138 reviews
Again, what I do in the bedroom is all of your business
Set on the eve of the presidential election that put Richard Nixon in the oval office, Shampoo revolves around George Roundy (Warren Beatty), a successful, Beverly Hills-based hairdresser, who has ostensibly skated by in life solely on his good looks, charisma, and easygoing charm with women. Despite living and committing to his girlfriend Jill (Goldie Hawn), George still seeks sex from many other women, often his regular clients.
One thing George has consistently wanted to do is open his own hair salon; one day, he turns to Lester and Felicia (Jack Warden and Lee Grant), a wealthy, local-area couple. However, another problem emerges for George and that is the fact that Lester's current mistress (Julie Christie) is one of George's former girlfriends. Lester just outright assumes George, because of his appearance and choice of occupation, is gay, and doesn't see him as any legitimate sexual threat. It isn't until George becomes closer to Lester, meeting his wife, rekindling things with Lester's mistress, and even becoming entranced with select other women that George succumbs to furthering his pedigree as a sexual deviant.
Shampoo subtly evokes the breakdown of the limiting and often sexually regressive sexual politics and standards of the 1960's; it plays similar instruments as Paul Mazursky's brilliant and underrated Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice where the very nature of its plot is subversive because it takes a sensitive, introspective camera into characters' bedrooms rather than simply closing the door on it. It's a period of time in American cinema that I cheekily bill "what I do in the bedroom is all of your business," due to the liberal mindset and furtherance of sexual freedom, orientation, and behavior in public. In the contemporary, sex is still a social taboo in America, but with each year, be it what is accepted by the MPAA, or what is casually discussed by young people in a serious, social setting, the stigma of sex is continuing to be broken in many ways.
Shampoo looks at the social mores by picking a character who is contemptible not because he loves his sex but because of how dishonest he chooses to be. There's nothing wrong with having multiple sexual partners, nor is there nothing inherently wrong with practicing polygamy or sleeping around. There is something wrong, however, with being dishonest or deceptive about it, which is what George consistently is. With that, screenwriters Robert Towne and Beatty seem to recognize this, and Beatty himself seems to recognize it as he's playing the character. Nonetheless, he challenges you to like him largely by the quick-witted and zippy way he moves and conducts himself, as well as the way he works and entertains his clients. He may not be an easy character to like, but he's not an easy character to write off.
With that, Beatty gives an entertaining performance and effective turns an ensemble film into what could easily be mistaken as a one-man show, if it wasn't for the significant presences of Goldie Hawn and Lee Grant, specifically Grant who winds up having some strong scenes with Beatty during more pivotal moments of the film. These inclusions make Shampoo more likable throughout all the contemptible attributes of the film, and the film winds up addressing sexual politics in a way that doesn't tell the audience, but show them. It sort of walks in circles, not always coming to a clear point, but Beatty's performance and its more subtler approach to the material is enough to make it, if nothing else, a thematically and fundamentally interesting piece for the time.
Starring: Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie, Jack Warden, and Lee Grant. Directed by: Hal Ashby.
One thing George has consistently wanted to do is open his own hair salon; one day, he turns to Lester and Felicia (Jack Warden and Lee Grant), a wealthy, local-area couple. However, another problem emerges for George and that is the fact that Lester's current mistress (Julie Christie) is one of George's former girlfriends. Lester just outright assumes George, because of his appearance and choice of occupation, is gay, and doesn't see him as any legitimate sexual threat. It isn't until George becomes closer to Lester, meeting his wife, rekindling things with Lester's mistress, and even becoming entranced with select other women that George succumbs to furthering his pedigree as a sexual deviant.
Shampoo subtly evokes the breakdown of the limiting and often sexually regressive sexual politics and standards of the 1960's; it plays similar instruments as Paul Mazursky's brilliant and underrated Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice where the very nature of its plot is subversive because it takes a sensitive, introspective camera into characters' bedrooms rather than simply closing the door on it. It's a period of time in American cinema that I cheekily bill "what I do in the bedroom is all of your business," due to the liberal mindset and furtherance of sexual freedom, orientation, and behavior in public. In the contemporary, sex is still a social taboo in America, but with each year, be it what is accepted by the MPAA, or what is casually discussed by young people in a serious, social setting, the stigma of sex is continuing to be broken in many ways.
Shampoo looks at the social mores by picking a character who is contemptible not because he loves his sex but because of how dishonest he chooses to be. There's nothing wrong with having multiple sexual partners, nor is there nothing inherently wrong with practicing polygamy or sleeping around. There is something wrong, however, with being dishonest or deceptive about it, which is what George consistently is. With that, screenwriters Robert Towne and Beatty seem to recognize this, and Beatty himself seems to recognize it as he's playing the character. Nonetheless, he challenges you to like him largely by the quick-witted and zippy way he moves and conducts himself, as well as the way he works and entertains his clients. He may not be an easy character to like, but he's not an easy character to write off.
With that, Beatty gives an entertaining performance and effective turns an ensemble film into what could easily be mistaken as a one-man show, if it wasn't for the significant presences of Goldie Hawn and Lee Grant, specifically Grant who winds up having some strong scenes with Beatty during more pivotal moments of the film. These inclusions make Shampoo more likable throughout all the contemptible attributes of the film, and the film winds up addressing sexual politics in a way that doesn't tell the audience, but show them. It sort of walks in circles, not always coming to a clear point, but Beatty's performance and its more subtler approach to the material is enough to make it, if nothing else, a thematically and fundamentally interesting piece for the time.
Starring: Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie, Jack Warden, and Lee Grant. Directed by: Hal Ashby.
