Rachel, Rachel (1968) User Reviews (49)

A Few Life Altering Decisions

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 14 February 2011]

For Paul Newman's directorial debut, a property was chosen that was a real star vehicle for his spouse Joanne Woodward. In a distinctly unglamorous part, Rachel Rachel is about a 30 something spinster schoolteacher who lives with her perpetually sick mother and yearns to have something more out of life. She's inexperienced in a whole lot of different ways.

The script written by Stewart Stern which did receive an Oscar nomination uses the technique of Eugene O'Neill perfected on stage and screen in Strange Interlude. It's confined in this star vehicle to the lead character of Woodward. We get to hear her inner thoughts and see them acted out in her drab existence.

Looming in front of her consciousness is her unseen sister who did leave the nest and got married and started a family of her own. Mother Kate Harrington always uses that example to berate Woodward. At the same time Woodward must not entertain thoughts of leaving mother. The two live above a funeral parlor that was once her father Donald Moffat's business, but now has been taken over by Frank Corsaro who lets them stay on the premises. Not exactly an atmosphere to encourage romance of any kind.

After a night on the town with James Olson who quite frankly was just looking to make an easy score on a sex starved spinster, Woodward has to make a few life altering decisions.

Rachel Rachel got 3 other Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress for Joanne Woodward and Best Supporting Actress for Estelle Parsons. Parsons has an interesting role herself as fellow teacher and confidante to Woodward. She's got herself wrapped in some fundamentalist church which serves as her vehicle for a social life. But that is far from Woodward's scene.

Purportedly Woodward was miffed that husband Newman got no nomination for Best Director. But I think the one who really should have been miffed is Kate Harrington. A veteran of a couple TV soap operas this was clearly her big screen career role. And she's really the only one who matches Woodward in any scene they're in. She definitely should have gotten some Academy recognition.

Rachel Rachel is a fine character study and a great vehicle for Joanne Woodward. And having it filmed in and around Paul and Joanne's Connecticut home must have been a blessing for both of them.

A gentle, rich1y emotional, melancholy but, amazingly, never depressing experience

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 18 January 2009]

In a variation on her "Long Hot Summer" role, Woodward plays a sexually repressed schoolteacher in a small New England town who realizes that life is passing her by… She is thirty-five, a virgin, and dominated by her mother… During the summer, she has an affair with an old schoolmate… It proves disappointing, but she now knows that she can be loving, and determines to leave town and do something about her life—a move that seems only tentatively hopeful…

Woodward gives her finest performance as the confused, frequently beaten but ultimately indestructible woman… She has an extraordinary ability to look natural or simple and still reveal an inner radiance…

There are many touching moments: her timidness at the religious meeting; her awkward experiences with men; her late-night discussion with a likable male friend; and, most unforgettable, her face causing change from joyous expectancy to merely suppressed hysteria to a painful outburst of tears when she discovers that, contrary to her hopes, she is not pregnant...

Newman shows a natural cinematic sense in his perceptive depictions of small town life, the frenzied activity of a revival meeting and the anxieties of a first sexual experience; and in his clever, rarely impressive juxtaposition of Rachel's present with her fantasies and childhood memories… He gets excellent performances from Estelle Parsons as another lonely teacher and James Olson as the cynical big-city man who lets Rachel down…

Both Newman and Woodward won Golden Globe Awards… Woodward won the coveted New York Film Critics' Award, and was nominated for an Oscar

Even Wallflowers Can Grow

[slokes · 7/10 · 2 April 2012]

A film that draws its greatest power from its most subtle, fragile moments, "Rachel, Rachel" is a sweet coming-of-age drama where the subject is a woman neither in her teens or early twenties, but of an age where she has begun giving up on anything special ever happening to her.

Joanne Woodward embodies the title role with disarming ease, a frumpy small-town teacher who lives with her mother above a funeral parlor. Rachel's life consists largely on flashing back on her childhood and her relationship with her dead father. As summer sets in, new opportunities to experience life emerge in Rachel's life, just as she develops an appetite for change.

"Nothing is real," she says, echoing John Lennon from about this same time. "Nothing is now."

The film can be divided in two parts. The first part establishes Rachel and her surroundings in a quiet, almost eventless way. The director, Paul Newman, obviously knew actors, especially Woodward, and gives his cast ample space to find their voices. Woodward and Estelle Parsons as Rachel's teacher friend Calla were both nominated for Oscars, and Woodward and Newman both won Golden Globes, but the standout for me is Kate Harrington as Rachel's needling, passive-aggressive mother.

