PETULIA
US, 1968, 108 minutes, Colour.
Julie Christie, George C. Scott, Richard Chamberlain, Shirley Knight, Arthur Hill, Joseph Cotten, Kathleen Widdoes, Pippa Scott.
Directed by Richard Lester.
Petulia marks American director, Richard Lester's return to his own country after about a decade's work in England and such successful films as The Knack, A Hard Day's Night, Help, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and How I Won the War. Petulia is not only an interesting psychological comedy about an unusual girl, but a comedy comment on the U.S. way of life in the 60's, If an audience gets on to Lester's wavelength (the film was not a resounding success commercially), it is entertaining and satisfying.
Julie Christie has no trouble in playing the spoilt and eccentric Petulia who wanders in and out of people's lives without having much grasp of the meaning of her own. She is obviously a symbol of the late twentieth century. Archie, her victim, is the ordinary conservative type (good -as doctor, bad - as a failed husband) who serves as the measure for Petulia's 'kookiness', George C. Scott, an excellent actor, invests Archie with a comic, puzzled dignity. The supporting cast is excellent. Richard Chamberlain, who has since emerged as a top actor, shows his ability as Petulia's husband. Joseph Cotten does a cutting caricature of the arrogant American parent. And Shirley Knight acts the part of Archie's wife so well that she may endow the character with more sympathy than is in the screenplay.
Richard Lester uses the techniques acquired from work in television commercials which he displayed so effectively in his earlier films. The sudden and contrasting cross-cutting and unusual angle shots seem like a facet of Petulia's personality and contribute to the 'kooky' mood of the film.
1. What is Petulia about?
2. How did the opening sequence affect your response to the film? - the rich invalids, the swinging party, Petulia and David dancing but not looking at each other, "Highway Safety", Archie wanting to leave?
3. Why did Petulia want to have an affair? Was she serious? She is described as a 'kook. What does this mean?
4. What was your impression of American marriage from the film? Petulia's, Archie's, Polo and Warren, David's parents, Archie's friends?
5. Do you understand Petulia - sense of truth, capacity for love, patronising the child, suffering, eccentric, exhibitionist, poseur? Did she love David at the end? "I'll never forget you, Arnold." The final word, "Archie", What does this mean?
6. Archie - intended to be 'normal'. The audience is able to identify with him and judge Petulia and events from his point of view. He says Petulia has turned him into a man - he likes her and begins to understand her. Was the audience brought to the same position?
7. Why does David behave as he does? listening to David's father speak might help to explain him. Does it?
8. Richard Lester said he was looking at and commenting on the American way of life. Catalogue what is shown of San Francisco as background to the film and judge the effectiveness of Lester's comment - rich invalids, high society swingers, the motel with its T.V. information, long corridors and huge radar key (so much for privacy), hospitals (and the prevalence of nuns and 'nunnish' comment), the homes, the Mendozas, the rows of poor cabin-houses, trains, Alcatraz, the Roller Derby, the Penguin pool, the topless restaurant.
9. What impression did Polo make on you? Was she a good mother? Why did she and Archie break up? Was Warren a better husband for her?
10. David's father - his 'lecture’ to Petulia in the hospital, his tantrums with the nun and his pulling importance and name-dropping? His reactions to Archie? What was Lester attacking in presenting him like this?
11. Can you explain the time-sequence of the events in the film, especially the boy's accident and Petulia's first seeing Archie? What was the effect of having a jumbled time-sequence? Was this 'symbolic' of Petulia's jumbled perception of things?
12. Richard Lester is an inventive director who irritates many people by such devices as time-shuffling, unusual angle-shots and bizarre sequences. This succeeded, far example, in the Beatles’ films. Does it succeed here? Had the film been made 'straight' (direct narrative and fewer camera gimmicks) would the impact of Petulia's behaviour have been the same? Would the film have been better?