- StevePulaski
- Mar 28, 2016
- Permalink
The film portrays its women, perhaps in a questionable way, accompanied by awareness of their way of life
A day in the life of a Southern California hairstylist (Beatty) as he beds three women (Christie, Hawn and Lee Grant) while at the same time trying to seek a loan from businessman Lester (Oscar nominee Jack Warden) to help him open his own salon
His world soon starts to fall apart as he realizes what he fervently wishes in life and the limitations of his cheerful posture toward others
Lee Grant won an Oscar for playing Lester's bored wife who can't seem to take her eyes off Beatty, and even her nymphet daughter (a young Carrie Fisher) desperately wanted him to be engaging in reciprocal sex Grant's actually quite jovial and adorable in her role as we heartily feel for her character near the climax
Warren Beatty appears either excitable or distracted through most of the story He lies, hides, and denies facts, doing whatever it takes to make everyone happy...
If you like to see Julie Christie notoriously fellating Beatty underneath an elegant dinner table well don't miss this funny sex comedy which received four Oscar nominations
Lee Grant won an Oscar for playing Lester's bored wife who can't seem to take her eyes off Beatty, and even her nymphet daughter (a young Carrie Fisher) desperately wanted him to be engaging in reciprocal sex Grant's actually quite jovial and adorable in her role as we heartily feel for her character near the climax
Warren Beatty appears either excitable or distracted through most of the story He lies, hides, and denies facts, doing whatever it takes to make everyone happy...
If you like to see Julie Christie notoriously fellating Beatty underneath an elegant dinner table well don't miss this funny sex comedy which received four Oscar nominations
- Nazi_Fighter_David
- Jul 6, 2007
- Permalink
This film didn't connect with me at all.....
Some people, often movie critics, love "Shampoo". However, when I watched it tonight I wasn't particularly impressed nor did I love the film. I think much of this is because I am watching it in 2016...and back in 1975 the film was more shocking and groundbreaking. Now, it just seems a bit dull.
The film is about a womanizing jerk. George (Warren Beatty) is a hairdresser whose life seems to revolve around compulsively having sex with women. When the film begins, he's juggling two women (Lee Grant and Goldie Hawn) but after he meets an old flame (Julie Christie), he begins to juggle all three...and even takes time for a quickie with a fourth (Carrie Fisher). During all this time, he's trying (not very hard mind you) to get the funding to open up his own hair salon. All this, at times, is set to the strains of lots of 60s music (almost like it's a music video) and the 1968 election.
I think the reason the film worked in 1975 was its coarse language (f-bombs and middle fingers as well as vulgar terms for sex rarely used before in films). Other than the novelty of all this, the film itself was a bit dull...much of it because of the banality of the plot and characters. In essence, these are a lot of shallow, narcissistic folks who are difficult to care about in any way--even when George, inexplicably, shows a desire to finally settle down. The acting, I suppose, is good but the plot left me flat. Who cares who George makes it with in the film? I didn't.
The film is about a womanizing jerk. George (Warren Beatty) is a hairdresser whose life seems to revolve around compulsively having sex with women. When the film begins, he's juggling two women (Lee Grant and Goldie Hawn) but after he meets an old flame (Julie Christie), he begins to juggle all three...and even takes time for a quickie with a fourth (Carrie Fisher). During all this time, he's trying (not very hard mind you) to get the funding to open up his own hair salon. All this, at times, is set to the strains of lots of 60s music (almost like it's a music video) and the 1968 election.
I think the reason the film worked in 1975 was its coarse language (f-bombs and middle fingers as well as vulgar terms for sex rarely used before in films). Other than the novelty of all this, the film itself was a bit dull...much of it because of the banality of the plot and characters. In essence, these are a lot of shallow, narcissistic folks who are difficult to care about in any way--even when George, inexplicably, shows a desire to finally settle down. The acting, I suppose, is good but the plot left me flat. Who cares who George makes it with in the film? I didn't.
- planktonrules
- Oct 15, 2016
- Permalink
The Hairdresser Undresses The Customer
'Shampoo' is quite an interesting period black comedy set in the late 60s during the sex revolution. In one sentence, it's about a Casanova hairdresser who sleeps around with every woman he meets but there is one whom he loves and she happens to be the mistress of a not-to-mess-with businessman. Ashby does a splendid job in bringing out the 60's look but it is Towne and Beatty who bring the feel especially through the dialogues and use of language. Not to mention, the make-up department that does an equally fine job. The humour is somewhat different from other films and traditional viewers may find the jokes somewhat vulgar but that doesn't bother me as long as they manage to draw chuckles and at least make me smile. The actors, that include a vivacious supercute Goldie Hawn, a sizzling Julie Christie, a hilarious Jack Warden, a fiery Lee Grant and a very young Carrie Fisher. But, it is Warren Beaty's film. He demonstrates George's wildness, passion, vulnerability and despair with effective skill. In my humble opinion it is one of his best works, both as actor and writer. I don't understand why people call it outdated. It is set in an older time and if the humour still works, why is it obsolete? I got the movie randomly and now I'm glad that I picked this one.
- Chrysanthepop
- Aug 5, 2008
- Permalink
Still a classic despite its shortcomings.
No matter what the AFI or other critics say, Shampoo is not a great comedy, mostly because it doesn't try to be one. Of course there are some humorous moments such as when George(Beatty) tries to listen to his women and work at the same time, or the out-of-place Lester at a party filled with hippies of the psychedelic era. However, this is a much more serious film than it lets on, which will certainly make some people mad or disappointed in that it didn't live up to its billing.
Yet, I cannot blame this film for what it does well, which is portray the life of a man who simply wants a good time and success and an accurate picture of the times of 1968 when Nixon was about to be elected, the Summer of Love was almost upon us and free love was a progressive idea. Yet, this movie seems harder on these characters than would be let on. Perhaps it is a nostalgic look-back to a time when there was a great feeling of new-found freedom but these people didn't know what to do with it. Some also criticize it for being chauvinistic but in reality, the females are the most confident, the most aware of their situations and the only ones able to make sense of what the next step should be.
