Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Just perfect...

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

For the first time ever in his career making movies, Hall Bartlett knew exactly what he was doing. He was adapting a best-selling novella by Richard Bach about a prophetic seagull, and he was going to turn it into a major motion picture. It was going to be an independently-financed film with as little studio interference as possible. And by the end of the ten-month shooting schedule, Bartlett had mortgaged his home and invested every last one of his savings into the film's $1.5 million budget; he was willing to do anything to make his dream project a reality. "I was born to make this movie," he declared. He was absolutely right. In his entire 30- year filmmaking career, Bartlett helmed a series of flops, misfires, close calls, small gems, and at least one masterpiece: Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973).The film was absolutely reviled when it came out. Reviews were terrible. Then there were the lawsuits. Richard Bach sued Bartlett when Bartlett refused to honor Bach's right to final cut. Neil Diamond threatened to sue Bartlett if he didn't incorporate more of the music from the soundtrack into the film; Diamond was also upset when composer Lee Holdridge requested to share credit with Diamond over the music. Ovady Julber, the director of 1936's La Mer, sued over suspicions that Bartlett's film might have plagiarized his work. And toes were stepped on. Associate Producer Leslie Parrish had worked hard to hire the crew members and help take care of the real seagulls being used for the production (these seagulls were trained by Ray Berwick and Gary Gero, and stored in a room in a Holiday Inn), but in the end, Bartlett demoted Parrish's credit from Associate Producer to "Researcher".In spite of the tension which occurred behind the scenes, Jonathan Livingston Seagull belongs right up there with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) as one of the great surrealist films released in the later half of the 20th century. It is a rich, liberated celebration of a writer/director's artistic sensibilities, free of any constricting narrative rules, enhanced with the help of the cinematography by helicopter photographer Jim Freeman and veteran cinematographer Jack Couffer (the latter of whom was hired after his impressive work on Walt Disney's True Life Adventure series). That Couffer's cinematography netted the film one of two Academy Award nominations is not surprising in the least: it remains one of the finest examples of natural footage ever captured on celluloid.Neil Diamond and Lee Holdridge's score for the film has often been dismissed as "overbearing", but I've always begged to differ. Among the other songs used on the soundtrack, "Be" represents Jonathan's independence, while "Dear Father" epitomizes his self-doubt and "Skybird", his liberation. To me, the film's soundtrack remains exhilarating, and it is also a reminder of Hall Bartlett's often- overlooked talent for juxtaposing the right kind of music with his cinematic stories.Jonathan Livingston Seagull was not embraced by critics or audiences, but I have a feeling that Bartlett himself always knew, deep down, that he had left the public with a masterpiece. Maybe he knew that he wouldn't live to see the film get the attention it deserved. Maybe he was aware that the film's mediocre reception would outlive him. After this film, he would only go on to make two films, The Children of Sanchez and Love is Forever. Neither was particularly impressive. But I wish he were alive to know how much I love this film. I wish he knew how much it has changed the way I look at movies. And I wish he knew how much I cherish the way he ends the picture with Jonathan's immortal closing monologue: "Look with your understanding. Find out what you already know. Use it, Fletcher. Teach it… show it forth. And you'll know the way to fly."

