Shampoo – Criterion Collection

Summary

“Did you at least get a job out of it?”

I have always been a fan of films from the Seventies. Many have argued that this was truly the greatest time for filmmaking and it is hard to argue otherwise. One of my favorite directors of the Seventies is Hal Ashby. He had an incredible streak of films including The Last Detail, Coming Home, Harold and Maude, Bejng There, and Shampoo. That would be a pretty great list for a career of a director, but Hal Ashby directed all of those films in less than ten years. I realized that I had never watched Shampoo, despite the fact that Robert Towne wrote the film with Warren Beatty’s help after penning Chinatown and the Hal Ashby directed The Last Detail.  

Shampoo follows a couple days in the life of a hairdresser in Beverly Hills named George (Warren Beatty.) It is the day before the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. As the film begins, George is interrupted mid-coitus with Felicia (Lee Grant) by a phone call. He leaves on his motorcycle to see his girlfriend Jill (Goldie Hawn) and offers to do her hair despite it being two in the morning. George has a lot going on. Jill has been pressuring him into opening his own shop, so that morning he goes to a meeting with a bank for a loan. He is unable to provide any of the necessary references for the banker aside from saying that he cut Barbara Rush’s hair. After that failure, he meets with a powerful businessman named Lester (Jack Warden) who is more receptive to the idea of funding the concept. Lester thinks that George is a “fairy,” while unaware that George is carrying on with his wife Felicia, and that George is also enamored with Lester’s mistress Jackie (Julie Christie.) Throughout the course of the film all of these intersecting love stories will collide.

Shampoo is really unique. I was not sure how I felt about the film as I was watching it, but like many of Hal Ashby’s films it continues to grow in your estimation afterward. The film is a sex comedy that was fairly raunchy for its time, but it was also a clever skewering of the sexual revolution and the emptiness felt in Hollywood in the late Sixties. The balancing of these two elements is difficult and the viewer feels a nervous friction between the two elements. As a comedy, the film is never hilarious, but it is frequently funny and amusing. What is interesting to me is how the film manages to steer the film towards melancholia at the same time as it makes us laugh. It’s subtle, but I think what the filmmakers were trying to achieve comes across. 

While George seems to have no self control whatsoever with his libido, he never seems satisfied throughout the course of the film. In fact, that is the central theme of the film: Nobody seems satisfied with the life they are living. Screenwriter Robert Towne was no stranger to criticism of Los Angeles (i.e. Chinatown,) but here the film is directed towards a supposedly free culture and the untethered narcissism that accompanied that freedom. Warren Beatty was co-screenwriter on the film and it is fascinating that he would write a role where his main character is so hapless around the women in his life. Beatty was known at the time for his womanizing, and it shows bravery that he would play into that aspect at all on film in such a vulnerable and sometimes unattractive way. When he gives Jack Warden’s character a speech about how women talk to him all day about how they have been done wrong by men, it is as funny as it is relatable. This is the type of speech that can only be written by a guy that has in some way lived that type of a life. In the interview in the special features, Beatty discussed the film as a way of discussing sexual politics and hypocrisy. 

Hal Ashby was the perfect understated director with the capabilities to make the film work. While the first half of the film is a little slow at times, the second half of the film works very well with some really great comedic moments. Ashby has the good sense to have the Nixon election play in the background of the film while almost being completely unaddressed by any of the characters in the film. It is something that Ashby was so good at doing – allowing the settings to speak for themselves and let the audience pick up on it without drawing attention to it in any distracting way. This choice itself was questioned by many who saw the film as to why it was set on the day before Nixon’s election, but it feels like a good decision in hindsight to help lay out the film as a commentary on a very specific time and place. Hal Ashby used the cinematographer Lazslo Kovacs to shoot the film and his realistic and un-showy cinematography helps the film to stay firmly rooted in reality. The soundtrack of the film is enjoyable thanks to songs by The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix in a key party sequence and some very understated compositions by Paul Simon that help broadcast the emotional aspects of the film. The compositions by Paul Simon are so spare in comparison to his wonderful compositions for The Graduate, that they are never brought up in the same sentence. They still work well for the film, even if the score feels like a very minor work for the great singer-songwriter.

