Shampoo

This is one of those movies when you watch and realize that Lee Grant, totally unexceptional in it, actually won an Oscar for it. It was a really weak year with Sylvia Miles in a five minute role in "Farewell, My Lovely", Brenda Vaccaro in "Once Is Not Enough" and the Oscar should have gone to either Ronee Blakley or Lily Tomlin for "Nashville".

It had a really good movie poster though.

Julie Christie is fabulous in it.

It is boring. Doesn't deserve it's reputation. Julie Christie is luminous in everything. I didn't like Darling much either, but I couldn't take my eyes off of her.

I saw it as a kid and wasn't even able to see an "R" rated movie yet so I convinced my Mother that it was a just a comedy and off we went. At the end it was absolutely shocking to me when Julie Christie, Academy Award winner says "Id like to suck his cock". Not only because I had never heard anything uttered like that in a movie before, but Honey, I so agreed with her. Warren Beatty was blazing hot in it.

A complete waste of celluloid.

This is a movie that either works for you or doesn't. I personally love the stoner vibe and the southern California malaise. But I can understand why others would hate it. It's not for everybody.

It's the role Beatty was born to play, in that he's essentially playing himself.

Seriously, if you don't like the movie why ARE you watching it? At some point, you have to learn to trust your own taste and judgement regardless of the film's reputation and others' opionions.

Meanwhile, though it's been over a decade since I last saw it, I've always enjoyed this movie because it captures the point when the 60's idealism became about hedonism and therefore "the Silent Majority" consolidated their power. And it was perfectly set in southern California since a lot of people point to the Manson murders as something that soured people to "hippies" even this film has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with "hippie excess."

And it's a sad, sad moment because you know of the catastrophe that Nixon brings about. The movie was made after Watergate and Nixon's resignation and the country divided like it was in no other time in history since the Civil War and hasn't been divided since until the days of Bush and the teabagger crap of today.

There's a lot of political stuff going on in this film. It's not just about the hairdresser and his sexual conquests. They don't really seem to make films like this anymore.

Agree with r8, though I was only 4 when Shampoo was originally released. I watched it about 2-3 years ago and was blown away. At first, I wasn't sure, but the film builds smartly to a conclusion that is both sad and right at the same time.

And I disagree that Grant didn't deserve the Oscar for this; I think she's magnificent in the film.

R8- if you don't like his post, why are you reading it?

Asshole.

I, for one, love the sense of aimlessness, lonliness and spiritual despair that pervades the movie. I think that is at the core of it reputation.

I loved this movie and agree with R8. Warren was sexy as hell, and all of the women shine. I didn't see it until the 90s and missed much of the political stuff but as a comedy of manners I think it's great.

I also love the score of the film and that final scene between Christie and Beatty is funny and heartbreaking.

R10, how is R8 an asshole? Really, how can one know they disagree with (or "don't like") a post if they don't READ it?

You make no sense.

I was thin in that movie.

I think the movie is very much 'of it's time"

I just think it was considered sexy and hip. and Warren's sexiness carried it all.

It hasn't aged well... that's all.

It is not just a good film, it is great film. It rolls out in a totally stream of life kind of pastiche- lothario LA hair dresser (probably Jon Peters is the prototype) and the behind the scene world of established power brokers in LA he literally scavenges off. All set in a deeply troubled time when our nation was conducting one of the most awful conflicts in history (consider it killed 2-3 million and we dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than all of Europe in WW 2). And it's funny. Julie Christie getting drunk and sort of saying fuck it to her pompous "lover" while blowing Beatty under the table at a preposterous fund raiser for Richard Nixon (need I say any more about him and what he stood for and was up to). The whole movie reduces down to the depravity or emptiness of the Beatty charater's life (there are no good guys and bad guys in this film.) No one wins, the good politics do not carry the day, true love does not out. I think it is brilliant. Hollywood rarely makes movies like this anymore. This would be considered an independent film now- aimed at adults (not teenage boys like 75% of Hollywood)- except for the fact that it is full of major Hollywood stars of the time. Carrie Fisher is wonderful in a little bit part as well.

