"A Woman Under the Influence"
                           A Review by
                      Linda Lopez McAlister
                         March 13, 1993

   I didn't find anything in the theaters this week I particularly
wanted to see, so I took the opportunity to rent an old film that
has recently been released on video for the first time, the late
John Cassavetes' 1974 film "A Woman Under the Influence" starring
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk.  This is probably the best-known of
Cassavetes' independently-produced feature films because he and
Rowlands made a special effort to obtain wider distribution than
usual for an independent film by taking it to the theaters
themselves.

    Cassavetes was known for his highly idiosyncratic methods of
filmmaking which were, in the earlier films such as "Shadows" and
"Faces" largely improvised both by the actors and as much as possible,
by the cinematographer as well.  "A Woman Under the Influence"
appears to have been more fully scripted, but traces of the old
improvisatory style are clearly in evidence--especially when
members of the supporting cast are not working well and do what
acting coaches call "indicating" instead of actually being in
character and finding the truth of the moment.  Luckily that
doesn't happen very much.

   I found this to be an utterly fascinating family melodrama,
strongly acted by Rowlands and Falk, and compelling in the way it
is sometimes mesmerizing to watch something horrifying unfold
before your very eyes.  In this case what's horrifying is the way
a family--Nick and Mabel and their three children--deals with
Mabel's mental and emotional deterioration.   That mental illnes is
the theme of the film was, in itself, a surprise for me since the
title seems to suggest that her problem is alcoholism.  Mabel does,
in fact, drink quite a lot and that's apparently a contributing
factor in her illness, but it doesn't seem to be the whole problem.
This realization immediately makes you think again about the title
and ask what other kind of influence is she under?  And the answers
to that are revealed throughout the film in the critical and
demanding attitudes of her husband, in-laws, parents, friends and
even strangers.  Mabel is always trying to do what people expect of
her, only she does it to extremes.  In the process her own feelings
and desires are suppressed and then, when expressed, come out in
extreme or bizarre ways.

    The Cassavetes' screenplay is structured more like a play than
a film and consists of a series of rather lengthy scenes in two
acts.  In the first act Mabel's mental state is revealed--though
she sometimes seems no more out of control than her husband or
mother-in-law--in this noisy ethnic household.  Eventually there is
a crisis and she is committed to a mental institution.  Nick
carries on trying to explain to the children why she has gone away.
The second act, six months later, portrays Mabel's almost equally
horrific homecoming and we find ourselves, along with family
members, watching her every move, every twitch, every word for
signs of her earlier illness or newly won "normalcy" of the sort
induced by electroshock therapy.  There's a very fine line, we
discover, between the two, and we as viewers are forced constantly
to question where that line lies.  Cassavetes' lavish use of the
extreme close up to allow us to read every nuance of emotion on the
characters' faces.

   I wouldn't call this a feminist film, though it was made at a
time when the women's movement was in high gear--and about the time
Phyllis Chesler's _Women and Madness_ appeared, if memory serves me
correctly.  But it gives a sympathetic and empathetic portrayal of
a traditional working class woman struggling under the influence of
the expectations patriarchy has for her and sometimes failing in
her struggle.  I would call it a film you will want to see and put
it right up there with "Angel at My Table" for a memorable cinematic
portrayal of women and madness.

  For the WMNF Women's Show this is Linda Lopez McAlister on Women
and Film.