The acting in the film includes a few great performances and a couple good ones. Warren Beatty is great in the movie. No doubt about it, he absolutely nails his role as George. He is funny and pathetic and exasperated and it is really an excellent performance. Julie Christie is every bit his equal in the film. She is outrageous and fearless in her role. Jack Warden also does a great job in the film as Lester. The only role that seems underserved is Goldie Hawn’s role as Jill. She never seems fully developed as a character and it just didn’t feel like Goldie was given much to work with. Carrie Fisher is also featured in a very funny minor role that I don’t want to spoil here. You will know it when you see it.

Shampoo is not going to please everyone who watches it. For some it will be overly vulgar or raunchy due to some key sequences (although it seems pretty tame by today’s standards,) and some will find that the film’s odd tonal choices hamper it from succeeding comedically or dramatically. As I was watching the film, I personally had a hard time trying to figure out what the intentions of the film were, but by the end of the film I knew it was one that I would be happy to revisit. I definitely recommend checking it out to draw your own conclusions. I look forward to watching it again soon.

Video

Criterion Collection used a new 4K transfer of the film in 1.85:1 aspect ratio with an MPEG-4 AVC encoded image. Here is what the booklet mentions:

“This new digital transfer was created in 4K resolution from the 35mm original camera negative at Cineric in New York on the facility’s proprietary high-dynamic-range wet-gate film scanner. An earlier restoration supervised by cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs was used as a color reference.”

Shampoo is a visually appealing film, but Lazslo Kovacs’ cinematography is never showy. That means that viewers should not expect the film to just explode off the screen. That said, the viewing experience is sure to please fans of Robert Altman’s films of the time, and fans of Hal Ashby. I like the way the film is lit by seemingly natural notes. The film has some grain, but it is never distracting. Fine detail is solid. Fans are going to be happy with how it looks.

Audio

Criterion have provided a great sounding DTS-HD MA Mono track and in my ears an even better sounding DTS-HD MA 5.1 mix. Here is what the booklet mentions:

“The original monaural soundtrack was restored from the 35mm original dialogue, music, and effects (DME) monaural magnetic master at Chace Audio by Deluxe in Burbank, California. The 5.1 remix was then created from the same source.”

The Mono track sounded very nice, but when I switched to the 5.1 remix, I would never consider returning to the Mono track. Fans should be happy with the clarity on both tracks.

Supplements:

• The South Bank Show: “Warren Beatty” – in this excerpt from an episode of The South Bank Show, Warren Beatty briefly discusses working in the new Hollywood, the impact of Bonnie and Clyde, and the ideas that went into Shampoo. This piece is really great, but I wish that the entire interview could have been obtained.
• Mark Harris and Frank Rich – critics Mark Harris and Frank Rich discuss Shampoo. This is an enjoyable piece, and their ideas about the film are very valid, but it does not quite make up for the lack of additional features on the disc.

Overall Scores:

Video – 4.5/5 

Audio – 4.5/5

Supplements – 2.5/5

Overall – 4.5/5

Shampoo is an off-beat comedy-drama that is as likely to have fans as detractors. The strange tonal changes of the film and moral ambivalence at the core of the film is likely to turn away some viewers, but as the film came to its conclusion I realized that I would be happy to sit down and watch it again. The acting in the film is very well done including great roles for Julie Christie and Warren Beatty. The writing by Warren Beatty and Robert Towne is really interesting and unique, but some of the vulgarity displayed in the film may rub some viewers the wrong way. Like the film itself, the Paul Simon soundtrack is unique. The film is definitely a good example of how well Hal Ashby worked as a director when given the right material. Criterion have given the film a great looking and sounding presentation, but the special features on this disc are surprisingly sparse. Fans will definitely want to upgrade, and newcomers may want to make sure the film is to their liking prior to a purchase. For myself, I am very happy to have it in my collection.