If you don't get it, your loss.

My god, R13- are you really THAT stupid?

That's kind of the point of my post, isn't it moron...the guy is attacking OP for watching a movie that HE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE. He's saying that if the guy didn't like the movie, he shouldn't have watched it...THAT makes NO sense.

Thus my sarcastic post, cunt. You're not too quick on the draw.

"If you don't get it, your loss."

Oh get over yourself you pretentious cunt. You think you're mighty special, don't you? Not everyone has your taste, bitch. It doesn't mean that they can't smell a stinker.

Chill, girls. You're both pretty.

It's a period piece.

It did make a splash but it was always an overrated movie. I recalled it as a no-there-there movie and when I rented it recently, expecting that as an adult its value might appear more evident, I still found no there there.

Certainly Lee Grant's oscar is the pinnacle of a much loved actress being recognized for career achievement and not for the role she was nominated for (she was certainly good in the movie, has a few nice moments, but its a very, very small role). Still, its interesting to hear her talk about that oscar night (as she did on Inside the Actors Studio). She was up there looking over that huge crowd and recognizing many powerful faces who were had been powerful when she was blacklisted and would never had touched her with a ten foot statuette.

Certainly the oscar should have gone to Blakeley or Tomlin.

Shampoo is truly a piece of crap but it was probably celebrated mostly for its holding a mirror up to Hollywood fatuousness when it was very badly needed. Ashby did what he could with the script but Towne's true talent as a writer didn't emerge until Chinatown - but boy did it surface then.

[quote]Chill, girls. You're both pretty.

No, they're not. r10 is unhinged.

Love love love the scene when Beatty and Christie are fucking at the party towards the end. Beatty cleverly makes the motions huge so it gives the impression that he has a 12 inch cock. That scene made me soooo hot.

Jack Warden: "Now THAT'S what I call fuckin'."

[quote](probably Jon Peters is the prototype)

The prototype was Jay Sebring, hairdresser to the stars, who was something of a local celebrity in his own right. He was murdered alongside Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger and the others that night as part of the Manson family killings.

Beatty looks like Michael Weatherly in that poster shot.

Great film with excellent performances from the entire cast. Goldie Hawn is very effective and the scene when Beatty confesses his mulitple infidelities is devastating. The sexual politics in the film mirrors the political situation in the US at the time.

Love it and I love Christie's hair and the dress she wears at her lovers party at the restaurant.

R8 here. My point about the OP was that he said he'd already watched a substantial part of the movie and didn't like it, should he watch more because of it's reputation, was it going to come together in some satisfying way at the end? My advice to him was to trust his own judgement based on what he'd already seen.

No where in my post did I say I didn't like his post, or "(attack the) OP for watching a movie that HE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE," or any other bizarre assumption made by the one guy posting at r10, r17 & r18, who I know are the same person thanks to trolldar.

I just said I disagreed with the OP's assessment of the movie, but I thought that he was well within his right to stop watching it, if he felt like it. Funny, I made allowances for someone not to like or enjoy something I liked without judgement. But R10,17,18 projects his intolerance onto me.

It's your issue, not mine.

Fascinating film. Goldie is Sharon Tate, right?

How does one go about digging up a thread this old?

Girls, it was an amalgam of Jon Peters and Jay Sebring. Peters took Sebring's place as hairdresser to the Beautiful People after the Manson murders.

I'd like to know too, R29.

If I'd added this to my threadwatcher with a gold star back in May when it was active, would it have stayed in my threadwatcher all this time so I could open it now & comment on it?

If not, what is the answer to R29's question?

Search google using "site:Datalounge.com" and relevant search terms.

OP is a re re

Interesting, r32. For a long time, that wasn't working for me so I quit trying, but it is now. The mysteries of cyberspace.

