User Reviews (24)

Add a Review

  • Considering what this film was about I was quite surprised how well the film and its ideology stand up today.

    There are several reasons why. Firstly, the film doesn't present the student establishment as 100% right and the establishment/teachers as 100% wrong. This is because the film's central character Harry Bailey is presented as belonging somewhere in the middle. On one hand he's dismayed by the establishment's inabilities to understand what the students actually want but on the other hand he's dispirited by the students protesting on frivolous issues as well as a hint of double standards within the movement.

    A good example of this is the character of Dr. Wilhunt who opposes Harry's move into teaching. While portrayed in the wrong, he's not a one-dimensional monster but someone who is realistic about how much a teacher can change students' morals while teaching english grammar.

    In fact it's Harry's friend, hippie Nick Philbert, who brings him down when after attempting to avoid the draft, he joins the Marines and turns into a moralistic, gung-ho youth. Only at the end of the film does Harry realise what an unworthy, crazy person he is. It could've been easy for the film to make Dr. Wilhunt as the one who brings Harry down but it avoids the easy path and shows us that there are untrustworthy people everywhere in society whether they be young, old, conservative or radical.

    Then there is the character of Harry Bailey who's in virtually every scene in the film. Again the film doesn't portray him as some flawless character who fights against the conservative establishment for noble causes. Instead we get someone who's intelligent, compassionate and idealistic but who also has traits of selfishness and foolishness. That he's a realistic, believeable, flawed but likeable person helps the film immesuarably. A lot of this credit must go to Elliott Gould who's excellent in the role.

    Special note must be of the direction and cinematography which make the film look both stylish and fluid.Particularly impressive is the use of focussing on more then one object or character in the same shot as it's cleverly used to make points about events or people in narrational terms instead of words.

    All in all a superb film and especially so when compared to another student film of the same era, the inept RPM.
  • While it would be easy for many to catagorize "Getting Straight" as a period film,it nonetheless is a timeless homage to those poor souls who are casual victims of circumstance.

    From the beginning of the movie we see as protagonist Harry Bailey is set upon by all of his much younger and very politically naive fellow college students who think that if only Harry would join up with them,then their causes of the moment would be complete.It doesn't dawn upon these people that Harry is much older,with a completely different set of priorities than he had before going off to fight in the Vietnam war.

    At this time in Harrys life,he wants to finish his masters degree in order to be given a teaching credential.Once he gets this,he can go about the business of molding future system challengers and left-wing banner carriers.

    The only thing that stands in his way is his own naivite and egalitarian mind-set that he has reserved for all but himself.

    "Getting Straight" shows us all the inevitable complications of fence-sitting and ignoring our potential in life.
  • debbieesther31 August 2000
    Too bad Richard Rush doesn't make more movies. He's got a fantastic style, as can be seen in the more recent "The Stunt Man" and this movie should have retained a "classic" status. Set in the campus riot era, Harry Bailey only seeks to fulfill his dream of becoming a teacher, molding another Salinger and making enough to live on. He can't be bothered with the idealistic ravings of his younger friends and fellow students until he see "it's not what you do that counts, it's what you are". Check out this totally superb performance of Elliot Gould's. Even if you find the movie dated and somewhat silly, Gould is extraordinary. Unfortunately Candy Bergen has about one decent scene, the rest of the time her acting is very trying. The rest of the actors are right on though, especially a very young Harrison Ford.
  • Just to say that this is one of the good movies that still holds up well. Richard Rush (director) didn't make many movies, but he did well with many of them. The screenplay is often excellent and Elliot Gould is usually excellent. There aren't many other good roles or performances, but that doesn't in my opinion bring the film very far down below good.

    Gould's acting in this story about student protests and "riots" in the late 60s is about as good as he got (gets?) - and that is very good.

    Technically the movie's first rate. Photography, cutting, timing. All good.