"I'm not criticizing, dear," she tells Rachel gleefully after discovering her daughter forgot to bring her the candy bar she asked for. "We all forget sometimes. Anyhow I got it myself. I took a nice long walk in the heat." She emphasizes that final consonant wonderfully.

The second part revolves around Nick, the guy with the key to releasing the woman inside the overgrown girl Rachel has become. James Olson gets all he can out of playing Nick, smug, coy, self-loathing. He's a fellow teacher home from the big city who Rachel knew as a boy, not all bad but prone to saying even complimentary things in a caustic way. "How polite and well brought-up you are," he tells Rachel in one of many uncomfortable moments Olson delivers well.

Terry Kiser, best known today as the title walking-dead guy from the "Weekend At Bernie's" series, shines as a charismatic preacher, while Donald Moffat plays Rachel's father in a series of enigmatic, effective flashbacks with Woodward and Newman's real-life daughter Nell Potts as Rachel. It's a real family affair; Newman himself can be heard if not seen as a character in a scary movie Rachel and Nick go see.

On the whole, this is a solid and worthwhile film, very much a product of its times yet ahead of them, too. The surreal peeks we get of Rachel's active imagination point toward the less-tethered but more scattershot mind-flipping of films to come like "Midnight Cowboy" and "Catch-22."

Newman also gets a lot of value from the more rural enclaves of Fairfield County, Connecticut, looking very beautiful but a bit oppressive. A visit to the cemetery reveals Rachel has her own grave laid out already, with a tombstone bearing both her and her mother's name!

There are things that seem under-realized. Kiser's church service is an overacted mash which feels like a shrill send-up rather than the transforming experience presented in Margaret Laurence's source novel, "A Jest Of God." Also left without resolution are some early bits of business involving the principal at Rachel's school and a little boy Rachel dreams of adopting. By the way, the boy wears a holster with toy guns to class. This really was shot 45 years ago!

Today, "Rachel, Rachel" is best known as a tour de force for Woodward, as it should be. She commands our attention even as her character seems desperate to escape our notice. Can Rachel survive in the big, bad world? You may not know for certain in the end, but Woodward, with Newman's able support, makes sure you care.

A Wonderful Ode To Loneliness

[ferbs54 · 9 September 2011]

During the course of their 50-year marriage (1958-2008), Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward appeared in 10 films together, and in 1968, Newman directed the first film of his career, "Rachel, Rachel." Although he would go on to produce and/or direct 11 more, only five of those dozen featured his wife in front of the camera: "Rachel, Rachel," "They Might Be Giants," "The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds" (a film that, like "Rachel, Rachel," featured the Newmans' cute little daughter, Nell Potts), "The Shadow Box" (a TV movie) and "The Glass Menagerie." Their initial pairing as director/star shows what formidable talents the couple wielded both behind and in front of the camera. In "Rachel, Rachel," we meet a shy, 35-year-old schoolteacher, Rachel Cameron. Rachel is only really half alive when we first encounter her at the beginning of her latest summer break. Still a virgin, Rachel spends most of her time caring for her nagging, widowed mother. We are told that she only eats vanilla ice cream, and the fact of her semiexistence is driven home by the fact that she lives above a funeral parlor, of all places! The film allows us into her inner thought processes, and we realize that she has suicidal fantasies that she herself characterizes as "morbid." She feels that she is at the exact middle of her life, and that this is her last "ascending summer." During the course of the film, we see that a revival meeting at a church cannot get Rachel "reborn," and are happy when the lonely woman enters into her first sexual relationship, with an old acquaintance visiting from out of town. Predictably, though, long-term happiness is a tenuous proposition at best....

"Rachel, Rachel" is a wonderfully realistic, mature and adult film. Newman's direction is sensitive and assured, especially for a beginner, and the supporting players (most particularly James Olson as Nick, the new man in Rachel's life, and Oscar-nominated Estelle Parsons as Rachel's lesbian gal pal, Calla) are all very fine. But it is Joanne Woodward who most certainly holds the film together. She is simply superb here, as the attractive but diffident Rachel. Hers is a wonderfully well-modulated performance, making for a completely well-rounded character. Rachel is depressed and lonely, yes, but also capable of a certain steeliness and very real humor. And those interior monologues and fantasies previously mentioned help us to really understand the poor woman, and what makes her tick. Woodward most certainly did deserve her Oscar nomination for her work in this film, but just could not prevail at the awards ceremony against Katharine Hepburn and the force of Nature known as Barbra Streisand. The actress makes us feel the heartbreak of Rachel's situation over and over. Among the most heartbreaking moments: Rachel walks into her bedroom, after assisting at her mother's weekly bridge game, and spontaneously starts to sob; Rachel compulsively admits her love to her new boyfriend, and her desire for a child, while Nick looks on in discomfort; Rachel gets the news about her "pregnancy" at the hospital; and, most especially, Rachel sits on a bus, at the film's end, en route to a new life in a new town, and ponders the fact that she might always be frightened and lonely. Rachel is a wonderful woman who would most likely make most guys happy, and the viewer is left with optimistic hopes for her. (Too bad a sequel for this film was never made!) In a picture filled with so much sadness, at least Newman & Co. leave us with an uplifting finale of sorts. Only...I would feel a lot more sanguine about Rachel's future if she'd just left her darn mother behind....

