User Reviews (63)

Add a Review

  • jrs-817 July 2001
    Warning: Spoilers
    "Save the Tiger" is not for everyone. If you are a fan of great acting and writing, and not bothered by a slow pace then this is a movie for you.

    The film takes place all in one day and tells the story of a businessman on a downward spiral. Jack Lemmon (in a well deserved Oscar winning role) plays the owner of a clothing manufacturer. He is losing money and his mind. He has decided to hire an arsonist to destroy the business so he can collect the insurance money, much against the wishes of his partner (well played by Jack Gilford).

    The film follows him that day as he comes to many life decisions while trying to avoid the nervous breakdown that is hauntingly close.

    This is a film of raw power that never reaches out to us so strongly that we feel smothered by it all. It's pace is slow which makes the film all the more powerful. Two scenes that stand out are when he is to speak at a luncheon. As he speaks he begins seeing the audience not as normal, everyday people but as soldiers from the war he fought in. He is so overcome he can't finish his speech.

    The other standout moment is when he meets the arsonist at the porno theater. The arsonist has been there and back 100 times and knows his business. He knows the right way to destroy a man's dreams for profit. To say the scene is frightening is an understatement. But it's a testament to the brilliant (and Oscar winning) screenplay by Steve Shagan.

    This is one of those rare films for adults. Frightening, powerfully thought provoking. A must see for the true cinema buff.
  • This was definitely a tour-de-force performance for Jack Lemmon.

    I believe the strength of this film is that his performance allows it to strike a multi-generational cord with viewers...a key theme of the movie is the way the world has changed since they way we remembered it when we were younger, which I think is a pang that all of us get, no matter what age. The world always seems darker and more complicated now and concept that needs no real transposition between eras.

    Harry Stoner is a man of his times...swing bands, baseball, and World War II. His life is still influenced by all three, but only in quick flashes of fond memories or flashbacks of a beach in Italy. Lemmon gives us a character that does what he has to do in order to maintain what he has worked for, and that rationalizes that which may or may not be quite on the up-and-up.

    Jack Gilford is excellent as his partner in Capri Casuals, representing a voice of conscience that is not quite as blind to circumstance as Jack's character, and there are several other good performances in the film. Jack Lemmon stands out, as he does in most films, and richly deserved the Academy Award for this one.
  • I saw this movie on cable when I was probably 18 or 20 years old, and from the first time watching it, I was enthralled. It really does engross you. I think the credit (and Im happy to say the Oscar) goes to Jack Lemmon, an actor who

    really did have the everyman down to a science. The movie is an excellent

    commentary on dreams coming apart, the loss of old friends, and realizing

    youre time may have come and gone. Not exactly the most uplifting movie but it is raw and honest. Lemmon and his partner run Capri Casuals, a women's wear

    line based in southern California in the early 70's. (incidentally the name comes from the island where most of Lemmons war time buddies were killed and

    buried) When times get tough and Lemmon is lowering himself by becoming a

    pimp to a big customer, he realizes his American dream might be over. In

    consultation with his partner he decides to hire an arsonist to destroy his factory for the insurance. An intense, searing performance from Lemmon, makes Save

    the Tiger a movie that should be watched for years to come.

    Highly Recommended.
  • The wife is out of town, the kids are in bed, it's just me and the dog.....Save the Tiger came on AMC. I remember going to the theater in 1973, at age 18 and seeing this movie. I was impressed by Jack Lemmon's performance back then. Seeing it now, at age 44....Wow! Jack was my father back then, now I'm my father. I think save the Tiger was the first movie I ever saw that didn't have a happy ending. Except for some dated parts, it is still a very powerful movie about the harshness of life. In real life, well dressed men and women spend every day trying to continue while burdened with almost impossible problems on their back. And we do what we have to do to get by. Little honor in that, but it's real life. Save the Tiger reminded me to be a little nicer to the next grump I meet, I may not know what is hiding behind the nice suit. Laurie Heineman as Myra the hippy chick excited me then and now and is still that fantasy oasis every aging, harried man dreams of to escape the world of his own making.
  • Jack Lemmon will always be remembered for his comic performances. However, he could have been just as great as a dramatic actor. Save the Tiger and his tour-de-force performance in it more than proves that.