    I hope this show gets more credit as time goes on.
  • one of my favorite oldies.Candice had just left the University of Pennsylvania where she literally stopped traffic on campus because of her beauty (I actually saw it happen!).She never looked as good in films as she did in real life at that time.I believe that the line Eliot Gould uses when he's had enough of the professor's comments about Fitzgerald's homosexuality is that yes it could be possible that he was a homosexual but that it sure would be news to Sheila Graham (not Zelda) with whom he had an apparently scandalous affair when he was in Hollywood trying to make money.I was in college during that era and there its a fairly good representation of the way things were then and indicative of the nuttiness of that era
  • This so-called exploitive campus revolt film from 1970 actually has some wonderful things going on in it. (I can't believe I still have the soundtrack and recently got the video). Elliott Gould was at the peak of whatever powers he had as leading man, without Donald Sutherland to play off (M.A.S.H.) or Dyan Cannon(B&C&T&A - supporting role), and he's perfect as Harry (who I think is in every scene). Candice Bergen was never more beautiful (still learning to act after five years in film - and right before Carnal Knowledge), and throw in Jeannie Berlin, Harrison Ford (not boring for a change), and a host of other young up-and-comers at the time, along with Jeff Corey (James Dean's acting teacher, who played elder Hickock in In Cold Blood, and Wild Bill Hickock in Little Big Man) as Gould's semi-mentor, with campus revolt in a frenetic, casual (until later) sort of way.

    I know a lot of people worship The Stunt Man directed by the same man, Richard Rush ten years later ( and that film is better than this; but not that great), but he did have his own style (I'm not sure what happened to his sensibilities or career). Throw in Robert F. Lyons as Gould's buddy (does anybody remember that guy?) and there's real possibilities, not politically, but in those areas of film that carry over into thought and heart and hope. This is not even close to being a definitive campus revolt flick from that time, but it has aspects (every other scene almost) that have stature ABOUT real topics with semi-interesting characters along the way, without taking SIDES about Viet Nam or rebellion. If you come across it, you'll find some other actresses and actors that were well on their way (if yo're interested in that) and the ending is strange, but somehow appropriate in an uplifting and yet depressing way. It's worth anyone's time who is, at all, interested in that time period (concerning youth vs. establishment). To make a long story short, it's not some dopey, campus comedy with nudity and platitudes and wise-cracks (except for a few scenes concerning Gould's car and landlady).

    It's nothing important to convey the ideals, emotions, and contemporary feel of that era, but it hits some spaces and is also funny in a human way that is appropriately not cynical (even for then).
  • The sixties were a radical time which left an indelible mark on American culture!! Underneath all the tumultuousness and counter culture extremism of the 1960's, was the rudimentary need to cogently clarify our nation's privileges which are pertinent to the freedom of individual expression!! The movie "Getting Straight" illustrates how a bunch of young students went to college to learn something, above all else, they should have learned the myriad of desirable prerogatives to a democracy!! Elliot Gould plays a disgruntled and maverick associate professor who is baffled by the college's late twentieth century version of totalitarianism! This film depicts how the polarization of prevailing opinions between the student body of the university, and the faculty, was ubiquitously alarming!! This movie articulates the element of non-cohesiveness with all of the major characters in this film!! The sixties were a time of change, hence, change meant uncertainty.. Why was there such a vehement protestation to the war in Vietnam? For the simple reason that most Americans felt that we did not belong there!! The rumination of concepts that Elliot Gould engaged in left him with a precarious pot luck stew of convoluted ideologies!! Alternative philosophies which had galvanized the American youth could no longer be swept under the rug!! Ultimately, Elliot Gould had to come to grips with the fact that in your life, it does not matter what you do, but, it matters who you are!! Candace Bergen plays his love interest, as well as his succor for comprehending social changes!! The two of them are constantly stalemated by perpetual revolutionary pontifications which they are barraged with on an ephemeral basis!! It stands to reason that a happy ending in a movie such as this would bring on a bevy of unresolved perplexities of rebellion!! Both of these characters don't know what they want in life, but, they know what they don't want in life!! Such a plight cultivated a pleasant solace for both of these free spirited societal malcontents (Candace Bergen and Elliot Gould). I liked this movie, and I felt that the basic concept to this film evoked an individualism which accommodated the era in which it was made!! Effective acting performances made this film an empathetic précis of entertainment for virtually everyone who watched it... I give it a 10!!
  • Mind you this film IS thirty years old and reflects what was "politically correct" for that era. We do see the early signs of the change from hippie to yuppie. Remember Jerry Rubin's conversion to capitalism? It doesn't wear well however, thirty years of wear at our ardor and idealism shows this film to be a faded glory. If a young person that wasn't around for the march from "the summer of love"; through "is Paul dead"; "Kent State"; and Watergate; and wants to see 1970 through a looking glass.. Just remember that you're looking at a different world.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I do believe that todays college campus is not as frenetic as the one in this college comedy drama.