A great performance by Joanne Woodward that is very real.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 18 March 2010]

What some people might call a TV like movie, "Rachel, Rachel" was made before TV movies were becoming the place for slice-of-life dramas and character studies of troubled people. But when you've got Paul Newman as director, and his real-life wife Joanne Woodward playing a small town New England school teacher who is facing her problems of loneliness, that's made for the big screen, and "Rachel, Rachel" was one of 1968's most anticipated dramas. From the beginning, Rachel is not a conventional movie heroine. She is attractive, if not beautiful, and has a prim, if not frumpy, look to her. She also fantasizes quite a bit. Walking down the street on her way to school, she fears her slip is showing and that everyone is staring at her. She tells a boy that the principal is waiting to speak to her, then fantasizes about asking him to come home with her. She fantasizes about her lover (James Olson), and has flashbacks to her childhood with her undertaker father (Donald Moffat). Her now aging mother (Kate Harrington, in a beautiful performance) dominates her without being nasty, but it is obvious that she would like to escape from her.

It is obvious that Rachel is an insecure lady who doesn't feel right in her place on earth, and when she decides to have an affair with Olson without marriage, she feels insecure as a lover and hopes she'll do better the next time. It says a lot about her feelings of despair when she is confronted by her mother, or a schoolteacher friend (the always excellent Estelle Parsons) who has more than feelings of friendship for her. Fresh off her performance as Blanche in "Bonnie and Clyde", Parsons is less shrill and more down to earth, yet equally troubled. The scene in the Evangelist church with Geraldine Fitzgerald (looking beautiful in her brief time on screen) and Terry Kiser (as the preacher) is excellent. There are few moments of 60's sub-realism, mainly in Woodward's fantasies, which are downplayed compared to most late 60's films that almost seemed acid laced in their photography and editing.

1968 was a tough year for the Best Actress category at the Oscars; Woodward was nominated against Barbra Streisand, Katharine Hepburn, Vanessa Redgrave, and Patricia Neal, who all gave exciting performances. It's one of those few years where each of the actresses was equal and one wishes that each of them could take home the award. This is a dignified drama of self-awakening that doesn't always happen when one is young; Sometimes it happens again and again as we shed old temptations or habits, toss aside friends who stifle us, or move to a new community to get a new grip on where life is taking us.

Newman's Own

[dglink · 10/10 · 21 February 2009]

Both the camera and the man behind it were obviously in love with the actress on screen, and, that actress, Joanne Woodward, was arguably never better than she was in "Rachel, Rachel," husband-Paul-Newman's first directing effort. The low-key story involves a woman who reaches the middle of her life and realizes that she has yet to start living. Trapped in a small apartment above a funeral parlor with her whining possessive mother, Rachel is a schoolteacher with daydreams of having a life and children of her own.

Rachel's emotions are written on Woodward's face in a way few actresses have ever conveyed feeling. Words are superfluous, because the actress's subtle shifts of expression reveal the woman's raw vulnerability and, eventually, her sexual and emotional awakening. A course in film acting could be taught with this film as the primer. Although Kate Harrington, James Olson, and Estelle Parsons provide able support, the film is Woodward's showcase, and Newman's sturdy direction does not detract from his star. The shifts between Rachel's present and her memories and dreams are seamless, clear, and illuminating rather than distracting.

The film requires patience, but that does not imply boring, but rather leisurely paced, much like life in a small town that lies off the main roads. Getting to know another person requires time, and Rachel is worth knowing. "Rachel, Rachel" is a not to be missed minor masterwork with a performance that will haunt and linger in memory indefinitely. Newman never surpassed his directing here, and few actresses have surpassed Woodward's achievement either.

Tough little drama with jagged bits of fantasy and delusion...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 19 October 2006]

Paul Newman directed his wife Joanne Woodward in this adaptation of Margaret Laurence's book "A Jest of God", and does a pretty good job envisioning the plight of a small town spinster schoolteacher who is aching to break free from a life with no prospects. Newman's inherent good taste (the pastoral town, the neighborly feel) works against the need to show this woman's personal suffocation, and though we can see that romance might bring her happiness, the film is unsatisfactory in tying up this loose end in Rachel's life. Some keenly-shot flights-of-fancy are well-realized by Newman and his editor, although several sequences (such as a church meeting and Woodward's roll in the blankets with James Olson) are allowed to run on too long. Woodward is excellent, as is Estelle Parsons in a memorable turn as Rachel's friend (who is suffering herself, for far different reasons). **1/2 from ****

I'm middle-aged. What should I do for the rest of my life?

[GMJames · 10/10 · 31 May 2001]

Based on the novel "A Jest of God" by Canadian novelist Margaret Laurence, "Rachel, Rachel" is the story of Rachel Cameron (beautifully played by Joanne Woodward), a middle-aged schoolteacher who tries to come out of her shell before it's too late. Her father, recently deceased, was the town's funeral director. She still lives at home with her demanding mother (Kate Harrington). Rachel's friend is Calla Mackie (Estelle Parsons), an equally lonely, repressed fellow teacher who has some issues in her life as well. Rachel has a chance on love when a man (James Olson) returns to the small town in Connecticut from NYC. Rachel has some difficulty handling emotions she's never felt before. She's still haunted by her past and has difficulty coping with reality and fantasy. As Rachel mentioned at the beginning of the film, she's middle-aged, she's lived half of her life, what can she do now?

This was Paul Newman's debut as director. He did a fine job directing his wife Joanne Woodward. He captured the loneliness of this woman without overdoing it as well as the atmosphere of living in a small town that is alternately comfortable and suffocating.

I was also impressed with the supporting cast. Including Estelle Parsons, Kate Harrington and James Olson, Donald Moffat as Rachel's very scary father and two very charismatic performances by Geraldine Fitzgerald as the local reverend and Terry Kiser as a traveling faith healer.

Although it received four Oscar nominations, "Rachel, Rachel" seems to have fallen off the radar screen. Some of the movies that were released in 1968 included "The Lion in Winter", "Funny Girl", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Romeo and Juliet" and "Planet of the Apes".

"Rachel, Rachel", a mature, well-acted drama, certainly should be considered one of the more under-appreciated films of the late 1960s.

Depressing but intelligent

[deedrala · 6/10 · 24 October 2020]

I've always admired both Newman and Woodward since first becoming aware of them as a child in the 60s. I was sad when Newman passed on 12 years ago and sad to learn of Woodward's dementia now going on in her later years. They were both very talented and charismatic.

This movie is just blah, but at least has an intelligent mature theme throughout, unlike most popular movies of the past decade that are geared to child-minded adults.

To summarize the storyline, Rachel is a very lonely, needy woman who decides not to resign herself to being that way the rest of her life, and the ensuing disappointments that decision brings, until the movie's end when we're left with the optimistic hope that it's still not too late for her.

***The one nagging thing about this movie that I've already spent too much time trying to figure out and is so frustrating since it didn't have to be so obtuse and unexplained during the scene is this: who was in the photo that Nick showed Rachel as his way of explaining why he couldn't marry her and have a baby after she had expressed the desire to do both with him? I couldn't even make out if the person in the photo was male or female, young or old. If it was Nick's twin brother who had died as a child, then it would've looked like he did as a child in the flashback memory that Rachel had earlier in the film of the night the brother Steven died. She had talked to Nick briefly about it then, although it was at night so it was dark and Nick's face was only shown a few times and not very clearly. And if the photo was of his twin brother Steven, how/why is that a reason for Nick to never marry and have children - possibly because the children might inherit whatever illness Steven had died from?

In closing, anyone who only enjoys action adventure or comic book movies (as it seems most audiences do nowadays) wouldn't last the first five minutes of this movie. The performances of all key players was excellent. Newman's first directing attempt was commendable but he was much better in front of the camera.

6 out of 10 / Grade C

One of the best American films of the 60's.

[brefane · 9/10 · 13 December 2004]

This small, naturalistic film is one of the more honest films to come out of Hollywood. Its portrait of unexceptional lives strikes chords most movies never hear. Woodward and Harrington are superb, and under husband Paul Newman's direction, Woodward gives what is probably her finest performance. Newman has done a first rate job, and his use of photographed thought is particularly effective thanks in large part to Dede Allen's superb editing. The scene at the revival is ,perhaps, overdone but, the rest of the film feels true to life. The film's integrity is in its refusal to romanticize or provide dramatic climaxes. There are no heroes or villains, nothing remarkable happens, yet the film is holding and affecting and it should have been on the AFI's list of The 100 Greatest American Films. It deservedly received Oscar nods for best picture and actress, but director Newman was not nominated. Both the New York Film Critics and the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes) awarded Newman and Woodward. A gem!

Marvelous Movie For Actors -- the rot sets in

[boblipton · 7/10 · 29 December 2004]

Joanne Woodward gives a marvelous performance -- which, of course, is a done deal. Miss Woodward, I am convinced, is no more capable of giving less than a marvelous performance than I am of flapping my arms and flying to the moon. With a marvelous supporting cast including Estelle Parsons, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Donald Moffat before he had eyebrows, it is a feast for lovers of marvelous performances. They all give marvelous performances. A good deal of credit must, undoubtedly, go to Paul Newman, director, who as a marvelous actor, knows how to give marvelous performances and how to use the camera to highlight those performances.

The problem is that, given those marvelous performances, the story consists of a couple of days in which Miss Woodward's character recognizes that her life stinks. That is to say that you spend approximately one hundred minutes in a section of the story that should take about ten. And then, of course, the story is over. Compare this to, say, THE THREE FACES OF EVE in which Miss Woodward gives three marvelous performances and we learn something, however spurious, about the benefits of psychotherapy, and you will understand what I mean.

Why did they make this movie? Answer: there were no more real studios, and Paul Newman was a star with clout. He wanted to make this movie, so this movie was made in hopes that he would look fondly on Warner Brothers for future deals. Or maybe it was part of a deal: he got to make this movie, then he would appear in some movies that Warner Brothers wanted to make.

Given the level of talent Mr. Newman had to work with, it isn't half bad. But it isn't really that far from this movie to WATERWORLD.

Conservative Rachel and libertine Rachel

[Wuchakk · 8/10 · 24 June 2014]

Joanne Woodward effectively plays a bored and boring middle-aged school teacher who still lives with her mother at a funeral home in Connecticut. She's on the verge of mental collapse, but hides it well and pretends everything's okay. A guy from her childhood comes to town from the big city (James Olson) and her appetite for change comes to the fore.

This potent drama was Paul Newman's first stab at directing and it's the best cinematic depiction of the inward struggle of flesh and spirit -- id and superego -- I've ever seen. This struggle explains why it's called "Rachel, Rachel." Rachel is experiencing the undercurrent conflict between spiritual and carnal impulses. She's stuck between goody-goody Rachel and libertine Rachel and is therefore in living limbo. Various outside factors encourage this lifeless state: Disturbing childhood memories of living in a funeral home, a mother who essentially views Rachel as her personal servant and a genuine friend who's love is starting to become unhealthy (Estelle Parsons).

The film features a mind-blowing pentecostal church sequence that lasts 10-12 minutes. I can't believe Newman had the cojones to include this scene and it's pulled off expertly with Terry Kiser as the guest preacher who "speaks in tongues," which is what Calla (Parsons) tells Rachel when it's reveal that he's the speaker. Parsons is fabulous here, by the way.

Due to the subject matter and the fact that this is a drama there are some boring stretches, so you have to be in the mood for a serious drama. Nevertheless, the film deserves credit for having the gonads to show real life and refusing to be politically correct -- an amazing drama.

In case you didn't know, Newman and Woodward were husband & wife for 50 years, up to his death in 2008.

The film runs 101 minutes and was shot in Connecticut.

GRADE: A-

Quite, Sincere, But Maybe Also a Little Dullish

[krocheav · 7/10 · 16 April 2016]

Rachel Rachel is more likely to be one of those movies that managed to get made because the producer happened to be a hot property and was in a position to negotiate deals with film companies, who knew well, that by giving him a free hand to try something 'different', they would garner bigger money from other projects they cast him to 'star' in. And they did.

As Paul Newman's first directorial effort, it's an homage to his extremely talented wife Joanne Woodward. It's Woodward's picture all the way - she is magnificent. Adapted from the pages of controversial Canadian writer Margaret Laurence's novel 'A Jest of God', it delves into the very private and personal life of a 35yr old virgin spinster's existence in a backwoods American town. Some details may border on the semi-sordid but are mostly handled with sensitivity. While the rest of the capable cast all give dedicated performances...take Woodward away from this work and there would be somewhat little left.

This is also at the early stages of a 'new' era in movie-making, where themes of lesbianism and sexual awakenings, etc, were to dominate the screen from here on. Not being as sensationalized as other works would become, this one tends to be less vulgar. Sad is the word for Rachel's life as we drift through her journey of self discovery. The open ended end title scene leaves us with two possible thoughts...she walks with her own child or the child of her sister.....?. Under Newman's direction, versatile director of photography Gayne Rescher (Face in the Crowd '57) fills the screen with delicate, and personal images. Also a major asset, although scant, is Jerome Morosss' truly lovely music score as played by The Phaetons.