    He plays Harry Stoner, owner of an heavily indebted ladies designer clothes manufacturing company. The film covers just 2-3 days of his life and we get a pretty good idea of his sad existence in the urban jungle and what he has become - no longer a good, decent person fighting for the right cause. There are references to Stoner's war record and patriotism throughout the film. The fact that the US was fighting the very unpopular Vietnam war could have influenced the themes of this film.

    There is little in the way of plot but there is a rich characterization made deeper by the crises in Stoner's life and Lemmon's excellent depiction of a man who is cracking at the seams. My favorite scenes were the ones in the car with the hippie girl towards the beginning of the film and the question she asked him and Lemmon's comic reaction....
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Caught this last night on TCM and was very taken by Jack Lemmon's deserved Oscar-winning performance. The movie itself is about a middle-aged man whose business is dying and who is becoming desperate; he thinks about resorting to arson, provides hookers to some of his clients, and is tormented by memories of the war from 30 years past. Jack Gilford plays his pure-hearted business partner of many years who tries to resist his warped ideas. Thayer David is very good also in a smaller part as a criminal Lemmon approaches to settle his problems. The movie is pretty basic and simple, and the ending left me a little unsatisfied this first time around, but the performances make it captivating. It's another of these movies I relate to in the sense of getting older myself these days and wondering what happened. *** out of ****
  • Jack Lemmon does a great job as the harried, depressed businessman trying to beat the system in the 70's, but Brando should have won Oscar for LAST TANGO. John Avildsen made a better film in 1970 (JOE with Peter Boyle and Susan Sarandon), but creates a believable L.A. mood, although the hippie chick looks right but can't act at all. Jack Gilford is timidly authentic as usual and Thayer David is always a scary bovine presence as the "fire" man.

    A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Mr. Lemmon. Nice script by Steve Shagan, but not as heavy as it purports to be. I'm really glad I saw this though.
  • Save the Tiger is about lost illusions of youth and the things some of us have to do to merely keep treading water. Jack Lemmon is the head of a garment factory which has suffered some losses over the past few years and he and partner Jack Gilford see few options that will save them from bankruptcy or worse.

    The best of these options is to start an arson fire in their factory and hope the insurance payoff will cancel their debts and afford a fresh start. Gilford is against it on moral principles, but Lemmon is a guy who can't afford morals at this stage as George Bernard Shaw once put it.

    Still he looks back on his youth and the things and people that moved him back in the day and wonders how he got in the mess he's in. It's not supposed to be like this for people like him who've had ideals and tried to play by the rules.

    In his facial expressions, his vocal intonations, in every move of his body and soul, Lemmon becomes Harry Stoner the latest convert to cynicism. It's what got Jack Lemmon his Second Academy Award, this time for Best Actor. Interesting that this very cynical film came out the year that a whole lot of Americans became very cynical as Watergate was unfolding before them.

    Arson fire is a tricky business and Lemmon puts himself in the hands of Thayer David who I think gives his best screen portrayal here as the professional arsonist. Listening to him, as creepy as he sounds, he comes off as a man who knows his business. He even at one point offers to return the down payment given him when he explains that insurance will never pay off with all the fire regulation violations Lemmon and Gilford have in their place. It's a business with him and no fatalities must occur, otherwise it's a Law and Order episode.

    Jack Lemmon was one of the best around, could do all kinds of comedy and drama with equal skill. Building on the characters he created for Billy Wilder, he's an older man now who's in no position to start from scratch again. Lemmon plays a character that all of us over 40 can definitely relate to.

    Save the Tiger is a serious and thought provoking drama about choices each and every one of us could face some time in our lives. It's universality of theme will make it an enduring classic.
  • Coolflic23 August 2000
    'Save the Tiger' deals with one mans struggle to keep his business afloat in the cut and thrust world of ladies casuals in the early seventies. (don't laugh) I only saw this movie from half way through but as soon as I set eyes on it I could tell it was something special. It's the kind of film that has an underlying tension and pace where you think that any second something really dramatic is going to happen but never actually does. In fact, just as something substantial was about to happen the film abruptly ended. But I cannot put this into perspective as I did not see the whole film. Of course the it was worth watching just for Lemmon's performance alone, who was as superb as always. A rare, gritty, quality, American drama.
  • "Save the Tiger" is a great movie, perhaps because its strongest moments come in rather conventional situations where the believable characters are realistically profane but never gratuitously vulgar, which is a common failing in today's films. Some might call this unpretentious realism "slow pacing," but I don't think there's anything "slow" about it unless your attention wavers with anything less engaging than several gruesome deaths or graphic sex scenes per hour. On the contrary, I find this interesting flick to be sophisticated and entertaining. Having seen it at a theater when it first came out, and then having watched a heavily censored TV version on numerous occasions since that time, I rented the new DVD and was once again blown away by the original, uncensored script.

    The often biting interplay between pragmatic businessman, Harry Stoner (played by Jack Lemmon), and his more idealistic partner, Phil Greene (played by Jack Gilford) supplies among the film's most dramatic moments as they wrestle with a rather drastic solution designed to keep "Capri Casuals" afloat for another season. Equally effective is the gritty exchange between Stoner and a kinky Midwestern buyer who becomes adamant that he be supplied with a favored prostitute as a precondition for placing his usual generous order. Stoner's attempts to discourage him prove fruitless and only make him more determined to get what he wants. Facing this unexpected resistance, the client pleads, "I need these little diversions," explaining that his wife is, "a sick woman all scarred up from all those damn operations."

    But the callgirl is all booked up for the day. "That's a very popular lady," Stoner explains. "Why didn't you call me from Cleveland?" "Harry," the client responds, beginning to lose his cool, "I don't make calls like that from Cleveland." When Stoner makes one last attempt to weasel out of pimp duty by bringing up the expense involved, the client finally blows his stack. "You rotten son of a bitch," he cries. "The whole goddamn thing is a write off! I throw my heart across your desk and you're giving me cost!" Suddenly, Phil pops into the office and things cool down immediately. This is good stuff.

    As well, the tension boiling over between the old Jewish cutter and the pompous gay designer provide grist for some brief fireworks. Another high point is Stoner's interaction with a naive young hippie girl named Myra who hitches a ride with him down Sunset Blvd. She at first comes off as rather superficially and stereotypically drawn, but in time becomes more appealing, offering Harry non-judgmental affection with no strings attached and a temporary refuge from the pressures and stresses that are edging him ever closer to a nervous breakdown. In contrast, while he's obviously cracking up, the only attention he gets from his concerned yet emotionally distant wife is, "Go see Dr. Frankfurter." A guy in a white coat named "hotdog" is supposed to fix him right up? Gee, I don't think so. Why doesn't she try putting out a little more?

    The scenes in the porno theater with the cool and efficient arsonist are also good, as is the one in which Stoner's bitter memories from WWII surface rather inconveniently while he's onstage, attempting to address the assembled buyers at the all-important fashion show. There, he suffers a disturbing hallucination in which audience members are suddenly replaced by his fallen comrades in Charlie Company who died at Anzio. His grip on "reality" takes a serious nosedive right in front of his potential clients. I suspect that scene is considered the best one by professional critics and members of the Academy, but ironically, it is my least favorite moment. In any case, Jack Lemmon has so many good scenes in this movie that it is difficult to single out any one of them as the best. In my most recent viewing, I got the biggest kick out of one of the early scenes, in which Lemmon imitates the windup and delivery of a great pitcher from the good old days, his fond memories of baseball and jazz being all that inspire him anymore.

    When you want to see a good movie from the past, cue this one up. It never gets old.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Jack Lemmon was the finest American motion-picture actor of the late twentieth century. He is often written off as a comedy star, and certainly some of his efforts in that realm of Hollywood entertainment are forgettable (though more than a few are still very human and very funny). But it is always exciting to see Lemmon unlimber his acting chops and portray the middle-class schlub trying to thrive and then just trying to survive modern life. His portrayal of Harry Stoner in SAVE THE TIGER ranks with his Joe Clay in THE DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES, Ed Horman in MISSING, and Shelley Levene in GLENGARY GLEN ROSS, to mention only his most notable dramatic roles. I'd like to think the Best Actor Oscar that Lemmon received for SAVE THE TIGER (he had been awarded Best Supporting Actor for playing Ensign Frank Thurlowe Pulver in 1955's MISTER ROBERTS) was the film community's overdue recognition that he could play for sighs and tears as well as for laughs.

    Seeing this film recently on TCM through the filter of 35 years, I was still moved by the commitment of Jack Lemmon to Harry Stoner. Unfortunately, SAVE THE TIGER remains an awkward and extremely self-conscious movie, as much so as when I first saw it in a theater in 1973. Steve Shagan's script contains no references to the Watergate scandal that had started the year before; but in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, American popular culture was becoming increasingly obsessed with moral decay. Many novels and films of the 1970s suggested that political corruption and official deceptions had blurred the boundaries of conventional good/bad, black-and-white morality with which most Americans had supposedly been comfortable. (That was the standard they usually saw in the movies, after all.) Viewed from the perspective of the early 21st century, the suggestion that government and corporate wrongdoing could somehow make personal immorality understandable, or even commendable, seems rather quaint -- a sop, perhaps, to a movie-going Baby Boomer generation that was coming of age and groping for its own moral grounding.

    There are many problems with this clunky script, not so much in terms of plot as in terms of texture. Harry Stoner's obsession with the joys of his youth -- baseball and big bands -- quickly turns into a heavy-handed exercise in nostalgia, as though Shagan is showing off his knowledge of 1940s popular culture (Shagan was born in 1927). Harry's apparent readiness to hire an arsonist to save his troubled business makes his moral agonizing less involving, though perhaps Shagan meant to enhance the difference between Harry's seeming confidence and the severe misgivings of his partner Phil (Jack Gilford). The big dramatic setpiece of the film -- Harry's speech to the buyers at his firm's fashion show -- is extremely suspicious. Harry strikes me as too much of a professional to start losing it at such a vital moment. Why THAT event for a PTSD flashback? (There's another scene toward the end of the film -- Harry standing alone on a beach, replaying the soundtrack of Anzio in his head -- that's more subtle and more effective.) And then there's Myra, the happy-go-lucky hippie chick with whom, Shagan apparently thought, "the kids" could identify. (With a smile, she offers to have sex with Harry about 47 seconds after they meet. Yeah, I could identify with that.) Myra's seeming innocence and optimism have so little to do with Harry Stoner that she seems not a contrast but an irrelevance.

    Shagan's script benefits from the direction of John G. Avildsen. The opening shot of Harry's swimming pool is haunting, and industrial Los Angeles looks appropriately unglamorous. All of the actors (including Laurie Heinemann as Myra) are credible. But the real reason to see SAVE THE TIGER is Jack Lemmon portraying Harry Stoner. If his performance can't rescue the film, it is still compelling -- an exploration of a human heart that will break your own.
  • As an audience grows older, their perception of life changes. When viewing a movie in your youth, you may not understand the tiny, subtle remarks, nor the innuendos. But as you reach mature milestones, suddenly those secret words, phrases and remarks make so much sense, you wonder why you didn't understand them the first time. That is the message in this film called " Save the Tiger." Although the initial message in the movie was to try and save an endangered species of Indian Tiger, the subliminal message was it could also apply to an American Original; an Idealist American businessman on the verge of extinction. Jack Lemmon plays Harry Stoner, a middle age clothing designer trying to save his faltering business. Despite having a winning fashion line which will yield a sizable profit, they can achieve their goal if they can meet their payroll. As a result, Stoner and his business partner Phil Greene (Jack Gilford, superb acting) may have to resort to criminal options to survive. Thus enters a professional arsonist named Charlie Robbins (Thayer David, is brilliant in this role) who for 10% of the insurance will make short work of an aging property and make it look like an accident. Phil wants nothing to do with the arson plan despite the fact he is already part of last year's fraudulent scheme. Added to his worries, is the fact that Stoner like so many other Veterans, cannot seem to lose the nightmarish visions of the war, where so many of his fellow soldiers died. Stoner fades in and out of reality often dreaming of a past where the highlight of a day was to see the 'Old Fashion Wind-up and pitch' of his youth. This is truly a Classic for anyone wishing to recall a younger segment of one's life which we all understood. ****
  • rdoubleoc3 September 2020
    Not bad. Great depiction of the stress the average businessman in corporate America had to go through. I feel like this is my father's life on tape.
  • AaronCapenBanner27 September 2013
    Jack Lemmon won a best actor Academy Award as Harry Stoner, a middle-aged businessman whose business(a struggling apparel company) is severely in debt, with accounts being canceled, forcing Harry to degrade himself by pimping prostitutes for the salesmen. He finally agrees to see a professional arsonist, who will burn down the building so that he can collect the insurance money. The fact that it will also affect another business in the building is just too bad...besides, they're insured too, or so that's what Harry tells himself. He finds himself thinking about the past more, as he drifts into an affair with a young hippie girl.