    In 1970 many college campuses were in a turmoil, the events staged in this movie had some basic facts of other events, .

    Richard Rush who in 10 years) would make THE STUNT MAN directed Robert Kaufmans screenplay taken from Ken Kolbs novel. This movie was a laugh riot & also quite tense in the final riot scenes.

    Today it is still good & not dated as some similar films of that period are.

    Elliot Gould is superb in the lead, His performance was od award caliber, why he was not at least nominated is beyond me.

    Candace Bergen co-stars. Now Miss Bergen has never been know for her acting ability, she does try however to give a credible performance.

    In the cast are Jeff Corey,Cecil Kellaway (this fine actors last role)

    & in a bit role Harrison Ford (one of his first roles).

    I highly recommend this pick for all, those who have seen it before & for those too young to have seen it in 1970.

    Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)
  • Don't you feel when they tell you war's a game / You're dead before you even start to play / Don't you feel you're just a number not a name / Your number's up today

    Don't you feel what Chicken Little said is coming true / Can't you see the writing on the wall / Don't you feel the floor and ceiling closing in on you...

    Or don't you feel at all?

    "Getting Straight" has to do with something few even remember anymore: overthrowing the "Nixon People"--the 1950's culture. But it's not about getting "straight", it's about becoming the opposite. It's about realizing who you really are and what you must be.

    Elliot Gould is an English teacher who is caught between these two worlds. He is is a graduate student who has his all-important Masters' thesis meeting soon. He's also a LITTLE too old for the world of the protesting and demonstrating college kids, angry about 'Nam, social injustice, repressive politics

    ...and gender-segregated dorms.

    In the film, he tries very, very hard to see both sides. He even becomes the conduit for communication between the two sides. But at every turn, his efforts at cooperation, reconciliation, and approving things are thrown back in his face by the old people, who just don't "get it", and never will.

    The final straw for the kids comes when the University responded to demands for co-ed dorms by moving the dorm curfew for other-sex visitors back by 30 minutes.

    The point is: they genuinely thought that was enough.

    As the intermediary, Gould pointed to a kid who had just thrown a rock through the Administration building window and told the the University president, "See that kid? A year ago he just wanted to get laid. Now he wants to kill somebody! YOU SHOULD HAVE LET HIM GET LAID!!"

    But the older generation never understood that what was going on was not just about getting laid or 'Nam, it was an American Revolution of a kind not seen since the first one. And they didn't know it was about to blast them into the dustbin of history.

    The last straw for Gould himself was when he tried to play by the rules at his Masters' meeting with the English faculty. He answered increasingly ridiculous questions the way they wanted him too. But in the end, like the kids, the situation with the old people became something he could no longer tolerate.

    In his case, it was a closeted homosexual professor (in those days nobody talked admitted it openly) who insisted that Gould agree that the in the Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby's woman friend Jordan Baker, a golfer, was a reference to homosexuality, and that in fact there was a gay relationship between Gatsby and his neighbor Nick Carraway.

    He finally realized that he has to be a radical, too, because old white man insists on forcing old-white-man beliefs on everyone else, no matter how poorly they fit.

    He climbed up on the conference room table, announced that the greatest American literary form was the dirty limerick, told one, and then joined the rioting kids who had just broken down the English building door and were tearing everything up. He threw a symbolic rock through a window, and had became radicalized.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw this film as a student, when it first came out. As someone who was involved with important issues like the Vietnam War and civil rights and free speech, I was totally offended by the film's nihilism, the ideas that students demonstrate just because that's what today's students do, and that there are no substantive issues involved. The film is all about the main character's life style and sex life, and (as I recall) his meaningful, altruistic, innovative, and condescending attempt to teach literature to ghetto kids by getting them to read comic books.

    In addition, (as I recall) we are clearly supposed to sympathize with the main character for being in trouble because he was caught cheating at an exam. At the schools I went to at the time, we took our politics and social issues seriously, but our academics no less so.
  • The first time I saw this movie was in a drive-in movie when I was in high school (just make a left turn at the submarine races and you'll find it). and the film opened uniquely enough to keep me from ignoring it for better things to do.

    As the opening credits rolled, the students were tossing this nice red apple across the campus, looking at it, smiling or laughing, and tossing it on to someone else. This kept up all the way through the credits until it drove you nuts. What the hell was on that apple that was so damned fascinating?!?!? Just when the credits ended, the camera angle changed over this student's shoulder and you could see that someone had carved (very neatly, mind you) into the apple, the following message: "THERE IS NO GRAVITY--THE EARTH SUCKS" I have never forgotten that opening scene nor the message on the apple because as I got older, I found that indeed; the Earth does suck--I can see it in the mirror every day.

    I think everyone should see where we came from and what historically we've lived through so I recommend this movie for when you're stuck inside on one of those dreary weather days when you've got nothing to do.

    There is a good point and bad point to every argument and that's what this movie is all about and remember that if we don't learn from our past then we're doomed to repeat it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ************ Caution --- Contains Spoilers ********** Have you ever wanted to tell off your boss? Have you ever longed to tell off a rambling, narrow-minded, spacey, self-righteous college professor? If so, `Getting Straight' is the movie for you.

    `Getting Straight' is almost a good movie. The story line is very dated, very much in the 1960s. The script and the acting are uneven, the characters are flat, and overall the film is just average. But – the REAL value in this movie is the climax!

    Harry Bailey (Elliott Gould) is a penniless graduate student working on his Ph.D. thesis in American Literature. Everything is going wrong for him – he never has enough money for the rent, his old clunker is always breaking down, he's worried about his thesis, and even his girlfriend Jan (Candace Bergen) starts dating a wealthy doctor.

    The academic aspect of this movie is very true to life. To earn a Ph.D., a student must pick a very specific topic and write a comprehensive book that covers every bit of knowledge on that subject. The thesis topic must be approved by the advising professor, and students have five years to finish it. When completed, the student must defend his/her thesis to a panel of professors who ask very incisive questions.

    There is a lot of ‘Sixties flavor to this film. Student leaders are trying to radicalize the student body, Harry's friend is always working on beating the system by draft-dodging scams and welfare scams to collect $900 a week. This movie came out not long after Kent State, Columbia student strike and the `Moratorium' March on Washington. The dialog and the clothes and the "zeitgeist" in general are all true pictures of a bygone era. However, some other movies have done a better job, such as "The Strawberry Statement" or even "Hair." I was in college at the time, and the majority of students were trying to get an education. The political radicals were a minority, although most students were against the war in Vietnam.

    If you rent this movie, I would recommend checking in at the beginning for a few minutes just to get the background, and then fast forward about 75 minutes to the exciting climax.

    Harry's PhD Thesis presentation scene will have you laughing and cheering! His thesis deals with the literary value of the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald. As Harry tries to make his points, the professors derail him on a tangent that Fitzgerald may have been gay. No matter which book he references, one of the ivory tower denizens will always relate it to Fitzgerald's alleged homosexuality. When Harry defends his points about `Tender is the Night,' one prof enthuses, `Ah, yes, perfect, don't you see that the Dick Diver Character was the manifestation of Fitzgerald's repressed latent homosexual drives?' Unable to take any more, Harry explodes, `Well, that must have been news to ZELDA!' Shocked, the profs are speechless as Harry grabs each man's copy of the thesis and tells off the eggheads one by one. Jumping up on the table, he trashes everything they believe in as he throws papers all over the place, especially in their faces. It is a better catharsis than `Dilbert.'

    The denouement comes as the student riot finally erupts on campus. Harry sneaks out as small hordes of authentic sixties hippies run through the building and seize rooms including the one holding the stupefied, frightened professors. Jan magically appears among the anarchy and once again pledges her love to Harry, who has decided to leave the academic establishment.

    Harry never indicates what he will do instead of teaching in college, but the happy couple walks off into the sunset in search of a better tomorrow. If they ever make a sequel to this movie, I wonder if Harry would start a `dot-com' company.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was overseas in 1970 when this came out, so I missed it. When I got the DVD, my wife, who had seen it in 1970, said "That's awful, you won't like it." But I persevered.