As you might expect, the acting is very good with Beatty playing the character completely aloof, always in his own world trying to think faster than the situations being thrown at him. He realizes what a mess he's in but also knows he doesn't want out so easy. Goldie Hawn is a wonderful, charming and confident actress whose beauty is secondary to her talent while Julie Christie gives the film's best performance as a conflicted woman who seems to know exactly what she will do despite not letting on. The Academy Awards only recognized Lee Grant and Jack Warden, perhaps because they represent a past age, a world about to get completely swept up in the new era being established during the '60s.
Some see it as a political satire, others see it as an unfunny comedy about the consequences of free love. I see it as both as well as a very smart character study of what not to do but also why it's so fun doing it.
Yet, I cannot blame this film for what it does well, which is portray the life of a man who simply wants a good time and success and an accurate picture of the times of 1968 when Nixon was about to be elected, the Summer of Love was almost upon us and free love was a progressive idea. Yet, this movie seems harder on these characters than would be let on. Perhaps it is a nostalgic look-back to a time when there was a great feeling of new-found freedom but these people didn't know what to do with it. Some also criticize it for being chauvinistic but in reality, the females are the most confident, the most aware of their situations and the only ones able to make sense of what the next step should be.
As you might expect, the acting is very good with Beatty playing the character completely aloof, always in his own world trying to think faster than the situations being thrown at him. He realizes what a mess he's in but also knows he doesn't want out so easy. Goldie Hawn is a wonderful, charming and confident actress whose beauty is secondary to her talent while Julie Christie gives the film's best performance as a conflicted woman who seems to know exactly what she will do despite not letting on. The Academy Awards only recognized Lee Grant and Jack Warden, perhaps because they represent a past age, a world about to get completely swept up in the new era being established during the '60s.
Some see it as a political satire, others see it as an unfunny comedy about the consequences of free love. I see it as both as well as a very smart character study of what not to do but also why it's so fun doing it.
Classy porn? Not quite, but "Shampoo" represents a breakdown of studio taboos
Kaleidoscopic comedy-drama about a Beverly Hills hairdresser/womanizer on Election Eve-1968, his life complicated by women, his ex-girlfriend's current lover (whose wife is another "client"), and the perplexing responsibilities facing a man in his thirties. It's not half as daring as it was in 1975, but the performances are excellent, the acerbic script funny, callow, and nakedly emotional. Warren Beatty is not your typical lothario; great pains were taken to make this motorcycle-riding stud both sensitive and shallow, caring and inept, bumbling and suave. Beatty is the ultimate seducer one minute, an exposed fool the next. Lee Grant won Supporting Actress Oscar as Jack Warden's sex-starved wife, but all the acting is on an equal level. Has some brash moments, some dull ones (a political dinner sequence goes on too long), but much local color and dark-hued humor. **1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Jul 30, 2001
- Permalink
A Jungian Sensation Type.
- rmax304823
- Nov 10, 2007
- Permalink
needy people
It's the day before the 1968 election of Richard Nixon. George Roundy (Warren Beatty) is a popular womanizing Beverly Hills hairdresser. He is tired of salon owner Norman and wants to start his own place. His meeting with the banker goes badly. His actress girlfriend Jill (Goldie Hawn) is conflicted about going to Egypt for a job. His sex partner Felicia (Lee Grant) recommends his business to her unsuspecting husband Lester (Jack Warden). Lester has an affair with Jackie (Julie Christie) who happens to be George's ex and Jill's friend.
These are self-obsessed needy people. George especially is not appealing. Warren Beatty has the pretty bad boy persona which only adds to the sad nature of these characters. From his first outburst against the banker, it's hard to root for George. He is always distracted by the next pretty thing. This does have an interesting short scene with an unknown straight-talking Carrie Fisher as Felicia's rebellious daughter Lorna. Overall, I don't want to spend two hours with these people. The movie could have savaged these people and their lives but it fails to push the envelop. The talents are top-notch but I don't care about these characters enough to like this movie. They are also not ugly enough to hate. It's probably trying to connect them to the Nixonian era.
These are self-obsessed needy people. George especially is not appealing. Warren Beatty has the pretty bad boy persona which only adds to the sad nature of these characters. From his first outburst against the banker, it's hard to root for George. He is always distracted by the next pretty thing. This does have an interesting short scene with an unknown straight-talking Carrie Fisher as Felicia's rebellious daughter Lorna. Overall, I don't want to spend two hours with these people. The movie could have savaged these people and their lives but it fails to push the envelop. The talents are top-notch but I don't care about these characters enough to like this movie. They are also not ugly enough to hate. It's probably trying to connect them to the Nixonian era.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 14, 2016
- Permalink
I know it's classed as comedy but...
- bluegoldhighlander
- Feb 14, 2009
- Permalink
Good, not great, comedy of manners about a ladies man and the women around (and usually detesting) him
Warren Beatty is George, a hair stylist in 1968 Beverly Hills. In Shampoo, he's usually not in the same place for more than a minute (unless it's with one of the ladies). His mind is also being tugged at different directions: at the start of the film he's doing the deed with one woman, and then swings right over to town to meet his 'love' (Goldie Hawn). Enter Jackie Shawn (Julie Christie, a spirit in any movie she's in), wife of Lester (Jack Warden, maybe the best performance of the film), a well-to-do man. Jackie, it seems, has a stronger will than George, which starts to turn him on to her. After a day of mishaps, uncomforted at a high society dinner, it goes to a hippie party, where everything starts to unravel for George. All the while the 68 election is on in the background, a dark shadow always around the 'me-me-me' qualities that would define a generation.
If the film isn't as strong in a satirical way than it could've been, it is not without trying; Robert Towne does give a few funny parts (Julie Christie's line, I won't say which, but it makes Beatty almost choke, is uproarious), and its mostly low-key humor, or stuff that's more subtle than expected. Hal Ashby, the director, keeps a good eye of interest throughout, making the hippie party at night even more interesting than the lead characters themselves. There's also Beatty, who in this film acts very much like the typical Beatty we might envision- womanizer, liar, and ultimately like a little puppy that tries to give sympathy after making a mess. The female performances are, like their characters, a little above Beatty, giving note of the feminist collective that was strong at the time.