    Lemmon is excellent, but also the whole show in this otherwise dreary and hollow film, that just doesn't have much dramatic impact, and wallows in seediness too much. Ending is also unsatisfying, and inconclusive.
  • I first saw this movie as a young man on PBS in Boston,in the late seventies and was immediately struck by the power, honesty and conviction of Lemmon's portrayal, of the ultimate mid life crisis.

    Little did I know, that thirty years later, I would be going through one of my own and would once again be drawn to, and struck by, the sincerity and integrity of Jack Lemmon's performance.

    The film has it's critics, self indulgent, sentimental and simplistic are only some of comments made, but the film still has the power to make you question what you have done with your own life. It asks you how you got to where you are, and it makes you ask yourself if it was all worth it. It also questions/exposes the Great American Dream and asks, if that is not the be all and end all, then what is?

    Harry Stoner is not a man you should feel sorry for, but Lemmon's interpretation forces you to question his ideals and your own, as you follow this crisis point in his life. In the end, whether you like the film or not, or agree with what it is trying to say, you can't deny Lemmon his Academy Award.
  • During the '50s and early '60s, the image of the "ideal" life (where everyone lived pretty no matter what) reigned supreme. "Save the Tiger" is like a barrel of salt in that image's wound. Middle-aged Harry Stoner (Jack Lemmon) has a top job, but he's clearly not happy; quite the contrary, he always seems like his blood pressure is through the roof, and like his composure is hanging by a thread.

    I saw this right before I graduated from high school, and...well, it was pretty disturbing to think that what "Save the Tiger" portrays is my prospect for the future. But, that's life. Harry Stoner apparently knows this all too well.

    About his surname, was that a reference to something? Harry clearly was not getting stoned or anything, although he did hang out with a hippie girl.
  • Jack Lemmon delivers an impassioned, Best Actor Oscar winning performance as Harry Stoner, a middle aged man out of step in the L.A. of the early to mid-1970s. He's awash in memories, both good and bad, and tries to shove ideas of morality aside while dealing with this mid-life crisis. A veteran of the garment industry, he realizes that his business is just not doing well, and has to make a tough decision regarding the deliberate torching of his building for insurance purposes.

    The film itself is fairly good, and reasonably compelling, but ultimately, on the whole, it's not quite as interesting as its main character, and Lemmon just acts his heart out. He's well supported by Jack Gilford, as his business partner Phil, Laurie Heineman as a free-spirited hitchhiker who never seems to have a specific destination in mind, Norman Burton as a business associate, Patricia Smith as Harry's wife, William Hansen as aged employee Meyer, and especially busy 70s character actor Thayer David as a professional arsonist. Jack has some particularly fine scenes with Gilford and Heineman.

    Your heart just goes out to this guy, a person who's just trying to get by and has to face some unpleasant facts about where his life has led him.

    The film is written & produced by Steve Shagan, and directed by John G. Avildsen, and they approach this material with sensitivity and understanding. It's slowly paced, and may not resolve itself quite enough to suit some viewers, but it provides a decent story, complete with music by Marvin Hamlisch and cinematography by James Crabe. It's R rated, with some use of profanity and some use of sex, but it's not a "hard R" sort of film, so it will have fairly broad appeal.

    Still, it will speak more eloquently to adults, when they've had a chance to look back at their own lives and wonder about their own choices made.

    Seven out of 10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is about a dress manufacturer named Harry Stoner (Jack Lemmon). He hates his job and has to pimp out for people just to get them to buy his outfits. He's even considering arson to cover up some mistakes. He misses his youthful life and wants to go back to a time when things were easier and quieter.

