SUCH GOOD FRIENDS

US, 1971, 101 minutes, Colour.
Dyan Cannon, James Coco, Jennifer O’ Neill, Ken Howard, Nina Foch, Laurence Luckinbill, Louise Lasser, Burgess Meredith, Sam Levene, Rita Gam, Nancy Guild.
Directed by Otto Preminger.

Such Good Friends is in the vein of the novels of Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Susann. The film focuses on Dyan Cannon who is concerned about her husband who goes into hospital and is in coma. She discovers his little black book – and names and dates for his affairs. In the spirit of the ‘liberated’ 60s, she gets revenge on him by having affairs herself.

The film was adapted by skilled comedian and playwright Elaine May so the film is sharp in its dialogue, even though the material is that of soap operas, serials.

The film has a reasonably strong cast and Dyan Cannon was nominated for a Golden Globe as best actress. Some of Preminger’s veteran actors like Burgess Meredith also appear.

While the film is satiric, it is a reflection of the changes of morals and external manifestation of morals in wealthy society in the United States at the period.

1. Was this a trashy film or a serious comedy?

2. If it was trash, why? Plot, characters, treatment, vulgarity,lack of psychological depth?

3. If it was serious, how sharp was its observations on character, New York, how telling its satire?

4. Atmosphere of New York, colour, music, the hospitals, society? An authentic world? A world set up for satire?

5. How important was the plot, in terms of realism, satire and allegory? A response to the realism? A response to the satire? How much difference?

6. The focus on Julia, Diane Canon's performance and style? Would the audience identify with her? Could women identify with her? An interesting character, her marital situation, her reaction, her morals and judgments? A modern American woman?

7. The portrait of Julie aad the indications of this film as a satire on men from a fem¬inine point of view? Was this borne out in any details dialogue, situations, the ridic¬uling of men?

8. The portraying of Julie in her family, with Richard and the children? Her decision about the dress and her behaviour at the party? The point of her imagining the author dancing naked with her? The level of her imagination - vulgarity? Ridiculing men? Her understanding of her husband's affairs, her reaction to him in the hospital, her resent¬ment? The credibility of her reaction with drinking, nude photography? Her response to the doctor and the erotic impulses? The purpose of this character, insight into her reactions, the meaning of her reactions? What was she left with at the end?

9. The portrait of Richard as the average nice American male? His work, friends at the office, the party? Response to his being hospitalized, a seeming victim of illness? Audience knowledge of the truth? Julie's need for revenge on him? Audience response to his death?

10. The portrait of Cawl and his telling the truth to Julie? What kind of person was he? presented sympathetically, attacked? The importance of the session with Julie and his inability to go through with it? A type? His relationship with Miranda? Her relationship with Richard? the comparison of his relationship with Julie and with Miranda? How well delineated and sympathetic a character was Miranda? Credible within this society?

11. The role of Dr Specter, at the hospital, in relationship to Richard, Julia? The sex scene and its notoriety, bad taste,vulgarity, crudeness? To what purpose? The corset?

12. The significance of Bernard Colman, his attitude toward Julie, his role in society, his work, Julie imagining him dancing naked - to what purpose?

13. The portrayal of the other women in themselves, in relationship to Richard, in relationship to Julie? Marcy Burns and her marriage, her reactions? Doris, Molly and their work on the magazines?

14. The purpose of introducing Julie’s mother? Her attitude in society, influence of Julie, moral standards? Object of satire?

15. How important was the delineation of character - in subtlety or in broad sweep? The contrived situation? The truth?

16. What had been achieved by the end of the film?

17. How could the film be seen in the satire on hospitals and medicine genre of 1971? How just was the attack on hospitals? How humourous the satire? Incompetence, danger to life, audience reaction to this in combination with the reaction to the human situations? A symbol of modern American society and relationships, health and danger to death? Has the film anything or nothing to say?