They Might Be Giants (1971)

Gripping story with well-crafted characters

good back-story, and good acting

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

George C Scott is Justin Playfair who has believed himself to be Sherlock Holmes since the death of his wife, his brother wants to section him so to get his hands on the money Justin controls. Enter psychiatric doctor Mildred Watson....Effectively a companion piece to another James Goldman scripted romantic light drama Robin and Marian (1976) They Might Be Giants is a quirky story about loners, the lonely and love. Scott and Joanne Woodward (as Dr Watson) are both terrific esp in the later scenes as the relationship moves to the personal and Watson gives up her rational self for love and imagination.There is simply no way any major studio would make a film of this nature with the equivalent actors (if you could find them!) in 2015. Its too offbeat, too obtuse though one could imagine the best of cable channels giving this type of material a chance.Wiki notes the film is available in a couple of different edits - the version I saw on More4 (UK) was the 88 minute edit with the full supermarket scene included in a later version missing.

The movie is full of charm and wistfulness. So many people living in their own world. Admittedly a bit of a comic stretch in some of the scenes, the ending struck me emotionally. What it seemed to say was It is better to die on your feet with your own sense of reality than die on your knees with the reality forced on you by others. And the ending is a composite of that and the true reality of imminent death. That last scene allowed me to take the spiritual (if you will) content of the movie above what went before. A small gem hidden in the earth.Scott and Woodward hold up their end as far as the acting goes. Jack Gilford is miscast; Lester Rawlins speaks his lines woodenly; Al Lewis reminded me of Peter Laurie at the end of his career walking his shark around the swimming pool on a lead; Ron Weyand could pass for a Hassidic Jew with a southern accent in his part. It puzzles me often that supporting actors can come across so badly while the costars rise to the occasion. Yet other actors playing bit parts are quite entertaining. At any rate, if you can swallow some of the acting and get into the movie, it can hold you with its subliminal sense of other-worldliness.

I was a projectionist once, and I showed this film when it had its theatrical release. One aspect of being a projectionist back then was that you got to see certain parts of the films over and over, to the point that you not only could relate scenes and repeat lines, but you began to understand the films in a deeper way than the audiences.The previous reviews miss enough that I feel compelled to write a review of the film. First, the same author wrote "Lion In Winter," so it is pretty obvious he knew the craft. Second, this started as a London stage play, and according to the admittedly loopy Wikipedia, he didn't like the production and stopped further attempts at mounting the play.Once you take the concept that it is a stage play adapted for film, some of the oddities of this production become more apparent. Much like the concept expressed in "Shakespeare in Love," where everyone expects and looks forward to the dog in a play, movie audiences expect a romantic relationship and a happy ending where good triumphs over evil, the Hayes code is satisfied, and insipid movies are safe for kids to watch.The intent of the original work is darker than that, but in order to perceive that you have to look underneath the surface, much as Holmes would do.Start with the title "They Might Be Giants." Yes, it is an homage to Cervantes, but it is a double-entendre as well. In ignoring the dross of everyday life and focusing on existential topics to the point that the world calls them crazy, the "mentally ill" just might be the giants of humanity, exploring the boundaries of who we are as humans and good and evil. Certainly the Justin (justice) Playfair (play fair) character turning into a Holmsian sleuth represents that. The couple who shut themselves off from humanity for years and were very happy is another exploration of the concepts under consideration. It is only when Holmes goes looking for evil in their world that it suddenly appears.Who is to say that a person who believes himself to be a silent film star isn't, in some small measure, that person? The entire concept of empathy, as well as the concept of method acting, both require "getting into the head" of the character. Do we not all have a bit of Scarlett Pimpernel in us somewhere? Is expressing that so bad that we need to relegate our lives to being nebbish librarians forever in our existence? On the subject of the varying versions - Many years ago, I worked in a couple of television stations. The movies we showed came in on 16mm film and one of my jobs was to cut the films to fit the time slot allotted. I learned never to trust a televised version of a film as being accurate to the intention of the director. Networks modify film as well, and in some cases they have access to ADD footage as well as clip it.*Major spoiler here* - The "enigmatic" scene at the end is only enigmatic if you are blind to the modern version of the Hayes code and the inevitable studio interventions which bow to the low common denominators of "How can we maximize the money this makes?" and "Will it upset the audience?" Start with the supermarket scene and descent into "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" slapstick. The duality is that the author did want to show how, when confronted, the "establishment" is a group of enforcers of the status quo, some dressed in enforcer (police) uniforms, and some masquerading as those who would help you become sane, while wielding rubber hoses if you don't follow their instruction. At the same time, the studio wanted a feel good slapstick to lighten up a film with an underlying dark theme. Ergo: chaos in a market, where the materialism of the enforcers of status-quo becomes their temptation and undoing. The most powerful figure in the scene is reduced to saying "My wife will kill me if I don't take advantage of this bargain." The end scene is the most dark of all. Once the reality of the world Holmes has been fighting is shown to be a farce, he has nowhere to go. Death is the inevitable conclusion. The tunnel in Central Park is again double entendre and metaphorical. Tunnel - the passage into the unknown. Tunnel - the accepting of a confined world where there is no escape from whatever comes towards you. There are others that I'll let you deduce for yourself. However... the tunnel was ALSO a metaphor for a RAILROAD tunnel. The horse being heard is a clue to an IRON horse, which is borne out by the comment and visual that they will be in the light (train headlight - also metaphor for truth/God/etc.) and be found close together. He has convinced the analyst to trust him right into death.There is no way that the film company and distributor would allow a scene of Geo. C. Scott and Joanne Woodward standing in front of a railroad (or more likely subway) tunnel, and being run down by a train. All feel-good aspects of the film (and chances of repeat customers) would be lost. What surprises me is how few people "get" the ending and theme of the film.

Retired judge, living with his brother and sister-in-law in New York City, assumes the identity of Sherlock Holmes; his scheming sibling hopes to have him institutionalized and collect on his savings, until a lady psychologist (named Dr. Watson) gets involved with the judge...in more ways than one. "They Might Be Giants" wants (rather desperately, I think) to defy all the conventions of general storytelling. Screenwriter James Goldman, adapting his own play, begins the piece as a quirky character study (which might have worked), turning the material at the midway point into a half-comic/half-despairing romantic story (which might also have been successful). What we eventually get with the picture is an entangled mass of semi-realized loose ends--and dissatisfaction upon discovering the movie isn't going to do anything significant with its ingredients. George C. Scott and Joanne Woodward are both marvelous in their roles, giving Master Class-styled performances which go a long way to making the film watchable. Unfortunately, the sleuthing is existential, the funny people who meet up with the couple are just eccentric wallpaper, and the comedy ideas fizzle without solutions. Goldman does not want to be purposeful, or practical, or (God knows) commercial--but when so much is riding on making the romance between Scott and Woodward come off, you would think Goldman could follow through of some of his bigger concepts and round off the excesses. Filmed in NYC in the wintertime, the movie is also dark and chilly. Jack Gilford has a sweet monologue wishing he were the Scarlet Pimpernel, Woodward's cooking/dressing sequence is very funny, and Scott--when he smiles easily (without the devilishness)--is a handsome and gregarious rogue. But, sadly, not much is done with these intriguing characters. The film is a writer's conceit. ** from ****