The deliberate (or otherwise) pace of this film won't please action fans and might not be regarded as entertainment by others, but could reward those seeking a degree of human introspection.

This one left me flat.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 13 April 2012]

I noticed that there are lots of very favorable reviews for "Rachel, Rache", but it really left me flat. Mostly it was because the film was done in a very stark manner--lacking music, energy and a real connection with the title character. Perhaps you'll feel different about .it...I just didn't care very much for the movie.

This movie is unusual because Joanne Woodward's husband, Paul Newman, directed the film--and it was his first directorial job. Rachel is a 35 year-old lady who is desperately lonely. She lives with her mother and is the proverbial spinster school teacher. She wants more out of life and spends much of the film thinking of the past and daydreaming about her future. When she begins dating a man (James Olson), she falls VERY deeply in love and throws herself at him--but it's all too fast and too heavy. What is to become of poor Rachel? As I said above, the film really lacks energy. I realize this was deliberately done in order to heighten the blandness of her life, but it felt oppressive. In addition, the flashbacks seemed more of a distraction than anything else. Overall, an interesting idea for a movie but also a film that is not at all pleasant or enlightening---it's just flat and unappealing.

Too Beautiful

[Bolesroor · 12 May 2004]

I saw "Rachel, Rachel" early one summer morning on cable. I woke up in the dark and turned the television on and the film began. I was hypnotized. The movie is so honest, and moving, and true that I thought I was still dreaming.

I grew up in Connecticut, and several of my aunts were schoolteachers, so I can tell you that every moment in the film is absolutely true. Paul Newman gets everything right... the repressed woman who is still under her mother's control, the judgmental small-town, the wild children, even the sound of the heat bugs on the country road! Joanne Woodward is absolutely mesmerizing as a woman lost in the shuffle, doing everything everyone wants her to and dying in the process...

This movie is not for everyone. There are no explosions or car crashes or digitally-animated comic book characters. But if you would like to see a genuine "slice-of-life" along the lines of "Midnight Cowboy" or even "The Graduate," then "Rachel, Rachel" is a film that will move you and make you think. Definitely worth seeking out.

Grade: A-

What will happen?

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 28 September 2022]

Joanne Woodward delivers a warm, sympathetic performance as a 30-something spinster small-town schoolteacher living with her mom (Kate Harrington) in rooms over the local funeral parlor. Said business used to be operated by Rachels' recently deceased father (Donald Moffat). Rachel despairs over the idea of her life possibly being at least half-over now, and yearns for something more. Possibly she may get a chance for love with a charming big-city teacher named Nick (James Olson).

Woodwards' husband Paul Newman made his creditable directing debut with this interesting choice of material (an adaptation by Stewart Stern of a novel by Margaret Laurence). It's first and foremost an excellent showcase for his wife, who hits all the right notes. Rachel is the kind of character who honestly earns rooting interest; the viewer does ultimately want her to be happy. She does have issues, of course, stemming from her childhood; her best friend Calla (Estelle Parsons) has her own issues as well.

The script truly allows us to get inside this lead characters' head by allowing us to hear her thoughts. We come to see that "reality" in this story is not always to be taken for granted, with some critical revelations along the way that illustrate just how strongly Rachel wants some change in her life. There are some true standout moments, such as Rachels' reaction to a memorable church service, presided over by a reverend (special guest star Geraldine Fitzgerald) and young preacher (Terry Kiser).

Marking the first noticeable movie roles for top character actors Moffat and Kiser, "Rachel, Rachel" does truly benefit from this impressive cast, with Woodward as the glue to hold everything together. It's extremely well shot by Gayne Rescher at some picturesque locations in Connecticut, and nicely scored by Jerome Moross.

This compassionate character study scored Oscar nominations, for Woodward, Parsons, Stern, and for best picture. It's a must if you're a fan of the cast and director.

Paul and Joannes' daughter Nell plays Rachel as a child.

Seven out of 10.

An underrated classic; Joanne Woodward gives brilliant performance

[h_hirsto · 10/10 · 30 April 2003]

This film is one my all time favorites. It's a strong story about a school teacher who lives with her cranky, dominating mother and who hasn't had (or used!) the chance to take responsibility for her own life. Rachel is a woman of many fears; fears that may seem insignificant and vain from an outsiders point of view but that are everything to her, that actually define the framework for her life. In a little town of conservative values it is hard to take a turn and find the courage to become something you weren't before. Joanne Woodward gives a masterful performance and is the heart and soul of this film. She does the most incredible things with just her eyes and her face, and her voice. She makes Rachel so real it hurts to watch. That's acting. Estelle Parsons as Calla is fantastic, too. This is a beautiful, sensitive movie, highly underrated and way too unknown to most people. For me, it's a classic. Go find it and see it!