I saw this film a short while back for the very first time and thought it really good. It truly held me from start to finish. Julie Christie was an otherworldly beauty and Warren Beatty and his package looked to be great in it as well. %0D %0D His scenes with Goldie Hawn were great and very gentle and real. %0D %0D I love how it is all about Nixon's election. %0D %0D Trivia...%0D %0D Warren Beatty was to do the film "What's New Pussycat" and was attached to it for a cow's age. That all fell through and Woody Allen just took that film and ran with it. %0D %0D I think that a part of what Warren Beaty was to do with "What's New Pussycat" wound up showing itself in "Shampoo."%0D %0D

[quote]Julie Christie was an otherworldly beauty ...

I've always liked her, starting with her first big role in "Billy Liar" (1963), followed by "Darling" (1965). And I love the way she looks, but I've never found her beautiful.

it was of it's time. It was considered really shocking and insightful in it's day but now it plays like any reality show out there.

"It's a period piece.'

So it's a chick flick?

It was considered very risque and adult at the time it came out. It's harder to shock people now.

Ot, but speaking of Christie, when I first saw, as a teenager, "Heaven Can Wait" I was riveted by her looks.%0D %0D I recently re-watched HCW (used bargain bin, 50 cents) and I had the same reaction. What a striking woman.%0D %0D Btw, if you're in the mood for a light, well made comedy, I recommend HCW. There are wonderful comedic performances here. Jack Warden, Buck Henry, and especially Dyan Cannon and Charles Grodin all shine.%0D %0D HCW, really holds up.

Julie Christie was gorgeous as a young woman.%0D %0D I've known quite a few people who've known her and they all say she's disappointing appearance-wise in real life. Very short, barely 5'2" and a mess.%0D %0D Though everyone likes her very much.%0D %0D I don't think Shampoo was a chick flick, but a straight guy's flick. The girls are so sexy. I can see it not being appreciated by gay guys.

R11 nails it. I was surprised how touched I was by the ending. Lee Grant is not all that exceptional in this--the Oscar was more for her career and to make up for being blacklisted.

How did Jill and Jackie end up best friends?

I agree about Heaven Can Wait, R40. Christie and Beatty always had true chemistry, and though they were older than in Shampoo, both were still gorgeous. As for this comment: [quote] There are wonderful comedic performances here. Jack Warden, Buck Henry, and especially Dyan Cannon and Charles Grodin all shine ...just remembering the mouse scene with Cannon and Grodin makes me laugh out loud. The supporting actors were terrific.

[quote]I love Christie's hair

I just saw this a couple weeks ago, and everyone had atrocious hair. I thought that was deliberate irony. Lee Grant had the same hairstyle she's had her whole life as did Goldie Hawn, but they are 2 actresses with signature hairstyles. Everyone else had crazy wigs or bad toupees, and Warren's hair was a tangled mess. They even had Carrie Fisher in a long wig that had to be semi-hidden with a kerchief to make it look presentable.

Julie Christie's hair at the beginning was a wig and I assumed after the re-style that it would be her real hair, but no, it's just another wig with the same bangs and a slightly shorter, angled cut. That has to be deliberate.

Carrie Fisher's character was a homophobic, rancid-tongued little sociopath.

It's a terrible movie. It was a terrible movie then but a lot of people loved it. It's a terrible movie now but most people have wised up.

It was championed by Pauline Kael.

One of the instances - her love for Streisand in Hello Dolly and The Owl and the Pussycat are two others - when the great critic's favor was ludicrously bestowed on the execrable.

You can't just brazenly proclaim it is a terrible movie, without backing up your stupidity with reasons.

Is Julie Christie's character supposed to Barbra Streisand? I bet Julie's angled cut in the film is a wink at Barbra's hairdo from the sixties.

Perhaps she is Barbra - that's interesting. I know that Goldie's character is supposed to be Sharon Tate - in fact, there is an anxiety and a pathos of impending doom hanging over throughout the movie. The soft spoken brooding director she befriends can only be Roman.

