Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Admirable film.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Yet another 'I should probably see again' film (sigh). Sometimes very funny, occasionally disturbing super-black comedy about the absurdity of modern urban life. On first viewing, while some of the performances were wonderful (Donald Sutherland), some were merely OK (Elliott Gould in the lead) and some are over the top and annoying (Lou Jacobi, and, surprisingly, the great Alan Arkin who also directed, perhaps trying to do too much at once). Too often the cast feel like actors are in different movies, with different styles and levels of reality. This is a very brave and odd film, with some unforgettable moments, but others that feel awkward and trite. Most reviews were stronger than my reaction, and I could definitely imagine this being one of those films where the strengths would seems stronger, and the weaknesses less annoying on repeated viewings. Nice cinematography by Gordon Willis.

There are so many classic lines in this script, they all quickly add up to a masterpiece. If you haven't seen this picture but want to know what it's like, check out an earlier post that has the text of the entire wedding scene, which is, I agree, one of Donald Sutherland's finest moments. Gloriously outrageous! And Lou Jacobi gets to let loose with his own crazed monologue. Everybody shines, from Vincent Gardenia to the smallest bit part, especially the actor, shockingly unlisted in IMDb's obviously incomplete cast list, as Arkin's 'normal' detective assistant. (Can anyone supply his name? He's great!) John Randolph and Doris Roberts, as Elliot Gould's intellectual but clueless parents, are priceless. EVERYBODY shines.Alan Arkin's direction (as well as his manic cameo) is nothing short of inspired. He is in perfect harmony with the actors, translating the stage play into a brilliant cinematic 'alternative' classic. One of his most effective surprise touches comes just after Alfred (Gould) does his monologue into a tape recorder. His speech has been low key and sustained. He stops speaking, and there is a silent pause. Then Alfred gets up, causing a loud scrape sound when his chair is pushed back, thus shattering the whole effect of the monologue.To me, every scene is a favorite. Just one example: Alfred and Patsy (the incredible Marcia Rodd) are having an argument. A heavy breather caller has been hassling Patsy regularly. He calls in the middle of their argument. Alfred answers. The caller breathes heavily. Alfred says: 'She can't talk now!' and hangs up.The very welcome DVD transfer is quite good, especially after so many viewings of a Betamax-taped TV airing (censored) from the early 80s. Its letterbox presentation shows off the glories of Gordon Willis' camera-work. It's plain to see why Coppola and Woody Allen snagged him to lens their own masterpieces.'Little Murders' holds up well because that's what classics are all about. Indeed, it is funnier, more sardonic, just as relevant, and better than ever.

Sutherland's wedding monologue is so delightfully inspired, it should be available SOMEWHERE on the internet via search engine, but since it is not, I have quoted Jules Feiffer's brilliant writing below. Remember this is supposed to be a marriage ceremony: Rev. Dupas (Sutherland): You all know.. why we're here. There's often so much sham about this business of marriage. Everyone accepts it: ritual. That's why I was so heartened when Alfred asked me to perform this ceremony. He has certain beliefs, which I assume you all know; he is an atheist, which is perfectly all right, really it is; I happen not to be, but inasmuch as this ceremony connotes an abandonment of ritual in the search for truth, I agreed to perform it. First, let me state to you, Alfred, and to you, Patricia, that of the 200 marriages that I have performed, all but seven have failed. So the odds are not good. We don't like to admit it, especially at the wedding ceremony, but it's in the back of all our minds, isn't it: how long will it last. We all think that, don't we? We don't like to bring it out in the open, but we all think that. Well I say, why not bring it out in the open. Why does one decide to marry? Social pressure? Boredom? Loneliness? Sexual appeasement? Love? I won't put any of these reasons down, each in its own way is adequate, each is all right. Last year I married a musician who wanted to get married in order to stop masturbating. Please, don't be startled, I'm NOT putting him down. That marriage, did not work. But the man TRIED. He is now separated, still masturbating, but HE IS AT PEACE with himself because he tried society's way. So you see, it was not a mistake, it turned out all right. Now, just last month I married a novelist to a painter. Everyone at the wedding ceremony was under the influence of an hallucinogenic drug. The drug quickened our physical responses, slowed our mental responses, and the whole ceremony took two days to perform. NEVER have the words HAD SUCH MEANING. Now THAT marriage, should last. Still, if it does not, well, that'll be all right, for don't you see, any step that one takes is useful, is positive, has to be positive because it's a part of life, even the negation of the previously taken step is positive, that too is a part of life. And in this light, and only in this light, should marriage be viewed: as a small, single step. If it works, fine! If it fails, fine; look elsewhere for satisfaction. To more marriages, fine, as many as one wants, fine. To homosexuality? Fine! To drug addiction? I will not put it down, each of these is an answer for somebody. For Alfred, today's answer is Patricia. For Patricia, today's answer is Alfred. I will not put them down for that. So what I implore you both, Patricia, and Alfred, to dwell on, while I ask you these questions required by the state of New York to "legally bind you" -- sinister phrase, that -- is that not only are the legal questions I ask you, meaningless, but so too are the inner questions that you ask yourselves, meaningless. Failing one's partner, does not matter. Sexual disappointment, does not matter. Nothing can hurt, if you do not see it as being hurtful. Nothing can destroy, if you do not see it as destructive. It is all part of life, part of what we are. So now: Alfred. Do you take Patricia to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love -- whatever that means -- to honor, to keep her in sickness and health, in prosperity and adversity -- what nonsense! -- forsaking all others, -- what a shocking invasion of privacy! Rephrase that to more sensibly say, if you choose to have affairs, then you won't feel guilty about them. -as long as you both shall live, or as long as you're not tired of one another.. ? Alfred: Yeah. Rev. Dupas: And Patsy, do you take Alfred to be your lawfully wedded husband, to love -- that harmful word again, could not one more wisely say, communicate? -to honor,-- I suppose by that it means you won't cut his balls off, but then, some men like that! -to obey,-- well, my first glance at you, told me you were not the type to obey. So I went to my thesaurus, and I came back with these alternatives: to show devotion, to be loyal, to show fealty, to answer the helm, to be pliant. -General enough, I think, and still leave plenty of room to dominate. -in sickness and health, and all the rest of that GOBBLEDYgook, so long as you both shall live.. ? Patsy: (confused, speechless.. finally stammers:) I do. Rev. Dupas: Alfred and Patsy, I know now that whatever you do.. will be all right.Rev. Dupas: To Patsy's father, Carroll Newquist -- I've never heard that name on a man before, but I'm sure it's all right -- I ask you sir, feel no guilt over the $250 check you gave me to mention the Deity in the ceremony. What you have done is all right. It's part of what you are, it's part of what we all are. And I beg you not to be overly perturbed, when I do not mention the Deity in the ceremony. Betrayal, too, is all right, it too is part of what we all are. Rev. Dupas: And to Patsy's brother, Kenneth Newquist, with whom I had the pleasure of a private chat, I beg you feel no shame, homosexuality is all right, really it is.. it is perfectly all right.. Kenneth Newquist: (screaming) Sonovabitch!! Aarrggghh!! (assaults the minister.) (Marriage ceremony descends into a brawl.)

Little Murders is more absurd than noir, but I suppose a black Comedy sums it up nicely. This was Elliot Gould at the zenith of his early 70's popularity, coming after Mash and Bob & Carol and Ted & Alice. Although this is not the best movie of that era for him, it is surely one of his best performances. His character, Alfred Chamberlain is not particularly sympathetic or really likable, yet it's hard not stare in amazement at Chamberlain's reactions, or lack there of, to the 3 ring circus going around.Marcia Rodd, Vincent Gardenia and Elizabeth Wilson are all strong in support of the lunacy, terror and degradation on screen.Notes: Doris Roberts (Everybody Love Raymond, Remington Steele)convincingly plays Elliot Gould's mother in this movie despite only being 9 years older than Mr. Gould.The Song at the end of movie, "Skating in Central Park" performed by the modern jazz quartet is hard to find, but is available on their CD, The Complete Last Concert Live and another of their CD's - Dedicated to Connie.