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 7/10 · 27 December 2005]

A well fashioned study of loneliness and longing, it melds fantasy and reality well, with interesting narration by Woodward providing an insight into her character's mental state. Woodward does a great job playing her nervous, repressed character, but yet her character had the potential to be explored deeper. There are some loose ends and unexplained relationships, and the flashbacks used benefit the story only a minimal amount whereas they could have helped flesh out the protagonist more. It also lacks excitement and vivaciousness as a film - we are given an insight into a few days in an intriguing character's life, but nothing much more. It comes off as rather slight, for lack of a better word, but it is still fairly good viewing. Paul Newman won a Golden Globe for his directing work here, and he indeed proves that he has talent as a director as well as an actor. Also of interest is how sound levels are worked with in the film, and Estelle Parsons, who gives fine support. It is certainly working checking out.

Woman, Interrupted...

[icblue02 · 9/10 · 29 August 2006]

When one has not really lived, life is actually a sort of slow death.

That is a pretty morbid thought, but it is the painful conclusion that Rachel (Joanne Woodward) comes to in the beginning of this film; her life isn't really a life, but a slow, lonely march to the grave. Accompanying Rachel on her "march" is a domineering mother, a best friend with deeper desires, and a man who, while fulfilling her (and his)physical urges, does nothing to edify her in the emotional sense. To top it all off, she desperately wants a child and is a schoolteacher, devoting much of her time to nurturing other peoples' children. To put it mildly, the outlook for Rachel seems rather bleak at the onset.

Yet in the course of the film, Woodward is able to, very simply and very delicately, convey a great awakening within Rachel. Rachel becomes aware of the fact that there is a great deal in life for her to see and experience. In the end, for the first time in her life, she makes a decision for herself, and sets about to potentially change the course of her life -- to make that journey toward the grave a little more meaningful.

Joanne Woodward is perfect in this film; there are no missteps in her work, and she is able to convey so much without ever overdoing it. This film is driven totally by the heart and the emotion of the characters, and Woodward conveys the internal side of a character better than almost anyone else. She truthfully taps into the basic human need to love and be loved, which is certainly no small task.

As viewers, we are left to wonder what is to come for Rachel, which definitely lends a deeper element of reality to the film. We are not sure if life will play out happily for Rachel, but we are not wholly convinced that she will be miserable, either; her future is uncertain. Then again, isn't the same true for all of us, to one degree or another?

not great filmmaking but some good acting

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 16 November 2013]

This is Paul Newman's directorial debut starring his wife Joanne Woodward. Rachel is a spinster school teacher. She's shy, emotionally damaged, and stuck with her mother. Then an old acquaintance's visit sets off a chain of emotional breakdowns.

It's a bit of experimental filmmaking from Paul Newman. I'm not a fan of his directing. It doesn't build drama and it's very disjointed. The story doesn't flow. Luckily, Joanne Woodward is such a compelling actress. She's able to hold the attention despite the lack of skills with the camera.

There are a few powerful scenes where certain unexpected things happen. Those are great scenes and the movie works great at the end. I only wish that those scenes were linked together by a better movie. It's still a worthwhile watch.

Repressed in New England

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 24 April 2017]

In the turbulent cultural and political year of 1968, movies hadn't quite yet figured out how they wanted to address current events, or indeed whether they wanted to address them at all. The year's Oscar winner for Best Picture was "Oliver!," an entertaining but utterly irrelevant big-budget musical; "Funny Girl," another stage-to-screen musical that hasn't aged at all well, was also among the nominees. "The Lion in Winter" found Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn bickering in period costumes, while "Romeo and Juliet" gave Shakespeare a jolt of sexiness for the younger generation. Movies that actually felt like they had their finger on the uneasy pulse of the changing times, like "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Rosemary's Baby," "Faces," and "The Battle of Algiers," were nominated in lesser categories but none were up for the big prize. That fifth slot went to "Rachel, Rachel," in which Paul Newman directed his wife, Joanne Woodward, to a Best Actress nomination.

