MCN Columnists
Douglas Pratt

By Douglas Pratt Pratt@moviecitynews.com

The DVD Geek: The Strawberry Statement

The further they recede in time, the more fascinating the campus riot movies become.  Despite the brief resurgences of similar sentiments in the Occupy Wall Street movement, there is something very alien about the militancy of the youthful rebels.  And while violence as a means of suppression by the authorities has continued as a practice, usually of last resort or near last resort, that practice has not been depicted in popular entertainment since the spirit of the Sixties subsided.  Directed by Stuart Hagmann, the 1970 MGM campus riot feature, The Strawberry Statement, released as a Warner Home Video Archive Collection title, won some sort of secondary award at Cannes, and has some interesting stylistic touches.  When the climactic riot begins, there are even shots from ‘inside a gas mask’ as the police approach the gymnasium where the protestors are peaceably demonstrating.  The police begin running smoke machines, which one supposes would have the protestors coughing and leaving the building as soon as it got heavy enough, but rather than waiting, the police also start whacking on them with nightsticks and such, and dragging them out by their feet.  The logic is illusive, but logic in the heat of such situations is also illusive.

Bruce Davison, back when he still had promise, stars as a member of the college rowing crew who by chance becomes curious about the protestors that have taken over the school’s administration building and gradually becomes involved in their cause.  Kim Darby, who was, briefly, believed to have boxoffice clout, co-stars as another protestor, and the core of the film is the easygoing, college romance that develops between them.  Bud Cort and Bob Balaban also have major roles.  The film really doesn’t have much of a plot, however, as it is relying instead upon the dynamics of the campus protest itself—from the discovery in the Dean’s office of documents that link corporate malfeasance to the college’s financial shenanigans, to the execution of the riot at the end—to justify its narrative.  Maybe in 1970 it did, and the Cannes judges must have believed it so, but now it just seems disjointed, aimless, and strange.

Two versions of the film are presented on two separate platters.  The ‘Original Theatrical Version’ runs 103 minutes (with story-generated chapter encoding) and is presented in letterboxed format with an aspect ratio of about 1.85:1 and an accommodation for enhanced 16:9 playback.  The color transfer is fresh and smooth.  The ‘International Version,’ presumably the one seen at Cannes, runs 109 minutes (with generic chapter encoding) and includes an elaborate and provocative erotic sequence featuring Davison, but not Darby.  The International Version, however, is presented in full screen format, adding just a little to the top and bottom of the image and losing a lot from the sides.  The picture is also a little grainier and colors are a little weaker.  So, if you want the sex, you have to pay for it.  The monophonic sound on both versions is fuzzy if you raise the volume too high, but fine if it is kept at a sensible level, and the soundtrack contains several intensely nostalgic Crosby, Stills & Nash, and Neil Young tunes, along with other choice songs from the era.  There is no captioning.  A meandering trailer for the Theatrical Version is also included.

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “The DVD Geek: The Strawberry Statement”

  1. Daniella Isaacs says:

    Now I have to see the whole thing again, just to see the “elaborate and provocative erotic sequence”!

  2. Bob Burns says:

    saw this at a midnight show, packed theater, when it was released. I was a college freshman and identified strongly with it. will probably leave it at that.

The Ultimate DVD Geek

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon