Shampoo (1975)

You may find this old, closed thread of interest.

Barely remember it but I do remember enjoying it. Wasn't it supposed to be, sort of, about Jay Sebring and Jon Peters? Other than that I remember much skepticism about any hairdressers being 100% straight so I felt free to masturbate to Warren Beatty.

It wasn’t as good as I was expecting it to be.

And I agree with OP about Lee Grant.

Since Grant was one of many entertainment industry professionals blacklisted in the 1950s....

isn't this Oscar considered a ...."gee, Lee......sorry bout that decade of no employment!" consolation award?

R4 that totally makes sense

The film is very much a product of its time and was, I think, overrated even then (especially by Pauline Kael). It's amusing, but after a while the characters played by Beatty and Hawn are just not that interesting IMO, though I'll admit I'm not much of a Beatty fan to begin with. Julie Christie and Jack Warden are worth watching, though.

Grant is good in the film, but Lily Tomlin should have won for NASHVILLE. I suspect she and Ronee Blakeley cancelled each other out, though I also suspect Altman's film was considered by the Academy as more of a critical success than a commercial one, whereas SHAMPOO did well at the boxoffice.

OP, I just watched this a couple of nights ago and was surprised by how much I didn't like it. There's really no plot, as such, and the humor just fell flat. That said, Julie Christie and Goldie Hawn were memorable.

Julie Christie and Jack Warden are the only memorable performances in that film, Beatty and Hawn just fall flat. Though, I like how in the end Christie chooses Warden over Beatty.

Carrie Fisher's first film.

Warren shows his ass.

I can only watch it if I speed up to all of Julie Christie’s scenes. She’s magical in everything.

It’s a real zeitgeist film , there really hadn’t been that sort of social and political criticism in a mainstream movie before. It had loads of ‘70s glamor refracted through the late ‘60s. Seeing Goldie Hawn in such a role was a revelation, she had sprung to fame playing ding-a-lings. Hearing Julie Christie and the daughter of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher swear like longshoreman was still transgressive at the movies then.

Was it profound or classic as a movie? No. It was smart, it was fun, it was anti-Nixon and anti-Republican. It was an atrifact of its time but in the best possible way, I think. A real time capsule movie.

Julie Christie is amazing in everything. It’s no surprise almost every script in Hollywood was offered to her first, back in the 70s.

another aspect of the zeitgeist R12 referenced above ....

to my memory, it was THE movie where the Easy Rider/ Woodstock hippie worshipping was over.

movie stars were back.

Datalonge people- I will give you another example of an overrated movie

All The Presidents Men- I watched it with my father a few years ago- Snoozefest.

Meredith Baxter-Muff-Diver has a small role in that. Did you notice?

R16- Yes- I did.

That was probably the highlight of the movie for me- I'm so gay.

She can do no wrong ever since she appeared as that Princess Nancy Lawrence Maitland on Family .

R16- I must correct you on her name- It's not polite to call her that.

Her proper name is Meredith Baxter Lesbian.

[quote]Warren shows his ass.

Incidentally, for some reason I can't picture Warren Beatty with a butthole.

^^Everybody poops!

[Quote] Meredith Baxter-Muff-Diver has a small role in that. Did you notice?

R16 of course I did!

Nora Sayre NY Times 02/12/1975

Boyishly awkward mumbling and gesturing in a traditionally inarticulate style the actor {Beatty} is devoid of gumption: he's supposed to be keen on women and sex, yet he seems quite passive and unenthusiastic.

Carrie Fisher makes a deft, cool debut as a hostile adolescent: somehow the daughter of Debbie Reynolds seems more at ease in the movie then most of her hip senior colleagues

Shampoo is set on the election Eve of 1968 but there is no apparent reason for reviving the 1960s beyond putting Miss Horn in a miniskirt.

After he (George) restyles the heads of Miss Christie and Miss Hawn both ceased to look as spectacular as they did before: their locks are dowdy

“Now that’s what I call fucking”.

Andrew Stevens: Boy #2

R22, did you copy & paste that or did you re-type it here? There are typos and grammar issues throughout. The NYT would never have allowed the review to go to press in its present state.

R25 Highlight the most glaring typos and grammar issues. Interested in what you find so offensive. R22

R26, I don't find them "offensive" they're just rather obvious and The NYT would never publish an article with so many typos.

Example: "...the movie then most of her hip senior colleagues" THEN should be THAN.

Example: "...beyond putting Miss Horn in a miniskirt." I'm assuming Miss Horn should be Miss HAWN.

Just a few examples.

Actually, there are just a few examples and obviously Horn should be Hawn.

R10, you misspelled “he’s an” — it’s not spelled “his.”

R29 Tell me you have no life without actually telling me.

Awful

Like The Godfather, The Fury, Dressed to Kill and Last Tango in Paris, Shampoo was another film Pauline Kael vastly overrated

R28, you obviously re-typed it from the original as the original does not contain those errors. Why couldn't you just say so?

Why not talk about the film R33? Time to take you meds.

your ^

Illiterates gonna illiterate, R34, R35.

Don't bother responding. I don't feel like reading more of YOUR grammatical errors.