    This isn't a plot driven movie--it's more of a character study than anything else. It's a slow movie and I found the observations in the script pretty obvious (but they may not have been in 1972). Also it's depressing seeing what Stoner has to do to succeed. This would probably be unbearable to watch if the acting weren't so good. Lemmon rightfully won a Best Actor Oscar for this. He's just incredible! You see him struggling to survive and dreaming about the good old days. Jack Gilford matches him as a business associate. In fact he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor--but didn't win. Also Thayer Davis is just wonderful in his two short scenes as Charlie Robbins. He doesn't move a muscle on his face but you can't stop watching him. This is not for everybody. It's slow and bleak with very little of a plot--also it bombed in theatres. But, for acting alone, this is a must-see. I give it a 7.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For some reason, it is only in my 60th year that I have had the chance to watch "Save The Tiger." What an incredible and intense film it is. One of the significant story telling techniques used is the compression of events into a tight time frame. In the case of "Save the Tiger," Harry Stoner's life is under a perpetual gun for 36 hours.

    On a obscure note, others may have commented on this but midway in the film, we catch a glimpse of an old Bogart masterpiece, "High Sierra." Suffice it to say there are thematic intersections between the Bogart classic and this film. ***slight spoiler*** "Save the Tiger" ends on a gentle, reflective note: We watch Harry in the sun, in a park watching kids play. Early in "High Sierra" Roy Earle, just released from prison, strolls into a park to enjoy the sight of grass and trees. Kids are playing. He picks up a stray baseball and chucks it.

    Harry's lost boys of summer days and Earle's brief flirtation with memory provide a wonderful cinematic link.

    Diversion aside, "Save the Tiger" is a magnificent piece of work.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Save the Tiger" is not a particularly enjoyable film. It's all about people who, frankly, are pretty shallow and often despicable. Yet, I cannot dismiss the film completely, as it is an interesting character study. And, in many ways it's an 'anti-Hollywood film' that just happened to be filmed there! The film is about a guy in his mid-40s (Jack Lemmon) who is, at least on the surface, successful. However, he is disaffected with life. His marriage has grown cold and daughter has moved out--and his only life appears to be his job. As for the job, he's only a few steps away from bankruptcy and is willing to do just about ANYTHING to keep his business above water....and I do mean anything. And, to justify this to his ambivalent partner (Jack Guilford), he comes up with 1001 excuses to make doing evil seem necessary and even acceptable. He's a pathetic and rather despicable soul that appears headed for a nervous breakdown. And, in a HUGE departure from the norm for Hollywood, the film ends with nothing resolved and Lemmon even more lost and unlikable than ever. And, because he's a soulless jerk, you may not even care that he's left this way.

    So why watch this film? After all, it's quite unpleasant. Well, for most viewers I don't think there is a reason to see it, actually. But, Lemmon gave a dynamite performance (and he received the Oscar for it) and some middle-aged folks might just be able to relate to him and his life situation. As for me, I am about the same age as his character and the film actually affirmed to me how good my life is compared to his! I am sure that is NOT the purpose of the film--to make me say "wow, his life sucks and mine is so much better!".

    By the way, I should offer a BIG WARNING--This is a very adult film. While there's no nudity, the subject matter is very adult and the language VERY harsh. It was not surprising hearing Lemmon talk that way (after all, I saw him in "Glengarry, Glen Ross") but seeing the usually sweet Guilford dropping F-bombs amazed me, as I grew up seeing him playing nothing but sweet characters (like the Cracker Jack guy). So, you are forewarned.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know where to begin, except to say that Jack Lemmon was one of our finest actors and is one of my personal favorites. Many can find fault with this film, but a great performance can make any ordinary film extraordinary. Each time I see it, I want to see it again. Its depiction of a man, in the supposed prime of his life, who's thoroughly unhappy with it, is unflinchingly raw and real. Its somber and bleak tone may turn off some viewers, expecting one of Lemmon's usual comedies. But, I am just in awe. Once the viewer sees him lying on the floor, saying he just wants to feel...something, they are not likely to forget it. One gets the feeling that he won the Oscar, not only because he was outstanding, but because he was willing to subject himself to a nervous breakdown just for a role. Lemmon said he did have one, in the making of this movie. He so deserved the Oscar. Save the Tiger's bitterest irony is that we have causes, funds, and drives for animals becoming extinct, but what do we do mankind? We may do more now, in the 2000s, than we did in the 70s, which is why people were ashamed of their problems then and didn't know where to turn. Finally, the ending is up to the viewer. Does Harry Stoner have a revelation, after being rejected by the boys playing? Does he feel like he's becoming extinct? Does he see himself forever living in the past? Does he feel only the futility of his life? Or, does he feel he can do something positive? What happens next to Harry Stoner is not shown, because it is up to you... because you are Harry Stoner.
  • Jack Lemmon gave an excellent Oscar winning performance in this film about a middle-aged man, Harry Stoner, facing a mid-life crisis. With his garment business going bad, Stoner (Lemmon) hires an arsonist to set the place on fire so that he can collect the insurance.