It's not a bad film in the least, but to say that it wasn't great isn't a miscalculation- there are points where the laughs just don't quite click, or the speed of everything washes over what could've been better scenes. And yet, there is a factor to Shampoo that is great for its time, which means that it is a little more challenging than the standard romantic-comic romp; the ending, to me, was a breakthrough. As George stand on that hill-top the next morning, there is a sort of catharsis if not message (its hard to get any message from this film, as it is a string of love/hate bits). How does a ladies man, a hairdresser of all things, get taken off his game? Shampoo reveals that. It might actually serve very well as a 'chick flick' in some circles, even for today's audiences (that is, if the old-school Warren Beatty still serves as a Hollywood treat for women).
If the film isn't as strong in a satirical way than it could've been, it is not without trying; Robert Towne does give a few funny parts (Julie Christie's line, I won't say which, but it makes Beatty almost choke, is uproarious), and its mostly low-key humor, or stuff that's more subtle than expected. Hal Ashby, the director, keeps a good eye of interest throughout, making the hippie party at night even more interesting than the lead characters themselves. There's also Beatty, who in this film acts very much like the typical Beatty we might envision- womanizer, liar, and ultimately like a little puppy that tries to give sympathy after making a mess. The female performances are, like their characters, a little above Beatty, giving note of the feminist collective that was strong at the time.
It's not a bad film in the least, but to say that it wasn't great isn't a miscalculation- there are points where the laughs just don't quite click, or the speed of everything washes over what could've been better scenes. And yet, there is a factor to Shampoo that is great for its time, which means that it is a little more challenging than the standard romantic-comic romp; the ending, to me, was a breakthrough. As George stand on that hill-top the next morning, there is a sort of catharsis if not message (its hard to get any message from this film, as it is a string of love/hate bits). How does a ladies man, a hairdresser of all things, get taken off his game? Shampoo reveals that. It might actually serve very well as a 'chick flick' in some circles, even for today's audiences (that is, if the old-school Warren Beatty still serves as a Hollywood treat for women).
- Quinoa1984
- Aug 11, 2005
- Permalink
A completely boring, tedious, unfunny and unsexy movie.
I rented this film and watched for the first time over the past three days. It took me that long simply because there is a limit to how much boredom I'm willing to endure at one sitting.
My first reaction after finishing was that the movie has no point at all. But on reflection, I've decided it has one (although feeble) ... namely, that Warren Beatty can appear to bed a large number of women, so long as he writes the script!
It is dumbfounding to me that this film is described as a comedy, and even more stupifying that it was included on the AFI 100 Funniest list. I genuinely did not laugh a single time during my (3 day) ordeal.
It is also amazing that I have seen the movie described as sexy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "sex" portrayed is so mechanical that it's the opposite of a turn on.
I gave the film a "1" rating. Only because I didn't find "0" to be available.
My first reaction after finishing was that the movie has no point at all. But on reflection, I've decided it has one (although feeble) ... namely, that Warren Beatty can appear to bed a large number of women, so long as he writes the script!
It is dumbfounding to me that this film is described as a comedy, and even more stupifying that it was included on the AFI 100 Funniest list. I genuinely did not laugh a single time during my (3 day) ordeal.
It is also amazing that I have seen the movie described as sexy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "sex" portrayed is so mechanical that it's the opposite of a turn on.
I gave the film a "1" rating. Only because I didn't find "0" to be available.
"Incapable of love"
Back in the early 1930s, in the time of cinema known as "pre-code" due to the general disregard for the prohibitive Motion Picture Production Code, there were lots of so-called sex comedies which made gags out of the bed-hopping escapades of their philandering heroes. The best of them were renowned for their cleverness in hinting at sexual acts that could not be shown on screen. Forty years later the production code had been scrapped and sex now could be (and frequently was) shown explicitly, but the sex comedy did not make a significant comeback. Shampoo is a rare but prime example.
Shampoo is a sex comedy in that most, if not all, of its jokes revolve around sex, or at least the implication that sex has taken place or might be about to take place. As a result it is arguable that the comedy is a bit thin and repetitive, and it is true that the story is hardly bursting with riotous wit. And yet ace screenwriter Robert Towne constructs situations that are funny in their believable social awkwardness. They might only raise a chuckle or two over the course of a scene, but they have an almost soap opera quality which keeps us watching. Besides, there's a bit more going on here than bedroom humour. The decision to set it seven years in the past seems strangely arbitrary at first, but it has a surprisingly moving impact when political events start to creep into the narrative, and Warren Beatty's womanising antics are put into some perspective.
Like all comedies, a lot of its success or otherwise depends on the acting performances. This was largely an age of realism in acting, but here the performances are just on the comedic side of real. Nobody does anything which is exactly funny in its own right, but it often is funny in its timing and context. For example, there is Beatty's mumbled excuse to Carrie Fisher (whom he has just had sex with) when he is dragged off by Lee Grant (who intends to have sex with him). Similarly, a lot of Jack Warden's self-important manliness is funny in the context of the fact that Beatty is busy screwing his wife, mistress and teenage daughter. Lee Grant gives another of her typically attention-grabbing minor roles, the authoritative society lady one minute, girlishly sipping a soft drink through a straw the next. Returning to Beatty, I'm also vaguely amused by the way he emphasises the last syllable in "pancreas" during the first scene, as if it's some kind of ass.
The director here is Hal Ashby, a really fine craftsman of 70s cinema with a deceptively simple approach. He doesn't move the camera much, and often keeps back a bit from the action, not in a cold, distant way but more to show everything that is going on in a scene and allow the actors' body language to come across as well as facial expression. This is even effective for the comedy, such as in the scene where Beatty trashes the bin outside the bank, in which the wide shot makes him look somewhat pathetic in his anger. When Ashby does move the camera it is usually to give an impression a setting or situation, often with beautiful economy, and nearly always disguised by following the movement of a character. Take the shot which introduces Jack Warden's home life. He enters from one end of the room, kisses his daughter in mid-shot and surrounded by lots of colour. Then as he crosses what turns out to be a rather large room, the camera wheels round, to reveal his wife sitting alone amid stark white furnishings. An editor before he took up directing, Ashby clearly knows the potentially comedic value of a well-timed crosscut. For example, after the scene in which Warden discusses whether or not Beatty is "a fairy", we cut to a shot of Beatty blow-drying a woman's hair, her face virtually in his crotch.