We must assume that when Julie/Barbra dumps George/Warren/Jay Sebring for the conventional life, he dies with Goldie/Sharon (pregnant with her new guy's kid) at the hands of the Mansons that next summer (perhaps with Carrie Fisher's character as one of the killers). Watch the movie again with this in mind, and suddenly you'll be grateful for the light touches in it.

HE used the hairdryer that hadn't been invented in 1968.%0D %0D FAIL.

God, R49. that was a do of the day that even Streisand copied. Jesus!

R50, where did you hear that Hawn was supposed to be Sharon Tate? It gives another dimension to the film. I will have to watch it again with that in mind.

R45, those are interesting remarks about the hairstyles. I saw a PBS piece once on the making of "Dr. Zhivago" and a hair/makeup artist was interviewed. She said that in that movie (as well as most others), that the hairstyles generally reflect the styles current to when the film was made, not correct to the period. They then showed clips, and I was amazed that I never noticed that. Somewhere, I heard that it is so that audiences will identify w/the characters more readily...what do the pros think?

It's a style of filmmaking that is long gone. The script is Didion-ish and wouldn't be understood by today's idiots. It's brilliant. Love it.

I thought this was dreadfully dull the one time I saw it. Not sexy or daring or even especially well acted.

However, I would consider seeing it again with the Tate/Sebring parallels in mind. Interesting.

I knew the character was somewhat based on Sebring who in real life was much wilder than the Beatty character. Sexual masochism, etc.

I also liked the art direction dynamics in the movie. The late sixties - even though only 7/8 years away - were visually so different from the mid seventies that this movie can actually be considered a "period" piece. %0D %0D Could you imagine if nowadays someone filmed something that took place in 2003? Would they have to go out of their way with a major budget to show fashions, make-up, hair, cars, home decor that are different from today's? No - the only striking difference they would exploit would be technology (cell-phone and computer styles), that's it! %0D %0D Sad.

on the nose, r55.

Blakely and Tomlin split the NASHVILLE vote I guess - though Tomlin was wonderful, Blakely's performance was from-another-planet good and she should have won that year.

Shampoo is more watchable than Nashville. The latter is a very tough going movie.

Not to me! It's glorious, and Altman's best.

I like Lee Grant in it as well. Whether or not she "deserved" the Oscar, she won it in part because she had been blacklisted in Hollywood from the early fifties (Detective Story was her last film; she was nominated for supporting actress) through the late sixties (In the Heat of the Night, for which she got great reviews, was her first movie back). I think Academy voters felt she was owed something from the Hollywood establishment for all the performances (and awards) she'd been denied. She was also riding high at the time. She had just had a hit on Broadway in Neil Simon's Prisoner of Second Avenue, directed by Mike Nichols, who was considered a tastemaker. And she had been nominated a few years before for a best actress Oscar for The Landlord, directed by Hal Ashby, Shampoo's director.

I think Jack Warden was even funnier. Was he nominated? And, if so, who won that year instead?

George Burns won Best Supporting Actor over Warden, who was excellent in Shampoo.

I love Lee's reactions to Goldie and Warren in the salon. It's a weird comparison, but she reminded me of Sian Phillips in I, CLAUDIUS... watching everything like a hawk and trying to figure out how she can turn the tide in her favour.

I just finished reading "Star," the biography of Warren Beatty. I've always liked Warren Beatty, mainly I guess because he was pretty and sexy. "Heaven Can Wait" is one of my favorite films -- a perfect cast with a perfect script, a remake far better than the original. I thought Warren was cool because in the 70s he used to hang out at a gay bar in NYC with the girls from "Vanities." After watching it the first time, I've never been able to make it through "Reds" again. But after reading this book, Warren comes across as as big a control freak as his obsession, Howard Hughes. The book makes it seem like he fucked every woman he ever met and cheated every man he ever did business with. It ends by saying, "There's a good reason he hasn't made a film since 1993."

"I heard shots!!"