    Jack Gilford, as his business partner, provided excellent support and received a supporting Oscar nomination. He lost to "The Paper Chase's" John Houseman.

    This is a story of moral decay in the 1970s. Hookers with buying agents and Harry being seduced by a young hooker he picks up on the highway.

    The film is depressing and sets us up for mood swings and somewhat of a conflicting ending.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    EVERYONE has films that for some strange reason, seemingly completely out of sync with one's age and place and station in life at the time, resonate and then some, impacting that person for years to come.

    For me, the two that stand out in that regard are 1968's "The Swimmer" and 1973's "Save the Tiger," both dark character studies dealing with morality, amorality and the twists and turns of complex lives not always so well lived by their middle-aged characters.

    Why I identified with these characters at such an early age myself I have no idea, only that their serpentine screen dilemmas provided a kind of moral road map in the real world, at least for me, and did their jobs as cinematic storytellers in staying with me all these years, still.

    "The Swimmer," taken from a short story by John Cheever, stars Burt Lancaster as Neddy, an upper-class Connecticut man whom we find lounging poolside with friends in an affluent suburb.

    It occurs to him that he can "swim home" by visiting pools of friends and acquaintances, a route that he sees as a kind of "river."

    As the man swims, we begin to understand more and more about his life, or think we do, and he evolves through conversations, confrontations and offhand comments, until he winds up ingloriously at a public pool and, finally, standing shivering in the pouring rain before the gates of his mansion in one of filmdom's most surprising endings.

    Many fascinating characters people the film, played by many a recognizable face, including Joan Rivers (yes, that Joan Rivers), John Garfield Jr. (son of the great noir star), Janice Rule, Marge Champion (dancer-choreographer Gower Champion's better half), Kim Hunter and Janet Landgard.

    The film was directed by Frank Perry (with some scenes overseen by Robert Redford's frequent collaborator, Sydney Pollack, who is uncredited), with a screenplay by Perry's wife, Eleanor.

    "Save the Tiger" stars Jack Lemmon as Harry Stoner, a clothing manufacturer who is undergoing the loss of youthful idealism as he weighs whether or not to pay an arsonist to torch his factory so he can survive financially through the insurance settlement. His friend and business partner is played by an extraordinarily effective Jack Gilford, a rubber-faced actor with the saddest eyes you'll ever see best known to a generation as the Cracker Jack man.

    Like Lancaster's Neddy in "The Swimmer," Lemmon's Stoner in "Tiger" is undergoing more than an evolution, but a breakdown, not only emotionally, but spiritually as well. Each story is a type of first-person morality play as seen through the eyes of these central characters.

    Lemmon won the best actor Oscar for his performance (beating out, among others, Redford, for his turn in "The Sting"), and the film was voted best drama by the Writers Guild of America.

    Both films seem to have evaporated into the mists of time, little remembered or considered by generations that came after. But they've stayed with me, I like to think because they were both beautifully rendered and had something worthwhile to say, expressing it uniquely and well. If you're in the mood for thought-provoking character studies that will stay with you long after viewing, and for all the right reasons, I recommend giving them a look.
  • A businessman (Jack Lemmon)'s professional struggles begin to conflict with his personal life over the course of two days.

    Lemmon was determined to make the movie, despite its limited commercial prospects, and so he waived his usual salary and worked for scale. The movie failed financially at the box office, but critics and viewers who saw it liked the Oscar-winning performance of Jack Lemmon as Stoner.

    I have to agree with the viewers and Academy on this one. Lemmon, primarily known for his comedy, is excellent in this more serious film and really carries the picture. There is not much of a plot and although it is enjoyable, I suspect there is little re-watch value. But Lemmon is great, and this is very much a one-man show, so any fan of his is going to appreciate it.
  • herbqedi23 February 2002
    Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.

    As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.
An error has occured. Please try again.