    When I got the movie, I thought "Early Candace Bergen, Elliott Gould, Harrison Ford...cool." No.

    It sounds like everyone (yes! everyone!) is reading their lines for the first time, not acting. In other words, don't expect actual acting. Candace, either through bad makeup or bad color restoration, looks orange--I expect she is supposed to look suntanned. She doesn't. The script sounds like a way way off Broadway drama, with all sorts of speeches and clichés. The protest and riot scenes are more like Keystone Kops than 1970s reality. Too many people are smiling, and protests--according to the movie--are just to turn chicks on. There is no exploration of why all this is going on--which I thought surprising. Maybe they thought in 1970 it didn't need explanation. Who knows. But nothing. Poor Candace, and by inference, all women, comes across as just a vapid piece of meat who wants to get married. Pre-women's lib indeed. I bet Candace would slit her throat if she watched this now. I was surprised to see "suck" used in its current meaning in 1970. Otherwise, not much--if anything--to gain in watching this. If you want to re-live the era, watch "Woodstock" or other documentaries.
  • Harry may have been on side of civil rights and more freedoms for students but he's extremely sexist. Saying multiple times that women shouldn't be allowed to read.

    Candice Bergen was very pretty in this role but her acting not so much. Her job was mostly to laugh and cry hysterically. I would have been more interested in this story from Jan's point of view.
  • Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied both by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help) and also by his instructors, hypocrites in power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed screenplay, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the university's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world (as well as get laid), the characters in this picture are nevertheless just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged--and in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders. Gould's shaggy character rants and raves, too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids, but he doesn't see his own shortcomings...and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like many of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen gives a wan performance as Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be a wife in the suburbs. Bergen is continually put down for that, as if she's a sellout, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment. The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness, filmed and edited with precision, and yet they don't come organically out of this story; they are interjected for shock value. The rage presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. ** from ****
  • One for the time capsules as Elliott runs amok on a University campus, wishing to keep a low profile in order to achieve a future in education. But the political turmoil of the time throws him into unexpected chaos. Great social commentary from an underrated director, Rush.
  • jasonta14 March 2002
    A thinking and feeling individual should find value in this period romp through higher education. It won't save the world and you may not like it. But it has a message, some funny bits, and soul. Catch it on cable.
  • Elliot Gould salvages what is otherwise a very mediocre movie. Candice Bergen's early reputation as a bad actress was molded in part by this film, where virtually the only thing she does in Getting Straight is whine, whine, & whine. I remember watching this film for the first time, and thinking to myself "Will somebody PLEASE slap her?" Her father's dummies, Charlie McCarthy & Mortimer Snerd, were better actors than her, and made better movies. Elliot Gould did M*A*S*H that same year, and built a well-deserved reputation as an excellent actor, even though he's had his cinematic ups-and-downs since then, like most actors. His work in Getting Straight is excellent, but unfortunately is balanced out by a typically bad performance by Candice Bergen.
  • OK. Mainly, if you want to see Ms. 10-cents-a-minute and (to a greater extent) Mr. Gould make fools of themselves, check this relic out. It's suffused with dated political jargoneering and tedious, tortured ruminations on the expediency of individual political action circa 1970. Historically interesting (maybe).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Getting straight is a film, which creates a monument for the counter culture era in the late sixties. It does so in a very authentic and credible way. I grew up in those days, and although I could never understand the motives and logic of my rebellious contemporaries, Getting straight presents a recognizable picture of all the elements. The atmosphere of freedom, profligacy, enjoyment and naivety is factual. The story is replete with fighting against the police, but it remains good-natured. It truly was like that (most of the time). Even the film music is typical. Back then I realized naturally that the counter culture was an illusion. But it did remove some of the unwarranted authority, and thus increased our freedom. In the film script this struggle is enacted on a university - the students were indeed an avant garde. Other movies about the subject (Strawberry statement, Fritz the Cat, The revolutionary, perhaps Hair) all paint a gloomy picture of the student movement. A society needs a certain responsibility in order to survive. Getting straight employs a more subtle approach, and focuses on the personality of the main character, Harry. Harry exemplifies the counter culture. He is a likable leader: bright, witty, and authoritative. However, a closer examination reveals that he is also unstable and abusive. In fact he possesses many of the evils, that were the target of the counter culture. He tries to exploit his landlady, he deceives during exams, he can not control his rages, and worst of all, he humiliates his loyal girl-friend Jenny. The script sympathizes with Harry, but also makes fun of him. For instance, after a one-night stand in the bedroom of a woman, he says: "It is time to go. Shall I call a cab for you?" In rare moments Harry indeed realizes that his attitude is self-destructive. The climax is his oral masters exam before a committee. One of the professors rejects the scientific standpoint of Harry. In a visible internal battle Harry tries to give in, but he fails to bring in this generosity. Once again he throws a fit, in this crucial moment of his life, and thus loses his masters. At the same time, outside the students rise up, and plunder the university buildings. Still Harry tries to justify his behavior: "It is not important what you do, but who you are" and "I do not belong here". It may appear strange, but I love this film, for its humanity and understanding of human deficiency. It is definitely recommendable, and a must-see for my contemporaries.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Ever heard of the 'campus' comedy? No, we didn't think so. And after this film flopped with audiences the 'campus' comedy was never heard from again until the advent of the National Lampoon series in the early '80s, which for all I know, may have been funnier than this ever was. After the success of 'Easy Rider' with the youth audience of the '60's, Hollywood thought it could cash in on the counter culture with a number of ventures into what the press politely referred to as 'youth' movies. They were not however, about the joys of surfing in California. This sub-genre included such (forgotten) titles as 'The Strawberry Statement', 'The Baby Maker', 'Norwood' and maybe some others that have slipped even my memory down the years. Oh, and of course this one, which may be the best, but that isn't saying much.