It grows on you, OP. First time I saw it I thought it was wildly overrated. Watching it again recently after I was more acclimated to Hal Ashby's other amazing films, I found it a very haunting, very good picture.

Read what Peter Biskind writes about it in his book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," or what Pauline Kael had to say at the time.

R16 is correct. Fantastic movie, not made for "Tranformers" ADD young nitwits.

"The film is a culmination of all things which eventually lead to the end of the 60's, and the bloody end to the Summer of Love. The characters are in fact based on those who were killed by the Manson family ion Augaust of 1969.

Warren Beatty and the film's screenwriter Robert Towne were both very good friends with Jay Sebring, the famous 'Hairdresser to the Stars', who was murdered along with Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger and Voytek Frekowski at Cielo Drive up in the Hollywood hills. Warren Beatty's character of George is clearly based on that of Jay Sebring and Julie Christie's and Goldie Hawn's are both composites of actress/model Sharon Tate. Very, very haunting to me is a scene early on in the film where Warren Beatty's character comes home to Goldie Hawn's and she is really scared and in a panic, and she is telling him about hearing gunshots coming from somewhere out in the Hollywood hills...the scene is just a hint or a premonition relating to the tragic murders that their characters will eventually become victims of...

There are many more scenes relating to the characters being based on those of the victims of the Manson family murders but I find this the most chilling and memorable. Many of her friends have told that in the several months before her death Sharon Tate was having premonitions about her own death, including the time where she was at a friend's house and she was coming down the staircase, and there sitting at the bottom the stairs, she saw an apparition of herself with her throat slashed. Tate stated that the apparition just looked up at her, with eyes and mouth wide and both hands clutching the bloody throat, as if asking her for help. She spoke about this haunting and terrifying incident often during the weeks and days leading up to her death and in fact she had discussed it with friend and fellow actress Joanna Pettete on the very day of her death while having lunch on the lawn of her Cielo Drive home."

[quote]It is boring. Doesn't deserve it's reputation.

Many movies are like that! You watch it and wonder what the big deal was.

Was Goldie considered a movie star or a television star?

Well?

As is the case with much of Beatty's work in front of and behind the camera, "Shampoo" is vastly overrated.

Beatty is overrated, Shampoo is not.

I'd heard so much about this movie. I was expecting something exceptional. But it wasn't exceptional at all. What was supposed to be so GOOD about this film? It's a film about a shallow, womanizing hairdresser; how good could THAT be? Definitely an overrated film.

One thing that always bothered me - Julie Christie's hair on the poster of Shampoo is dark brown and in a totally different style to the character in the movie. What the hell is that supposed to MEAN?

Beatty was the James Franco of his day. A hubristic jumped up little shit.

bump for Julie question!

A pity that the musical numbers were cut from the final print.

WHET Julie Christie?

An amazing Christie movie - Petulia.

I loved this movie, but i must admit I watched it twice before I did. %0D %0D Two scenes/moments stand out for me:%0D %0D 1. Where Julie Christie and Goldie Hawn go to lunch and Christie wears her sunglasses the whole time and eventually Hawn puts on hers. %0D %0D 2. The scene where Christie and Grant meet at the fundraiser and have that moment of recognition while Beatty and Warden awkwardly discuss Warden's hair. And I love that Christie and Grant have the same hairstyle. %0D %0D %0D It's comedic yes, but certainly not a comedy. There's such a feeling of sadness.

Lee Grant is sexy

Flyovers wouldnt get this movie.

Seriously though, Hal Ashby was a master.

R76, all three of them on the poster have different hair than they do in the film. Goldie's hair is wavy like in "Foul Play" in the film, not flat like the poster. Julie's hair in the poster is permed and her own, Warren's is natural and without that weird fuzzy wiglet used in the film.

I assume the photo for the film was taken well before production started. "Pulp Fiction" had a similar problem; the promotional material had Samuel L Jackson in a fade rather than the famous Jeri curl.

Thanks for explaining.