People have said the sexual politics in the film mirrors the political situation in the US at the time. Yet how would the characters in the film be different if it were 1966 or 1975? Think RHOBH?

[quote]Like The Godfather, The Fury, Dressed to Kill and Last Tango in Paris, Shampoo was another film Pauline Kael vastly overrated

"The Godfather"?, you're dismissed.

What bugs me about this film ( I started watching it on the weekend)- it's supposed to be 1968 yet everyone looks like 1974 when it was filmed. It's only set 6 years earlier but the fashions and hairstyles were significantly different in 1968 compared to 1974. I agree with the OP. I don't think this movie is much of anything. It holds my interest only because it is now a period piece. The best scene in the movie is a very young Carrie Fisher in the kitchen with Warren Beatty and their homophobic dialogue is funny anyway.

I despised that film. Friends convinced me against my reservations and, well, I'll note that by coincidence they are not friends any longer.

Beatty was cloying in anything outside of Bonnie & Clyde and, despite a couple respectable efforts, none of the other cast saved it for me. The plot, the script...just drivel and such smug hype surrounded it as though it were the film of the decade and pure genius.

I like Lee Grant a lot—she’s never boring, all the way back to her shoplifter in Detective Story, in which she stole the movie from some very good actors. Of her comeback films, she was most droll in The Landlord. But of the nominees, I think Ronee Blakey was best—and Barbara Harris was even better in Nashville. Tomlin was fine, but her usual brittle self.

Debby Reynolds told Warren Beatty to keep his hands off her daughter when she was cast in Shampoo.

^^^Debbie Reynolds

I’ve stopped trying to watch this movie after years of starts and stops. Horribly filmed, awful script, stupid plot and miscast. It’s basically unwatchable.

“I do Barbara Rush”

R44 sounds like a lot of fun.

That's "Academy Award Winning Actress Lee Grant," OP, you asshole.

I was too young for it when it came out. When vcrs became accessible I rented it from New Video in the village. I was a little disappointed there wasn’t more to it, but it’s diverting enough for what it is.

I think that was around 1984. Haven’t watched it again since.

During that same time I rented a bunch of Ashby‘s films — Harold and Maude, Coming Home, Being There, and The Last Detail. I couldn’t escape the conclusion that he was an overrated director, although the one movie of his that wasn’t overpraised — The Last Detail — is imo the best of them.

[quote]What bugs me about this film ( I started watching it on the weekend)- it's supposed to be 1968 yet everyone looks like 1974 when it was filmed. It's only set 6 years earlier but the fashions and hairstyles were significantly different in 1968 compared to 1974.

Interesting point r39. I find most movies and TV shows do a poor job of presenting 'the recent past'. It maybe that at the time of filming, the significance of the differences hadn't really sunk in, or perhaps there is an esthetic aversion to the recently out-of-date.

R48 I like his first film The Landlord (1970) Lee Grant is particularly funny

Grant was nominated for an Oscar in 1971 the first time she worked with Hal Ashby

[quote]Boyishly awkward, mumbling and gesturing in a traditionally inarticulate style, the actor {Beatty} is devoid of gumption.

Right on the nose. He was underwhelming and seemed like he was special needs.

where are you all watching Shampos?

^^Shampoo

[quote]And I agree with OP about Lee Grant.

Me, too, but Lee Grant is always exceptional. Glad she won.

I think Lee Grant is pretty great and she reminds me of Anne Bancroft for some reason.

Julie Christie is just gorgeous but I think her beauty could overshadow her real talent.

I never got Beattys' appeal in anything and Shampoo is really dated. Almost Movie of the Week quality.

A straight womanizing male hairstylist. Yeah. Right.

Sorry R38 never cared for the Corleone clan and 3 hours with them is at least 1 hour too long. I'll take Goodfellas or The Sopranos anytime. Godfather II is better. The Gone with the Wind of gangster films is well-made old fashion melodrama. Just overrated to my mind.

Hairdressing women was the true career for hot, red-blooded heterosexual lotharios in the 60s and 70s!

Indeed, R59.

I remember my parents seeing this in the theater and my Mom said my dad liked Julie Christie.

[quote] Interesting point [R39]. I find most movies and TV shows do a poor job of presenting 'the recent past'. It maybe that at the time of filming, the significance of the differences hadn't really sunk in, or perhaps there is an esthetic aversion to the recently out-of-date.

Yellowjackets plays all that Garbage and Papa Roach but it never seems 1990s.

Carrie's the best thing in the film

[Quote] Boyishly awkward, mumbling and gesturing in a traditionally inarticulate style, the actor {Beatty} is devoid of gumption.

[Quote] Right on the nose. He was underwhelming and seemed like he was special needs

Don't let R25 hear you R52

I liked their hair.

[quote]He was underwhelming and seemed like he was special needs.

I like the movie and love some of the performances, but agree with this. His only asset was his beauty. Maybe that was the point: scary protectors (Jack Warden) being replaced by man children (Beatty).

The women were the most interesting, but that would make sense if you see this movie as a "death of patriarchy" vehicle. Sort of like Mad Men.