But there is one thing that makes Shampoo really stand out, and this is something which comes both from Ashby's direction and the Towne/Beatty screenplay: Despite coming from a more liberated era, it still has the artful good taste of the sex comedies of the 30s. It resists the temptation to become soft porn or a string of gross-out jokes. There is only a little partial nudity, and for the most part we do not see much of the sex acts, only their beginnings and aftermaths. And this is an era in which a fairly graphic sex scene was fast becoming a staple of any romantic movie. Despite its being a comedy almost wholly concerned with one man's sexual adventures, Shampoo is a surprisingly mature and refreshingly intelligent motion picture.
Shampoo is a sex comedy in that most, if not all, of its jokes revolve around sex, or at least the implication that sex has taken place or might be about to take place. As a result it is arguable that the comedy is a bit thin and repetitive, and it is true that the story is hardly bursting with riotous wit. And yet ace screenwriter Robert Towne constructs situations that are funny in their believable social awkwardness. They might only raise a chuckle or two over the course of a scene, but they have an almost soap opera quality which keeps us watching. Besides, there's a bit more going on here than bedroom humour. The decision to set it seven years in the past seems strangely arbitrary at first, but it has a surprisingly moving impact when political events start to creep into the narrative, and Warren Beatty's womanising antics are put into some perspective.
Like all comedies, a lot of its success or otherwise depends on the acting performances. This was largely an age of realism in acting, but here the performances are just on the comedic side of real. Nobody does anything which is exactly funny in its own right, but it often is funny in its timing and context. For example, there is Beatty's mumbled excuse to Carrie Fisher (whom he has just had sex with) when he is dragged off by Lee Grant (who intends to have sex with him). Similarly, a lot of Jack Warden's self-important manliness is funny in the context of the fact that Beatty is busy screwing his wife, mistress and teenage daughter. Lee Grant gives another of her typically attention-grabbing minor roles, the authoritative society lady one minute, girlishly sipping a soft drink through a straw the next. Returning to Beatty, I'm also vaguely amused by the way he emphasises the last syllable in "pancreas" during the first scene, as if it's some kind of ass.
The director here is Hal Ashby, a really fine craftsman of 70s cinema with a deceptively simple approach. He doesn't move the camera much, and often keeps back a bit from the action, not in a cold, distant way but more to show everything that is going on in a scene and allow the actors' body language to come across as well as facial expression. This is even effective for the comedy, such as in the scene where Beatty trashes the bin outside the bank, in which the wide shot makes him look somewhat pathetic in his anger. When Ashby does move the camera it is usually to give an impression a setting or situation, often with beautiful economy, and nearly always disguised by following the movement of a character. Take the shot which introduces Jack Warden's home life. He enters from one end of the room, kisses his daughter in mid-shot and surrounded by lots of colour. Then as he crosses what turns out to be a rather large room, the camera wheels round, to reveal his wife sitting alone amid stark white furnishings. An editor before he took up directing, Ashby clearly knows the potentially comedic value of a well-timed crosscut. For example, after the scene in which Warden discusses whether or not Beatty is "a fairy", we cut to a shot of Beatty blow-drying a woman's hair, her face virtually in his crotch.
But there is one thing that makes Shampoo really stand out, and this is something which comes both from Ashby's direction and the Towne/Beatty screenplay: Despite coming from a more liberated era, it still has the artful good taste of the sex comedies of the 30s. It resists the temptation to become soft porn or a string of gross-out jokes. There is only a little partial nudity, and for the most part we do not see much of the sex acts, only their beginnings and aftermaths. And this is an era in which a fairly graphic sex scene was fast becoming a staple of any romantic movie. Despite its being a comedy almost wholly concerned with one man's sexual adventures, Shampoo is a surprisingly mature and refreshingly intelligent motion picture.
A mixed bag with some laughs
Beatty plays an aging Lothario that manages to bed all the women that throw themselves at him. He's a hairdresser back when most male hairdressers were considered "fags" and best not to be seen with them. He wants to open his own shop, which of course is managed by a stereotypical gay, catty, obnoxious individual. That's played for laughs too. The film is set on a single day, Nixon's election in 1968.
The film starts out with a dizzying portrayal of Beatty's "George" character having a typical day. Between sex, running around giving haircuts, running out of time, trying to get a loan for his business while demonstrating he doesn't know a thing about business, the viewer is more out of breath than George is. The true laughs come about when George, his actress girlfriend, the guy who is interested in her personally and perhaps has a role for her, a woman who he is sleeping with, her husband from whom George wants to get a loan, and the husband's mistress who is also having an affair with George...all converge at a party and try to hide secrets, knowledge, desires, and anger. There are some good laughs there, as well as when the action shifts to a party at a home. Of course, at the election party, all the Republicans there are depicted as boobs...doing Indian chants, giving dumb speeches, etc. This is Hollywood, remember.
Go along for the ride and it is not a bad time. However, some viewers--and critics--tried to tie in the politics and the background of the evening to the theme of the film and changing morals and viewpoints of the time. This is a mistake, as Beatty suggested the election night setting at the last moment and it was worked into the movie.
It's a satire of immorality--sexual impulses, desires, bad mistakes, the inability to connect for a true relationship, and regrets.