I'd love Robert Towne to do a commentary. Not Warren though, he loves the sound of his voice.

Julie Christie moved to the country (UK) and basically gave up on Hollywood. She's involved in socialist causes and had no interest in continuing to work except when she liked a project (Afterglow, Away From Her) or when money was tight (I don't know how else to explain Troy). I get the sense that she was never really seduced by hollywood or fame. She never seemed to give a shit one way or the other. Which is, of course, why her reputation hasn't faded and she has kept some of her mystique.

[quote]Where Julie Christie and Goldie Hawn go to lunch and Christie wears her sunglasses the whole time and eventually Hawn puts on hers.

I really liked that. Christie has hers on to hide her emotions while she's lying that everything's going so great for her, and Goldie puts her sunglasses on just as she's asked how her life is so SHE can more effectively lie, too.

[quote]I knew the character was somewhat based on Sebring who in real life was much wilder than the Beatty character. Sexual masochism, etc.

Was Sebring straight?.

I'm watching it for the first time tonight, and I'm also wondering what the big deal was. It was the fourth biggest moneymaker in 1975 (after "Jaws," "Towering Inferno," and --surprisingly-- "Rocky Horror"), and I can only conclude after thinking about it for a while people saw it because they wanted to see sexy movie stars having sex. Warren Beatty looks like pure sex in the movie (his chest is furry and beautifully developed, and his arms are quite muscular for the day), as does Julie Christie (especially in her sequined dress with the open back from her neck to her butt crack).

I remember my mom once told me that in the late 60s and early 70s people in what datalounge would call "flyover country" liked sex-themed films like "Midnight Cowboy" and "Klute" because knew about the Sexual Revolution going on (from TIME and NEWSWEEK and TV) but for the most part they felt left behind--they wanted to see movies that depicted it so they could vicariously participate in it. I guess "Shampoo" would fit into that category.

And I agree with what someone said earlier in the film: it's insane they thought Julie Christie's giant thick wigs (both before the big hairstyling and after it) would look like her real hair.

It's apparently a favorite movie of David Duchovny, and the inspiration for "Californication."

Body on Tap, the beer-enriched shampoo.

Gee, Your Hair Smells Terrific.

Prell.

Pert Plus, the 2-in-1 shampoo plus conditioner.

R10/17/18,you're drunk posting. Go to bed.

Those comments at r10, r17 and r18 were posted back in mid-May, brainiac.

Didn't Carrie Fisher kind of lampoon the film when she was on 30 Rock? She played an old SNL writer, a 70s person and talked about doing drugs and how "the whole thing was about Nixon and Watergate! The talking mailbox was Haldeman!" I thought it was a veiled reference to the many interpretations of Shampoo being about the Nixon election and the supposed metaphors in the film.

R92, it takes place during the 1968 presidential election,IIRC. You see the political scenes on the black and white TVs in the background Layered on that was the Hollywood scene, to me characterized better than it was in The Player. Then you have the prescient actions prior to the Manson terror. On top of that is the story of this hairdresser and the women in his life. There is so much going on, with top actors playing the characters. It really was top notch and I think showed Beatty at the top of his game, writing it with Robert Towne and producing it, as well as acting in it.

[quote]Then you have the prescient actions prior to the Manson terror.

I just don't see this, wtf.

You might be more of a "Jurasic Park" type of viewer, OP.

At least the OP can spell, r101.

Interesting to have Julie and Goldie as love rivals.

I'm watching it now on TCM. Boy, they sure use the word 'f*ggot' a lot.

Carrie Fisher did her best work here.

Actually, they're all good.

Lee grant shows her tits, and she was old even back then.

Great movie. Probably a bit overrated when it came out, now it's underrated. Probably because it's not a 70s movie from one of the "great auteurs" -

Hal Ashby was underrated.

Overrated.

A comedy with no laughs.

Bump Bitch goes a year early.

Nowadays such a movie would be dismissed as pretentious by most of the media outlets in between promotions for Reality TV shows.