"Rachel, Rachel" certainly did not deserve a place at the Oscar podium above those titles just mentioned that weren't even nominated, but it does have much to recommend it, and the themes it's about speak more to a modern-day audience than those of many of its contemporaries, because they're both universal and timeless. Woodward plays a woman in her 30s, living with her annoying and needy mother and watching her life slowly drip away from her day by day. It's about that moment -- and I have to believe anyone over a certain age has experienced it at least to some degree -- where one realizes that he/she isn't so much living a life as dying a slow and inevitable death. What one does with the time in between suddenly becomes urgent in a way it hasn't ever felt before, and one understands how easy it would be to do nothing and let that slow death gradually come. Woodward's character, brought up in a mortuary and morbidly obsessed with death, doesn't exactly figure out what to do with the time left to her, but she does figure out that she needs to try something different, which is perhaps the best any of us can hope for. Woodward gives a beautiful and nuanced performance as a shy turtle coming out of her shell one painful inch at a time. The movie is melancholy and sad, but it's also hopeful in its conclusion that it's never too late to at least make a grab for, if not happiness, then at least contentment.

In addition to its nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress, the film also received nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Estelle Parsons, as Rachel's closet lesbian friend), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Stewart Stern). Newman himself was not nominated for Best Director, which doesn't really surprise me. The Academy has always shown a penchant for acknowledging the showy over the subtle when it comes to that particular category.

Grade: A

Not quite what I'd hoped it would be, but worthwhile, interesting and underseen.

[timkinsella2020 · 6/10 · 12 June 2023]

I attended a screening of this at Cinémathèque Française in Paris.

Prior to hearing about this movie, I hadn't realised legendary actor Paul Newman had ever directed anything. It's certainly an interesting, strange and thematically rich film that I was glad to see on the big screen, but I'm not quite sure I got what I wanted out of it. Seemed like it was going to go totally surreal and crazy at a few points but it never went as far as I'd hoped it would go in that respect. I wasn't a fan of the voiceovers, and the humour didn't land for me as well as it seemed to for most people in the audience.

Still, it's a worthwhile, unusual film that should get talked about more.

Score one for Oregon!

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 28 July 2007]

In pretty much every movie where I've seen Joanne Woodward, she does a great role, and "Rachel, Rachel" (directed by her husband Paul Newman) is no exception. Woodward plays Rachel Cameron, a schoolteacher in a conservative, repressive small town. Various incidents from her childhood have long haunted her, and she still lives with - and has to take care of - her needy mother. Without a doubt she's unfulfilled in life, but she basically has no way to escape this existence. But things just might change when childhood friend Nick (James Olson) returns to town after spending many years in the big city.

By barely moving her face, Woodward conveys many emotions in this movie: anguish, cynicism, hope, and more. I would suspect that "Rachel, Rachel" probably played into the burgeoning feminist movement, but moreover it showed the complete break from "traditional" American mores (after all, what characterized the '60s more than that?). Nineteen sixty-eight was certainly a great year for movies: along with this one, there was "Planet of the Apes", "Romeo & Juliet", "2001", "The Odd Couple", "Bullitt", "Charly" and "Yellow Submarine". Definitely one that I recommend.

Also starring Geraldine Fitzgerald.

Interesting but somewhat disappointing!

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 10 October 2016]

This is the sort of movie the critics love, but it's not one that particularly appeals to me. My guess is that the original novel, "A Jest of God", was probably a lot more ironical and bitter than this soft, misty-eyed all-the-way with Joanne Woodward version, indulgently directed with more close-ups than a TV soapy, by husband, Paul Newman. Still, within its limits, the direction is occasionally rather stylish. And the film is attractively photographed on some occasionally effective locations. But somewhat disappointingly, the music score by Jerome Moross is both uncharacteristic and unobtrusive. The Geraldine Fitzgerald sequence seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the movie and is an embarrassment that should have been left on the cutting room floor. Otherwise, the movie is reasonably effective within its limits.

Poorly paced story of a desperately lonely woman...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 6 February 2013]

Frankly, it appears that mine is a minority opinion. My own favorite story of a lonely woman is SUMMERTIME with Katharine Hepburn which had a lot more flavor as well as a genuinely entertaining and moving story.

However, RACHEL, RACHEL drags along at an interminably slow pace with many close-ups of star Joanne Woodward as she reflects on the emptiness of her dull, spinisterish life in a small town. And the script provides no scenes that give us any real hope that things have changed for her by the time we get to the fantasized ending. Most of the scenes are played too long to hold viewer interest.

As a result, I found it tedious and somewhat boring at times because nothing of real interest seemed to happen, except in a few flashbacks showing the effect her disturbing childhood had on her upbringing.

The acting is competent but I never found the story involving enough to care about the fate of the main character or the few supporting characters for that matter. It fails completely to be anything but a character study of a lonely teacher without the needed dramatic power to make us feel her suffering.