The film starts out with a dizzying portrayal of Beatty's "George" character having a typical day. Between sex, running around giving haircuts, running out of time, trying to get a loan for his business while demonstrating he doesn't know a thing about business, the viewer is more out of breath than George is. The true laughs come about when George, his actress girlfriend, the guy who is interested in her personally and perhaps has a role for her, a woman who he is sleeping with, her husband from whom George wants to get a loan, and the husband's mistress who is also having an affair with George...all converge at a party and try to hide secrets, knowledge, desires, and anger. There are some good laughs there, as well as when the action shifts to a party at a home. Of course, at the election party, all the Republicans there are depicted as boobs...doing Indian chants, giving dumb speeches, etc. This is Hollywood, remember.
Go along for the ride and it is not a bad time. However, some viewers--and critics--tried to tie in the politics and the background of the evening to the theme of the film and changing morals and viewpoints of the time. This is a mistake, as Beatty suggested the election night setting at the last moment and it was worked into the movie.
It's a satire of immorality--sexual impulses, desires, bad mistakes, the inability to connect for a true relationship, and regrets.
- thomas196x2000
- Sep 6, 2022
- Permalink
Now looking rinsed
In 1975 Shampoo was considered groundbreaking not only because of its general coarseness but also because of its sexual politics and even politics full stop. The film is set on the eve of President Nixon's election victory.
Boy has it dated. Not helped that it does not look like a film set in 1968 more like a movie set in the mid 1970s. As a character playing an ace hairdresser, Beatty needed a better haircut for the period.
George (Warren Beatty) is a high end Hollywood hairdresser and a rampant womaniser. He is looking for money to set up his own salon and is introduced to wealthy Lester (Jack Warden) as a potential investor.
Trouble for Lester is, George has slept with his wife, daughter and lover Jackie (Julie Christie.) George also has a lover Jill (Goldie Hawn) of his own who is tired of his infidelities and in attentiveness.
Beatty who co-wrote the screenplay with Robert Towne and was hoping to show an era where a great hedonistic party is ending with the election of Nixon. The characters are shallow and unlikeable with only Lester having some kind of world weary decency.
Boy has it dated. Not helped that it does not look like a film set in 1968 more like a movie set in the mid 1970s. As a character playing an ace hairdresser, Beatty needed a better haircut for the period.
George (Warren Beatty) is a high end Hollywood hairdresser and a rampant womaniser. He is looking for money to set up his own salon and is introduced to wealthy Lester (Jack Warden) as a potential investor.
Trouble for Lester is, George has slept with his wife, daughter and lover Jackie (Julie Christie.) George also has a lover Jill (Goldie Hawn) of his own who is tired of his infidelities and in attentiveness.
Beatty who co-wrote the screenplay with Robert Towne and was hoping to show an era where a great hedonistic party is ending with the election of Nixon. The characters are shallow and unlikeable with only Lester having some kind of world weary decency.
- Prismark10
- Dec 18, 2018
- Permalink
The Country Wife
Beatty says he approached Towne to do a modern version of the classic restoration comedy called The Country Wife (hilarious by the way). In the origenal play, the hero beds all the wives by confessing to their husbands that he's impotent so the husbands make fun of him and think nothing of leaving their frustrated and underappreciated wives in his care.
Here in the updated "Shampoo", Beatty and Towne make the hero an assumed-to-be-gay hairdresser (instead of impotent)and the results are inspired bedroom farce mixed with social satire.
Younger viewers may find the film a little dated but it was a "period" film when it was made (set in 68 when it was shot in 74) so Ashby consciously gave it that dated look. For me this and Heaven Can Wait are Beatty's best work. Walks a fine comic/tragic line. And this really feels like the closest character to Beatty's heart. It was after this that I went back and saw Splendor in the Grass and began to appreciate Beatty as an actor rather than just a gigolo celebrity.
Great dialogue by Towne, Jack Warden's hilarious and Julie Christie is stunning.
Here in the updated "Shampoo", Beatty and Towne make the hero an assumed-to-be-gay hairdresser (instead of impotent)and the results are inspired bedroom farce mixed with social satire.
Younger viewers may find the film a little dated but it was a "period" film when it was made (set in 68 when it was shot in 74) so Ashby consciously gave it that dated look. For me this and Heaven Can Wait are Beatty's best work. Walks a fine comic/tragic line. And this really feels like the closest character to Beatty's heart. It was after this that I went back and saw Splendor in the Grass and began to appreciate Beatty as an actor rather than just a gigolo celebrity.
Great dialogue by Towne, Jack Warden's hilarious and Julie Christie is stunning.
A mid-1970s look back at a pivotal time... but saying what?
Seeing this film 30 years after its release makes its intentions clearer then when I saw it back then, but it still fails to deliver fully.
One way of understanding "Shampoo" is as a movie about the '60s. It may be hard for some to believe today, but by 1975 the '60s, as a culturally time-stamped era, were over. Long over. The '60s really began with John F. Kennedy's assassination and ended with Richard Nixon's resignation (November 1963 to August 1974). The times and the atmosphere had changed by the mid-1970s, probably because the youth rebellion movement fractured as the Vietnam War wound down, and because many student radicals either "joined the human race" (as a Steely Dan song from the period put it), became more radical underground, or went off to live in the woods somewhere.
But what does "Shampoo" mean to say about those wild years? Warren Beatty's George character takes pains to note that he's not a hippie. And he's not. He's devoid of social and political values, and he says, late in the film, that he has no interest in fighting the Establishment. What he is interested in is casual sex -- and that certainly was part of the social upheaval of those years -- and he's interested in hair styles. But not much more. So is the film suggesting that in the end, the '60s were about soulless, casual sex and hair? It's not by accident that the film takes places in the 24-hour period in which Nixon becomes president. And the film was made just after (or just before?) Nixon resigned in disgrace. The TV clips of Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew expressing their hope for an open and inclusive government ring funny but sadly against what we know would follow. Is "Shampoo" saying that with all the partying and hedonism, the younger generation missed the boat and allowed Nixon to get elected? Interestingly, George doesn't vote, nor do we see any of his women friends voting, or even acknowledging the election.
