Shampoo

The title, which would be appropriate for a wacky comedy, disguises an utterly bitter probe into American society at the end of the easy-riding 1960s and the start of the disillusioning ‘70s. Because this look back to the day when Nixon won the presidency was made in the period after Vietnam and the Watergate scandal, it is clear that its creators projected their own subsequent sobering-up onto the screenplay. Thanks to the distance gained in the meantime, they could comment on what a life without commitments really brought to the protagonists of films like Easy Rider. George, a hairstylist, is not an irresponsible hippie, even if others pigeonhole him as such based on his appearance and occupation. He is a man who chose the wrong path at the wrong time and as the hours go by, he reaches the conclusion that he has literally “fucked up” his career and thus made a mess of his personal life too. He thought he had things (which, for him, included women) under control, whereas things actually had control over him. He’s late to wake up as the last dreamer in a world full of hypocrites. The time for ideals has passed. Besides being a boldly revisionist “comedy” built on several types of crises (politics, economics, masculinity), Shampoo is also a great example of how to write a screenplay (like most of the films Robert Towne had a hand in). The introduction of the characters, clarification of the relationships between them and explanation of their motivations are all done with wonderful fluidity. Every scene relates in some way to the main story and complements the portrait of the protagonist and the period. Everything seemingly happens twice, to two characters in parallel. But only one (George) sincerely means what he does. Of no less importance, the narrative economy is manifested in the firm interconnection of the work and private storylines. Don’t expect a romantic comedy or a film that will brighten your day, and you will perhaps be surprised by how much bitterness some mainstream Hollywood movies had in them even in the mid-1970s. 75% (13.02.2013)

Some comments talk about their surprise at how underrated Shampoo is, and the reasons for this rejection are being sought. I would partially attribute the cause to the expectations of some viewers who, under the genre label of comedy, can only imagine a series of gags and one-liners, while Shampoo is not that much of a comedy. It is simply an attempt at a subtle social satire, which, unlike other works, lacks depth and timelessness. In the mid-70s, the significance of Shampoo lay in the fact that it was one of the first studio films that, albeit imperfectly, reflected social disillusionment, topics, and movements in society, such as the sexual revolution, the empty lives of professional wives from well-off families, the shadow economy, and the hippie movement, among others. However, the director only used the majority of these as a background for a rather banal story about a frivolous hairdresser who goes through life from one head to another, applying the same approach to his clients' vaginas. This character simply lacks the necessary dramatic conflict and clash of values, and the screenplay is unable to properly sell the concept. Directors like Buñuel were able to cleverly sell social criticism and be significantly crueler toward the establishment. Overall impression: 50%. It is worth mentioning that Warren Beatty to some extent portrayed himself. It is rumored that he was the most virile sexual machine that ever passed through Hollywood - and he had some serious competition. His approach to women and sex was aggressively consumptive, and he was fortunate enough to enjoy the sexual revolution before the AIDS epidemic broke out. I don't know whether the list of conquests he achieved during those years says more about him or the women... (01.03.2013)