A Day at the Beach (1970)

Sadly Over-hyped

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

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.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This film, as you'll read on IMDb, was misplaced for many years and was only recently discovered. It is perhaps because it was rather unceremoniously released on DVD that would account for no closed captioning or DVD captions--a problem if you are hearing impaired. And, in addition, there are no special features--just a reasonably high quality print of the movie.As for the film, it's only the sort of movie a film snob would enjoy. People who go into raptures when they hear the word 'Polanski' will no doubt watch this film, whereas those who don't recognize him or only think of him as a dirty old man will likely never see this unimposing piece in the first place. Plus, it isn't exactly a pleasant film and is the sort of thing few non-devotees would chose in the first place. It takes a very unusual person to seek out this film. I picked it only because it featured a strange cameo by Peter Sellers as a very flamboyant gay man--and I'd watch anything with Sellers in it (though I must admit that his films vary tremendously in quality--particularly late in his career)."A Day at the Beach" is a rather grim and simple tale of an incredibly irresponsible jerk who takes his niece for a day. While this little girl idolizes him, he's obviously an alcoholic, deals with underworld types, is a habitual liar and has few, if any, qualities you can admire. He seems like a great portrait of a sociopath--a very unambitious and weasel-like sociopath. And, oddly, unlike a normal film, there doesn't appear to be much of a plot--just a rambling series of events and encounters on a rainy day by the sea. The uncle loses the girl repeatedly, cheats many people, drinks a lot and only seems to sporadically care about his young charge. In his own weird way, he does care--but he's very, very, very limited in this and every other respect.Overall, the film is well acted and well made...but also thoroughly unpleasant and difficult to enjoy. While not as unpleasant as films like "Leaving Las Vegas" or "Faces of Death", it is hard to watch and is rewarding only to a small and very select audience. As for me, I just wanted to see more Peter Sellers and just wanted the film to end after a while--it was like watching a very slow-motion train wreck.By the way, regardless of what you'll think of the thing, you have to admire the perseverance of the actors on such a grueling shoot. Every second of it is wet, wet, wet! It's pretty sad, then, that this piece sat on the shelves for so long--Mark Burns and Beatie Edney, among others, went through hell for this movie and they must have had to have fought illness and mold as a result of the almost constant wetness they endured. And actually, while I think about it, I am surprised that anyone would allow or subject a young child to such shooting conditions.By the way, I was really confused as all the main actors seemed to be Brits but it was obviously filmed in Scandinavia. It is a bit odd.

I recently had a look at the comments about this film. I am rather amazed that all of them attribute this movie to Roman Polanski. As IMDb writes it, this movie was directed by Simon Hesera, my late brother, and not Roman Polanski. It was his first major feature movie, saluted as a masterpiece by movie critics or other directors (such as Michelangelo Antonioni). Time has gone by, and for some unknown reason, in spite of the fact that Polanski is only mentioned as the one who adapted the story to the screen, the name of the director was skipped and the movie added to Polanski's curriculum. I was 17 years old and remember well the time when this film was made. Polanski, Peter Sellers and my late brother were all good friends and the movie was made "between friends". The story goes that my brother was given, with this sad movie and its tragic subject, a difficult first chance at directing a movie. Had he been given another subject, happier, funnier or more commercial, he would have made a hit and started a popular career as director, no less than Polanski's, who recognized my brother's genius.

As someone who usually does not like movies soliciting compassion for alcoholics or drug addicts I was surprised how much I liked A Day at the Beach. The title's promise is fulfilled in the best way possible. A young, intelligent alcoholic takes his little niece to a small seaport for a day. The man is most of the time looking for booze or ingesting it, occasionally rendering verbal outbursts which often sound very lucid. The girl is left to her own devices most of the time but fiercely loyal to her uncle.From the technical side the movie is virtually faultless. Foreground and background are always in very sharp focus, except for two brief episodes with POV shots of the very drunk main character. The drabness of the place (it is always raining or overcast) is occasionally contrasted by bright, vivid colors. It looks all very controlled and there can be no doubt that a true master is behind this picture. The cast is brilliant down to every secondary character. I found Peter Seller's contribution as a fairy unnecessary and superfluous, though.I watched the DVD release from Odeon Entertainment. There is an informative booklet about the movie, but Roman Polanski's involvement in the actual shooting is not clear. According to the booklet Polanski left the film while the final editing was in progress. Doesn't this mean that the effectively directed the movie? I would not be surprised if this were the case, in my opinion it very much looks like a Polanski movie. Its stunning how timeless his work is!A Day at the Beach would never have attracted a mass audience, and from the look of it (and the choice of actors) it probably was never meant to be a blockbuster. But everybody who can stand this difficult and rather depressing subject matter (men preferring drugs to other humans) this is a rewarding and aesthetically satisfying movie. It's great that they made it available on DVD.

This was a dark piece indeed. The original story was a Danish book, I believe. The name of the author escapes me. The other comments are correct. It was a bleak look at alcoholism but hauntingly accurate. I loved the film. Painful to watch yet truthful. The little girl was amazing. Peter Sellars was great & his gay partner, whose name I've forgotten, was another great British comedian. Probably the best piece of trivia is that his wife, Sharon Tate, and others, were murdered in California while Polanski was in England editing the movie at Twickenhan Studios, after shooting insert shots there. Polanski left Twickenham Studios that night when he heard about the murders & never returned to finish the film. Had he done so, I am sure the film would have been released properly & been worthy of standing by his other work. I would love to see this film released on DVD.