    Elliott Gould stars as an academic who, previously as a post-grad student was heavily involved in political activism on his local campus. However, deciding to become a teacher puts a spanner in his works and Gould has to decide if he wants to become a career academic, or conversely, a career bum. Selling out didn't seem so easy because, hey, what's the difference! Girlfriend Candice Bergen looks young and lovely and bears the brunt of Gould's anti-Establishment tirades; she gets a lot of sympathy from the audience. This film makes no bones that women's aspirations to get ahead are not as highly thought of as those of men, and it communicates an uncomfortable message to wit, ladies, it's easier for the guys as well as you to stay at home and concentrate on the cleaning. 'Getting Straight' is interesting for its curiosity value; it is a useful snapshot of (hopefully) a bygone era and for that reason is watchable. But this also is what makes the film so dated. I dare any woman these days not to squirm at the abuse Candice Bergen endures at the hands of this arrogant male chauvinist who is as interested in keeping the status quo alive in the bedroom as he is in changing it in the public arena. The comedy is funny enough and a trifle droll, concerning the small-mindedness of academia and the thickheadedness of some teachers who should know more about the world they live in, but sadly do not.

    The film does have a certain value that we can appreciate today, but with the virtue of hindsight that technology affords us, 'Getting Straight' is not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Or should I say, thought that it was
  • It's funny, the first 2 or 3 reviews use almost the same phrase that leaps to my mind "Candice Bergen at her most beautiful", and while the lovely Ms B certainly lights up the screen, Elliott Gould is the star, and his Trapper John persona from THE MOVIE M*A*S*H* was still strong in his acting memory. I came here after finding a smelly old copy of the paperback at a Goodwill. First I went to EBay, where some hoser has Getting Straight as BLAXPLOITATION (his caps), then I came here. I never knew it was filmed at Lane CC, but when I saw it at the Aurora Drive-In in Seattle, it was double-billed with Drive, He Said, another non-mainstream college flick which was filmed in Eugene. I enjoyed Getting Straight much more, & I'm looking forward to watching it again. And Cecil Kelloway's last role? Got to. I'll double bill it with They Might Be Giants
  • This movie is somewhat dated in parts. Like a dopey shot using a fish eye lens on a university board member character. The billy clubs used in the riot scenes are very fake looking as well. But Elliot Gould does a good job as a burned out sixties radical who wants to get ultra conservative America off its uptight rear end. Elliot has multiple shots of his INCREDIBLY hairy back in this film though. They shoulda had him wax. Other than that, a good film about late 60's campus life, can ya dig it?