frankwiener Even as someone who was personally affected by the momentous political events of the late 1960's, I couldn't appreciate this very disjointed movie when it was released in 1969 and 47 years later I still can't figure it out.The film opens at the scene of a car crash near a freeway ramp. If the central character, television photographer John Casellis (Robert Forster) finally decides to call an ambulance, does that mean the crash victim is still alive and could be helped? He seems totally detached from the human subject of his latest assignment and is in no hurry to call for the EMS or anyone else. Why not? Somehow I got the distinct impression that this event is supposed to be tied to another event at the the end of the movie, but don't ask me how. At the end, I was distracted by the slow passing of a beat up Rambler with the father and his kids inside, but what the heck were they doing there at the end of the movie anyway?From the opening scene on the freeway, we are taken on a very bumpy ride that includes, in no certain order, a roller derby fight, Chicago police preparations for the massive anti-Viet Nam War demonstrations planned for the upcoming 1968 Democratic National Convention, a black cab driver who finds a large sum of money and is mistreated by police in return for his honesty, a very hostile reception by the residents of a South Side Chicago neighborhood to Casellis and his sidekick (played by none other than Peter Bonerz, the dentist from the very popular Bob Newhart Show!), the discovery by Casellis that his bosses are using his film footage to aid FBI investigations of the DNC demonstrators, his subsequent termination, a totally nude romp by Casellis and his nurse girlfriend through his apartment ("I've got neighbors!" he playfully cautions her as she screams in delight), a woman named Eilene (Verna Bloom) and her son who were transplanted from the coal mining region of West Virginia and with whom Casellis becomes involved after his relationship with the naked nurse ends, a visit to a psychedelic nightclub, and the arrival of the DNC itself, including the demonstrations.Did John Cassavettes withdraw from this film because he actually had a schedule conflict or because he thought that the entire project was an incomprehensible mess? Food for thought.Once upon a time, I may have learned from McCluhan's influential book that television is a "cool" rather than a "hot" medium, but that was a long, long time ago and, besides, what difference does that make as far as understanding this movie is concerned? No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't fit the pieces together here. Were they even supposed to fit together? In retrospect, a movie entirely devoted to Eilene, her son, and their community of poor, dislocated whites who somehow found their way to the crowded tenements of Chicago from the hills of West Virginia would have been far more interesting to me, especially if they drove an old, beat up Rambler with no particular destination in mind.

MartinHafer One of the craziest and most tension-filled time in America was during the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. After all, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had just been killed, racial tensions were at an all-time high, folks were angry about Vietnam and people were simply scared. So, it's surprising that so few films actually deal with this in any way...and this is why I wanted to see "Medium Cool". Too bad the film was ponderous when is clearly should have been exciting.The story is an odd one. In some ways, it looks like a documentary film where a film crew follows a reporter (Robert Forrester) during the course of him doing his job. And, as the film unfurls, you see the crazy events of the day as they take place. This documentary approach is heightened by most of the folks in the picture, as they are non-actors. But other moments seem more staged (such as the fun sex scene that originally earned the film an X rating) and often they are a bit dull. Overall, the picture desperately looks like it was done by a first-time filmmaker--complete with sub-par camera work, poor pacing and a semi-professional look to it. For the life of me, I cannot see why this film has been so well received.

SnoopyStyle John Cassellis (Robert Forster) is a TV reporter. This follow his work and personal life. It's a scatter shot of his life and Eileen (Verna Bloom) and her son. It's a semi-documentary where the lines of fiction and reality are often blurred. Sometimes, the only way to tell is the presence of a recognizable actor like Peter Boyle.The film could be very disjointed and experimental. It's diving into the counter culture head first. None of the black activists are willing to discuss anything other than that they don't trust him to do an interview. There is a roller derby match, and a psychedelic Mothers of Invention concert. It is one big jumble.Then it get surreal with Verna Bloom in her bright yellow dress walking among the protesters of the 68 Democratic convention. The riot police are out in full force, and so is the army. I would suggest anybody who find themselves drifting to stay with it to see final section. It is utterly fascinating.

MARIO GAUCI A brilliant film and a seminal one - a product by a major Hollywood studio handled in cinema-verite' style; besides, the various issues it raises - social, political and media-related - have scarcely been treated with such directness and power. The lack of star names in the cast (Peter Boyle, who appears briefly, was not yet established and, even if he had debuted in John Huston's REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE [1967], lead Robert Forster's role was originally intended for John Cassavetes) certainly helps sell its inherent documentary feel.Though, understandably, most meaningful to people who witnessed these turbulent times first-hand, and Americans in particular, despite its specific time-setting - Chicago 1968 (partly shot at the actual Democrats convention site, the film proved prophetic because the script involved riots breaking out...which is what actually happened!) - many of its concerns are still very much with us!! Fascinating therefore if slightly overlong - the subplot involving Verna Bloom and Harold Blankenship feels a bit like padding at first (and was actually what remained of a proposed film, with animal interest, about a poor country boy's adjustment to city life!)...but, ultimately, its point is made during the film's latter stages when Bloom goes to look for her missing son - creating an indelible image of a perplexed figure (incongruously dressed in a bright yellow outfit) getting embroiled in all the commotion hitting the streets at that same moment. This, however, results in a goof involving the unexplained presence very early on of Bloom (already wearing the yellow dress but whose introduction proper in the film takes place quite a bit later!) at a cocktail party for members of the press - a sequence intended to immediately precede the riots but which was then pushed forward during editing, so as to deal straight off with the film's major theme of media responsibility! The tragic yet ironic ending - presented as matter-of-factly as any of the news items covered by dispassionate TV cameraman Forster - is very effective.This is certainly renowned cinematographer Wexler's most significant directorial effort; his camera-work (some of it hand-held) is simply incredible, as is Paul Golding's editing (which must have been quite a headache and, in fact, he mentions in the Audio Commentary that several scenes remained on the cutting-room floor; pity they weren't available for inclusion on the Paramount DVD - nor, apparently, were the rights to the 2001 documentary about the film, LOOK OUT HASKELL, IT'S REAL: THE MAKING OF 'MEDIUM COOL'!). Also essential to the unique texture of the film is the fantastic soundtrack (mostly by Mike Bloomfield but also featuring songs by Frank Zappa, among others).