is she feeling her ticking clock? Is her sanity about to snap, so she's not thinking clearly? Whatever the reason was for her unusual behavior, I didn't quite understand it.In any case, she's a very depressive and strange person. I didn't like her; I wasn't rooting for her. And I can only imagine how frustrated a modern feminist would be with this story. Why couldn't this woman find any other aspect of her life to improve? I tried hard to appreciate Woodward's performance, despite my intense dislike of her character. The more I tried, the more I couldn't stand her. Since I hardly think that was the intention of the film, I'm not going to recommend this one, unless you're looking for a new favorite worst movie.

For Paul Newman's directorial debut, a property was chosen that was a real star vehicle for his spouse Joanne Woodward. In a distinctly unglamorous part, Rachel Rachel is about a 30 something spinster schoolteacher who lives with her perpetually sick mother and yearns to have something more out of life. She's inexperienced in a whole lot of different ways.The script written by Stewart Stern which did receive an Oscar nomination uses the technique of Eugene O'Neill perfected on stage and screen in Strange Interlude. It's confined in this star vehicle to the lead character of Woodward. We get to hear her inner thoughts and see them acted out in her drab existence. Looming in front of her consciousness is her unseen sister who did leave the nest and got married and started a family of her own. Mother Kate Harrington always uses that example to berate Woodward. At the same time Woodward must not entertain thoughts of leaving mother. The two live above a funeral parlor that was once her father Donald Moffat's business, but now has been taken over by Frank Corsaro who lets them stay on the premises. Not exactly an atmosphere to encourage romance of any kind.After a night on the town with James Olson who quite frankly was just looking to make an easy score on a sex starved spinster, Woodward has to make a few life altering decisions.Rachel Rachel got 3 other Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress for Joanne Woodward and Best Supporting Actress for Estelle Parsons. Parsons has an interesting role herself as fellow teacher and confidante to Woodward. She's got herself wrapped in some fundamentalist church which serves as her vehicle for a social life. But that is far from Woodward's scene.Purportedly Woodward was miffed that husband Newman got no nomination for Best Director. But I think the one who really should have been miffed is Kate Harrington. A veteran of a couple TV soap operas this was clearly her big screen career role. And she's really the only one who matches Woodward in any scene they're in. She definitely should have gotten some Academy recognition.Rachel Rachel is a fine character study and a great vehicle for Joanne Woodward. And having it filmed in and around Paul and Joanne's Connecticut home must have been a blessing for both of them.

What some people might call a TV like movie, "Rachel, Rachel" was made before TV movies were becoming the place for slice-of-life dramas and character studies of troubled people. But when you've got Paul Newman as director, and his real-life wife Joanne Woodward playing a small town New England school teacher who is facing her problems of loneliness, that's made for the big screen, and "Rachel, Rachel" was one of 1968's most anticipated dramas. From the beginning, Rachel is not a conventional movie heroine. She is attractive, if not beautiful, and has a prim, if not frumpy, look to her. She also fantasizes quite a bit. Walking down the street on her way to school, she fears her slip is showing and that everyone is staring at her. She tells a boy that the principal is waiting to speak to her, then fantasizes about asking him to come home with her. She fantasizes about her lover (James Olson), and has flashbacks to her childhood with her undertaker father (Donald Moffat). Her now aging mother (Kate Harrington, in a beautiful performance) dominates her without being nasty, but it is obvious that she would like to escape from her.It is obvious that Rachel is an insecure lady who doesn't feel right in her place on earth, and when she decides to have an affair with Olson without marriage, she feels insecure as a lover and hopes she'll do better the next time. It says a lot about her feelings of despair when she is confronted by her mother, or a schoolteacher friend (the always excellent Estelle Parsons) who has more than feelings of friendship for her. Fresh off her performance as Blanche in "Bonnie and Clyde", Parsons is less shrill and more down to earth, yet equally troubled. The scene in the Evangelist church with Geraldine Fitzgerald (looking beautiful in her brief time on screen) and Terry Kiser (as the preacher) is excellent. There are few moments of 60's sub-realism, mainly in Woodward's fantasies, which are downplayed compared to most late 60's films that almost seemed acid laced in their photography and editing.1968 was a tough year for the Best Actress category at the Oscars; Woodward was nominated against Barbra Streisand, Katharine Hepburn, Vanessa Redgrave, and Patricia Neal, who all gave exciting performances. It's one of those few years where each of the actresses was equal and one wishes that each of them could take home the award. This is a dignified drama of self-awakening that doesn't always happen when one is young; Sometimes it happens again and again as we shed old temptations or habits, toss aside friends who stifle us, or move to a new community to get a new grip on where life is taking us.

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.