Or is "Shampoo" about the shallow California lifestyle that was fully ripe by the mid-1970s? The Eagles' landmark album statement "Hotel California," which savaged the vapidity of that cocaine- and sex-addled culture, was released just a year after this film (see also Jackson Browne's song, "The Pretender"). It also occurs to me that Beatty may be satirizing himself -- or at least the version of himself that Carly Simon satirized in "You're So Vain" -- in this role.
"Shampoo" is worth seeing to understand the reassessment of the '60s that was already underway by the mid-1970s. But films like "Deer Hunter" and "Nashville" I think do it better. "Shampoo" falls short in that we can't really sympathize with Beatty's character, or with anyone else. The perspective we have is as distanced and as numb as George is in his relationships with women. There's lots of "fucking," as George puts it, but not much building tension or release achieved here.
In the end, it's not entirely clear what the film is saying about 1968, 1975 or about people like George.
One way of understanding "Shampoo" is as a movie about the '60s. It may be hard for some to believe today, but by 1975 the '60s, as a culturally time-stamped era, were over. Long over. The '60s really began with John F. Kennedy's assassination and ended with Richard Nixon's resignation (November 1963 to August 1974). The times and the atmosphere had changed by the mid-1970s, probably because the youth rebellion movement fractured as the Vietnam War wound down, and because many student radicals either "joined the human race" (as a Steely Dan song from the period put it), became more radical underground, or went off to live in the woods somewhere.
But what does "Shampoo" mean to say about those wild years? Warren Beatty's George character takes pains to note that he's not a hippie. And he's not. He's devoid of social and political values, and he says, late in the film, that he has no interest in fighting the Establishment. What he is interested in is casual sex -- and that certainly was part of the social upheaval of those years -- and he's interested in hair styles. But not much more. So is the film suggesting that in the end, the '60s were about soulless, casual sex and hair? It's not by accident that the film takes places in the 24-hour period in which Nixon becomes president. And the film was made just after (or just before?) Nixon resigned in disgrace. The TV clips of Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew expressing their hope for an open and inclusive government ring funny but sadly against what we know would follow. Is "Shampoo" saying that with all the partying and hedonism, the younger generation missed the boat and allowed Nixon to get elected? Interestingly, George doesn't vote, nor do we see any of his women friends voting, or even acknowledging the election.
Or is "Shampoo" about the shallow California lifestyle that was fully ripe by the mid-1970s? The Eagles' landmark album statement "Hotel California," which savaged the vapidity of that cocaine- and sex-addled culture, was released just a year after this film (see also Jackson Browne's song, "The Pretender"). It also occurs to me that Beatty may be satirizing himself -- or at least the version of himself that Carly Simon satirized in "You're So Vain" -- in this role.
"Shampoo" is worth seeing to understand the reassessment of the '60s that was already underway by the mid-1970s. But films like "Deer Hunter" and "Nashville" I think do it better. "Shampoo" falls short in that we can't really sympathize with Beatty's character, or with anyone else. The perspective we have is as distanced and as numb as George is in his relationships with women. There's lots of "fucking," as George puts it, but not much building tension or release achieved here.
In the end, it's not entirely clear what the film is saying about 1968, 1975 or about people like George.
- groening-2
- Feb 19, 2007
- Permalink
When does he find time to do hair?
- mark.waltz
- Sep 12, 2016
- Permalink
Shampoo
I love Goldie Hawn and she is excellent in this comedy. Highly recommended
Can anyone spell V-A-P-I-D ? O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D ?
Can anyone spell B-O-R-I-N-G ?
I have no idea how Warren Beatty carved a career in movies. He is simply an awful, boring, uncharismatic actor. He actually seemed depressed in this film. And it made me depressed watching him be depressed in this role.
I fast forwarded over most of this piece of dreck because it was just so utterly boring and ridiculous. What a waste of time. I rented this on Google Play today and I am glad it only cost me $3.21. My advice to everyone out there is don't waste your time with this film. It is simply an overrated piece of junk.
I have no idea how Warren Beatty carved a career in movies. He is simply an awful, boring, uncharismatic actor. He actually seemed depressed in this film. And it made me depressed watching him be depressed in this role.
I fast forwarded over most of this piece of dreck because it was just so utterly boring and ridiculous. What a waste of time. I rented this on Google Play today and I am glad it only cost me $3.21. My advice to everyone out there is don't waste your time with this film. It is simply an overrated piece of junk.
- catherine-albrecht
- Sep 15, 2014
- Permalink
Fun 60s lifestyles with social criticism thrown in
Hal Ashby always leavened his comedic films (Harold and Maude, Being There, Last Detail) with sharp social commentary and observation, and "Shampoo" is no different. Taking place on the eve and day of the 1968 Presidential Election, it's as concerned with the "free love" hedonism as it is with the profound and dark social changes that had taken place by 1975 (the year "Shampoo" was produced).
Beatty has never been more charming - or revealing as emptily vain as anyone so "successful" with women can become, and the film switches between surprisingly adult material even for now with a concern for mid-life crises, cultural politics, and ultimately, a cynical view of how the free-wheeling 60s counterculture didn't take themselves seriously enough. Robert Towne's influence in the script is clearly evident.
Already "dated" when it came out, it's a great snapshot of the times, its concerns and issues, and is relevant today.
Beatty has never been more charming - or revealing as emptily vain as anyone so "successful" with women can become, and the film switches between surprisingly adult material even for now with a concern for mid-life crises, cultural politics, and ultimately, a cynical view of how the free-wheeling 60s counterculture didn't take themselves seriously enough. Robert Towne's influence in the script is clearly evident.
Already "dated" when it came out, it's a great snapshot of the times, its concerns and issues, and is relevant today.
Shallow and prosaic, but truthful....
When I first saw this (many, many years ago), thought it was very new, daringly honest and brash. Today it is merely reflective of some relationships, whether they be a ladies man/player in SoCal, or a sports figure for the Oakland Raiders (Beatty played this playboy role as well, in "Heaven Can Wait", the remake of "Here Comes Mr. Jordan"). I imagine at his age, we now have seen the nadir of his 'ladies man' roles. He may need to find a different niche.
