CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

US, 1971, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jack Nicholson, Arthur Garfunkel, Candice Bergen, Ann- Margret, Rita Moreno.
Directed by Mike Nichols.

Carnal Knowledge traces the experiences of two men at the ages of twenty, thirty and forty, the emphasis being on their sexuality. The style is ironically comical, the screenplay being by cartoonist-playwright, Jules Feiffer, and sketches the period, their feelings and their reactions rather than giving lengthy and deep insights. As such, the film gives only a partial glimpse at its characters and shows them as leading inadequate, disappointed and unfulfilled lives. They finish some rungs below those they stepped on to early in their lives. To that extent, the film is a depressing look at contemporary men and does not get us very far in our understanding of them.

The film is excellently acted with Jack Nicholson outstanding as Jonathan, unfortunately overshadowing the fine performance of Arthur Garfunkel and his significance in the film. Candice Bergen is good as is Ann-Margret? (Oscar Nomination, 1971) as the model who goes downhill through her emotional involvement with Jonathan.

Many have found the film too crude. However, it is a wry observation and comment on twentieth century man. Direction is by Mike Nichols (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Catch 22).

1. What impression did the title give you? What are its overtones of sexuality, flesh, its use in legal terms, the Biblical meaning of the phrase? Are these meanings relevant here?

2. The title of the film selects a partial aspect of man's personality by which he does express himself. However, some people have taken the film to imply that 'carnal knowledge' does express the totality of man and gives a priority to sexuality. Did you gain this impression from the whole film?

3. If it is granted that the film takes an important, but partial, aspect of man's life, does it focus attention on it and consistently give the audience insights into man by it - its good and evil, a man's growth and development, a man's self-centredness and stagnation?

4. Some say the film is disgusting and immoral, others say that it points its moral too explicitly. If the film has a moral, how would you express it? Does the film make it too obvious?

5. How effective was the conversation during the credits - what did it reveal about the fascination and curiosity of sex?

6. Did you find the structure of the film effective - the glance at three periods and impressions created by sketch, satire, selected incident? Is the hand of Jules Feiffer as a cartoonist evident here?

7. How was the atmosphere of the first phase conveyed - the college style of manners and morals, brashness, boasting concealing timidity, the beginnings of communication?
- Jonathan - did you like him; how vain was he, how selfish? How close were he and Sandy? How did he use Sandy? How serious was this betrayal? Do you think that he was thus responsible for the later breakdown in Sandy's marriage?
- Sandy - did you like him, was he a 'nice guy'? How did he relate to Susan? How did his loving her transform him? How close was he to Jonathan? why did he confide in him and trust him so much? Were you sorry that Jonathan and Susan deceived him? Should he have married Susan? Did they go into marriage in any way prepared?
- Susan - what kind of girl was she? How innocent? How calculating? Why was she attracted to Sandy? Why did she deceive him and not tell him the truth? Why was she attracted to Jonathan? Was her affair with him applauded by the film? Was it significant that she appeared only in the first part of the film?

8. At what stage of maturity had they arrived by the end of the first part?

9. How much more sophisticated was Jonathan at the age of thirty? How successful was he professionally? (Was this important for the film?) How interesting a person was he? How was his sex-life presented - sympathetically or as a fact?

10. How much more sophisticated was Sandy? How much happiness had he found in marriage and family? How much love? Why did he still remain friendly with Jonathan? How did they communicate? How successful was he professionally?

11. How empty were their lives? How happy? How sour?

12. How did Jonathan become involved with Bobbie? Was there any love there?

13. What kind of person was Bobbie? How sympathetic? Why did she cling to Jonathan? Was her role solely sexual gratification? Why did she go downhill - lazy, slatternly, sleeping, depressed? Did she want marriage? Would a good marriage have fulfilled her?

14. How callous was Jonathan towards Bobbie? The tennis game, new dates, ignoring her except for sex, humiliating her, arranging swaps? Why did he drive her to suicide? Did he have any real feeling for her? What was Sandy's reaction?

15. At forty: had they grown as human beings? What did each of them have left? How cynical were they? Why were they still friends - or how friendly were they? On what level did they communicate? What was wrong with each of them as a man?

16. How callous was the honesty of Jonathan's slide-show? What did it reveal about him? (Were your surprised to hear of Bobbie's fate?) Did Sandy deserve to have the revelation about Susan?
17. What future did Sandy have?
18. What was the significance of Jonathan's final visit to the prostitute - was sexual potency all that was left for him? Had the possibility of carnal knowledge become the whole of his life? How cynical, critical, moralising an ending was this?

19. Was this film worth making? Why? Was it moral? Why?

20. How typical of twentieth century men were the heroes?