I have never heard of the book nor this movie - until I was browsing in the local library and came across the DVD. Because of my devoted love and connection I have with Marine Life, The Sea and Animals in general, I thought that this was a 'feel good documentary' on seagulls.....HOW WRONG WAS I! Although this movie is metaphorically depicting 'human destructive and 'sheep-like nature' behavior, stepping outside oneself, becoming 'awakened within' becoming 'spiritually awakened' about 'the test and why we are here' to better ourselves and become at one with enlightenment; I felt nothing but heart-break. I cried and cried right throughout the whole movie. Not because 'I get it-the meaning of it' (I got it years ago) but because of the absolute disgusting deliberate animal cruelty right from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. HOW COULD SOMEONE DO SUCH A THING? IRONIC isn't it!!!! Reflective, the movie-makers of this film did exactly that! Just what humans should rise against...CRUELTY AND CONTROL! I hope I am incorrect. I hope someone out there can show me that 'every scene' in this movie where the seagulls shown were injured, dying, dead, frightened, confused, breathless, enduring unfamiliar terrain and weather extremities, battered and lifeless, and in dire straits of urgent veterinary medical attention was all fake!!! I will be contacting Ray Berwick and Gary Gero-Jim Callahan The Bird Trainers for the film AND Matthew Place The Bird Care Supervisor to see what results I get from them.The main Seagull Animal Cruelty Scenes I am concerned about are: 1) Opening scene: Fishing Trawler offloads fish-waste scrapes 'for the birds' enticing them to squabble and fight for the food. Look closely there are 2 different species of birds - 1 silvergull (seagull) and 1 brown bird with a hook eagle-like beak; and it was this bird that kept stabbing the defenceless silvergull in the head, with blood spurting out-very graphic indeed, and then proceeded to grab and shake the silvergulls beak, either breaking the silvergulls neck or shaking it to death...this is not natural behavior of these 2 species of birds together.2)Deliberately taking a silvergull out of its 'natural habitat' and forcing it to fly unnatural sky's: 3)The Dessert where HAWKS fly - The seagull was 'set upon and attacked' by a Hawk! 4)The Snow icy extremities - Showed shivering, alone, confused, lost and afraid! 5)Falling out of sky hitting the ocean knocking silvergull unconscious - showed the silvergull hitting the ocean so hard it split the silvergull's head including underwater scene where bird 'fought so hard' to bring itself back into consciousness but clearly under severe distress and injury. Filmmakers put drift crate (wood) to float past in order for the silvergull to 'with all its might-left resources' struggling to pull itself on top of crate, bleeding from head, feathers completely saturated and clearly battered and bruised; the silvergull's head was clearly uncoordinated wobbling from side to side, trying to keep it's head above the water from drowning. THE SILVERGULL WAS IN URGENT NEED OF VETERINARY ATTENTION.6)Rubbish Tip Scene - one seagull had an obvious injured leg and right wing...then suddenly on a different 'edit cut' did not and could walk and fly uninjured...7)Fletcher Colliding into the Cliff Face - I SCREAMED IN THIS SCENE...The filmmakers 'slowly filmed' the silvergulls' unintended death and smashing his head, wings and legs to death, tumbling down the cliff face...HOW COULD YOU????? If this scene is real the filmmakers involved should have been prosecuted and held accountable for every scene where 'all the seagulls' were injured, mistreated and killed by the highest legislation of Animal Cruelty.OTHER QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN UNANSWERED: 1) Why did 'Jonathan' Seagull suddenly disappear one third way through the film...suddenly 'Jonathan' (black and white silvergull)is replaced with a different seagull...white body and orange brown wings. The NEW Jonathan is DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT SILVERGULL. What happened to 'Jonathan'? 2) Why was Jonathan on his own MAJORITY of the time? The DESSERT SCENE was disturbing and very upsetting as the silvergull was LEFT just standing on its own in unfamiliar terrain, no water, no food and no shelter AND subjected as an easy target for predators:snakes, hawks, reptiles, spiders, etc...THIS IS ANIMAL ABUSE! The helicopter slowly moved away showing the silvergull ALONE AND AFRAID! IF ANYBODY CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ACCORDINGLY I'D APPRECIATE IT. I AM HOWEVER AM CONTACTING THE BIRD TRAINERS OF THIS FILM TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS TO WHICH MYSELF AND OTHER CONCERNED VIEWERS ARE DEMANDING ANSWERS FOR THE MAKING OF THIS PROVOKATIVE FILM.

This painfully boring movie was the worst movie i had ever saw until UFO-Target Earth came out in 1974, i actually fell asleep in my chair at the movie house while trying to watch this..It was cheap made, and really had no kind of plot or storyline whatsoever!! I don't usually walk out of a movie i had paid to see, but this sorry thing was just too much for me...I never read the book this was supposed to be about, but it had to have been better than the movie, in the 33 years since it was made, i have never heard anyone mention it again... so that must very indicitive of just how bad this movie was.

Great soundtrack, great visuals, somewhat confusing and disappointing storyline.I always thought this was Neil Diamond's best work. He sang the soundtrack, and it's filled with great songs that he did exceptionally well.The photography is beautiful and the scenes as mellow as you can find: a seagull gracefully gliding through the air surrounded by beautiful seascapes, sunsets, billowy clouds.....just magnificent scenery.On the negative side is the usual New Age "look within yourself" theology. This is pure Secular Humanism. I say this because some people thought this was a Christian film and it is not. It only confuses people because there are analogies that could easily apply to Jesus, to the Pharisees and to Heaven itself. It was a bunch of mixed messages but author Richard Bach, from whose book this movie is based on, leaves no doubt near the end of the movie - or the screenwriters did, if they changed his book.Still, a peaceful, calming movie that is unique.