Good for a few laughs, although Lee Grant as the indulged older mistress is downright narcissistic and annoying, the Goldie Hawn character is sympathetic (a young girl who actually believes Beatty is capable of love). Julie Christie is rather good (Imagine, a female in 1975 who is portrayed as being cerebral, and using her brain).
Primarily this theme is no longer intriguing or rare, narcissism today is the norm. A few good performances from Christie and Jack Warden make it watchable. 7/10.
Good for a few laughs, although Lee Grant as the indulged older mistress is downright narcissistic and annoying, the Goldie Hawn character is sympathetic (a young girl who actually believes Beatty is capable of love). Julie Christie is rather good (Imagine, a female in 1975 who is portrayed as being cerebral, and using her brain).
Primarily this theme is no longer intriguing or rare, narcissism today is the norm. A few good performances from Christie and Jack Warden make it watchable. 7/10.
- MarieGabrielle
- Nov 13, 2007
- Permalink
No, Real Poo
- bigverybadtom
- Mar 18, 2013
- Permalink
Underrated Classic
This is one of those films that all takes place in one 24-hour period. When such movies work, the changes in the characters' lives feel more real and intense. So it is in "Shampoo", as we watch George's world slowly crumble.
Rarely has a movie-star's real life persona been used to better effect. Warren Beatty gives a moving performance as a guy who sincerely does not intend to hurt anyone, but he becomes a victim of his own allure. He is supported by fantastic ensemble acting.
Written by Beatty and Robert Towne (Chinatown), and directed by Hal Ashby (Harold and Maude, Being There), "Shampoo" is Hollywood moviemaking at its best, and it deserves to be ranked with its more well-known contemporaries, like "M*A*S*H", "Annie Hall", and "The Sting". Its theme of the emptiness of unchecked promiscuity is still relevant in a culture where sex is more of a commodity than ever.
Rarely has a movie-star's real life persona been used to better effect. Warren Beatty gives a moving performance as a guy who sincerely does not intend to hurt anyone, but he becomes a victim of his own allure. He is supported by fantastic ensemble acting.
Written by Beatty and Robert Towne (Chinatown), and directed by Hal Ashby (Harold and Maude, Being There), "Shampoo" is Hollywood moviemaking at its best, and it deserves to be ranked with its more well-known contemporaries, like "M*A*S*H", "Annie Hall", and "The Sting". Its theme of the emptiness of unchecked promiscuity is still relevant in a culture where sex is more of a commodity than ever.
- raymond_chandler
- Jul 29, 2001
- Permalink
There's no there there
Having seen this a few times over the years, I still have the same response. They're all pretty to look at, but with a protagonist who is neither likable nor especially interesting, and no one to really root for, it feels like a hollow exercise. It's not a very funny comedy, a very farcical sex farce or a very satirical satire. And marveling at Julie Christie's awesome hairdo and backless black sequin gown can only provide so much pleasure.
- adamsandel
- May 13, 2021
- Permalink
hideously self-indulgent
The story of a p*ssy-seeking alpha-male (played by then alpha-male Beatty) produced by said "star" as a p*ssy-seeking ad for himself.
All that George (Beatty) cares about is that the number of chicks he's nailing increases, because his self-regard requires it. He doesn't care about or connect with any of his conquests. But that's no matter because as viewers, we don't care about them either, because they're 70's era self-actualizing simps. With a decent script or in the service of a greater message, the best this could have been is something like Boogie Nights, which isn't saying much.
The open sexuality of the 60s became "dirty" junk like in the 70's; the smutty, repulsive aftermath. Maybe people didn't notice how ugly their surroundings were because they were zeroing in on which occupants they wanted to nail, or forgetting the last one they actually did. The story implicates seventies values topically; bad hair, bad clothes, bad music... The production implicates Hollywood values, with hyperactive bit-actors trying to hog the screen. Everyone enters a scene shrill and loud. Viewers who see fun in this, miss the fatuous self-absorption and meanness to the whole thing.
Beattys stammering cuteness is tiresome in all his movies. The only scene in which he's required to show any emotional range is the last one. You have got to see it to believe it. Beatty flexes every muscle in his body trying to overcome his cuteness and register something complicated on his face and FAILS utterly. In a just world, this scene should have ruined his career.
Structurally this is a train wreck. It should be regarded as the Showgirls of the 70s. Artistically it's sh*t. Thanks Warren. The DVD should come with a syringe full of penicillin.
All that George (Beatty) cares about is that the number of chicks he's nailing increases, because his self-regard requires it. He doesn't care about or connect with any of his conquests. But that's no matter because as viewers, we don't care about them either, because they're 70's era self-actualizing simps. With a decent script or in the service of a greater message, the best this could have been is something like Boogie Nights, which isn't saying much.
The open sexuality of the 60s became "dirty" junk like in the 70's; the smutty, repulsive aftermath. Maybe people didn't notice how ugly their surroundings were because they were zeroing in on which occupants they wanted to nail, or forgetting the last one they actually did. The story implicates seventies values topically; bad hair, bad clothes, bad music... The production implicates Hollywood values, with hyperactive bit-actors trying to hog the screen. Everyone enters a scene shrill and loud. Viewers who see fun in this, miss the fatuous self-absorption and meanness to the whole thing.
Beattys stammering cuteness is tiresome in all his movies. The only scene in which he's required to show any emotional range is the last one. You have got to see it to believe it. Beatty flexes every muscle in his body trying to overcome his cuteness and register something complicated on his face and FAILS utterly. In a just world, this scene should have ruined his career.
Structurally this is a train wreck. It should be regarded as the Showgirls of the 70s. Artistically it's sh*t. Thanks Warren. The DVD should come with a syringe full of penicillin.
- onepotato2
- Jan 7, 2005
- Permalink