Last Summer (1969)

The Age of Commercialism

I'll tell you why so serious

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

As I view this film, DIARY OF A MAD HOUSEWIFE and THE SWIMMER, I came to appreciate and realize the work of Frank Perry. He is an unrecognized director who created great films that are unfortunately largely forgotten. The New Hollywood movement in the 1960's and early to 1970's was exciting, challenging audiences with artistic stories that Hollywood never dreamed of making during the heydays of the Production Code (very rare exceptions crept in). In the 1960s audiences were treated to a younger, edgier and more intense approach to subject matter and movies. All of these things received awards, accolades and astonishing commercial success.LAST SUMMER is one of those movies that received attention and accolades, but never really had an enduring legacy, except maybe only to film aficionados. Here we have the story of three teenagers, Peter, Dan and Sandy that are spending summer vacation together in the very treacherous heat of New York at Fire Island. In that time, we learn of their rather dysfunctional home lives, and they resort to making biting and morbid jokes about it. Peter, Dan and Sandy form a bond, and share personal feelings with one another and experiment with their innermost sexual curiosities and desires. What starts off as cute, sexy becomes a little more biting (for example, the scene in which Peter and Dan feel up Sandy in a movie theater). When a nerdy, morally right girl named Rhoda comes into their circle, they belittle and taunt her. They sort of warm to her later, by teaching her how to swim, and also Peter warms to her more and they develop a crush on each other. The final scene we know...To better understand films, I read reviews to gain more objectivity and insight. And I have come to read, and agree, that the film is very much about sexual power, and how desires and curiosities can become hellish and cruel. Very much like LORD OF THE FLIES, as one reviewer put it. Previously in the film, Sandy and the boys nurse a seagull back to health and when it attacks Sandy she becomes angry and kills the bird. This is the first inclination that tells us this is not going to be an easy movie to sit through. The fascinating aspect is how the young can be, and learn to be, violent and evil. This film is more about provoking emotion and thought rather than happy-go-lucky. It has those sunshine, cute little moments in the beginning and throughout but it becomes something darker and sinister altogether. This film needs a Criterion re-release, and a critical re-appraisal for being an underrated piece of work. Wherever you find it, watch it and be captivated. It will leave you thinking about it again and again. That's what art is supposed to do.

This review may contain spoilers.Three handsome teenagers, two boys and a girl, create a bond while spending the summer in Fire Island, NY. The two boys are virgins and lust after the more experienced girl who knows how to excite them, without allowing things to go too far, while manipulating them into an agenda of her own. They are joined by a homely-looking, inhibited and sensitive teen-age girl, which eventually will bring disastrous consequences.Part of brilliance of the movie is how natural it portraits these four characters. The camera allows the teens to be themselves with their physicality and lust, their notions and experimentation, following their own rhythms and placing them in a world of their own. Also brilliant is how evil is presented, first appearing into their lives as a joke at someone's expense to later manifest as true crime.Probably some viewers may object to the movie not being a morality tale presenting its characters without any redemption at all. But why should these characters learn from their actions? In real life not every young criminal has a morality crisis seeking atonement and this movie portraits its young subjects in a very realistic light.Some things may be different for teens now and in some ways the movie may appear dated. However, as a portrait of teenage alienation, lust, experimentation, group behavior, and crossing moral boundaries, this movie stands the test of time. It is a classic in its genre.

Three obnoxious teenagers on Fire Island during a particular summer form a bond that leads to an unbelievable ending.Nothing like a story about 3 teens, all of whom apparently come from wealthy families who pal around during the summer and meet Rhoda, a depressed teen, far from beautiful, who is basically in a world of her own.Catherine Burns, as Rhoda, tells in detail the tragic drowning of her mother, 5 summers ago and this telling brought her a best supporting actress Oscar bid.The unbelievable, tragic ending and the callous disregard of a human being is haunting. Otherwise, we're subjected to summer-time carefree leisure which to be perfectly honest is quite boring after a while.

There's no plot, no apparent theme, and little action. And an hour into the movie, I'm still not sure where it's going. So why is the 90-minutes as riveting as I think it is. For one, the filmmakers begin with that interesting seagull sequence that provides insight into Sandy's (Hershey) manipulative character and the boys' general submissiveness. However, in between the opening sequence and the final one, nothing much happens. Some scenes are overlong (the pot smoking, the hair washing), while the elliptical dialog is often punctuated by long, non- meaningful, pauses.Nonetheless, the three hedonistic kids are attractive, fairly realistic, and found horsing around at a scenic beach. But then, chubby Rhoda arrives, with her needy, yet judgmental, attitude, and it's curious where things will go from there now that an outsider is watching them.There's an undercurrent here, especially with Sandy, that's seductive. It's to the filmmakers credit, including the cast, that they manage to mesmerize with such spare elements. Oddly, the technique reminds me of the popular Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman— especially his Virgin Spring (1959).I take the upshot as having to do with judgmental people who stand apart from the crowd and not being able to tolerate them. But however you take it, the movie avoids cliché (as others note) and continues to fascinate at a generally unspoken level. Too bad the Perry's didn't make more movies.