Mike Nichols
Conoscenza carnale

Can one be attracted to a film just by looking at its movie poster? It used to happen in the days when there were many cinemas around, and if you add the fact that when the film “Carnal Knowledge” came out, I was a teenager in full hormonal storm, you can well imagine how I felt a certain disturbance seeing the film's poster. The only problem was the restriction of viewing for under 18s, but it was only a matter of a few years to overcome this obstacle. And so, one Sunday afternoon, together with two high school classmates, we went to a third-run cinema in Milan (incidentally, a pizzeria restaurant has occupied that spot for years now, which is a reason for a certain regret) where they were screening the film and where they didn’t inquire about our real age (the thrill of the forbidden...). Certainly, also considering that in the '70s there was no shortage of films with nude scenes, we did not dislike the film, but for my part, I have to say that I have appreciated the film more and more over the decades. And this is for the simple reason that “Carnal Knowledge” is an uncomfortable title not only for the times when it was released (1971 in the USA and early 1972 in Italy), but it still stimulates reflection on the difficulties in relations between the sexes, so much so as to induce the thought that there exists a war between the male dimension and the female dimension. A theme as old as the world and decidedly vast.

The film, directed by Mike Nichols (the same as the famous “The Graduate”) and scripted by cartoonist Jules Feiffer, follows the sentimental and sexual adventures of two university students (Jonathan and Sandy) over two decades, starting from a U.S. college in the late ‘40s to the end between the late '60s and early '70s. The temporal background is therefore the transition from a Yankee society that was still puritanical and sexually inhibited to a different one affected by the liberalization of morals, with relative sexual liberation and female emancipation (culminating in feminist claims). Given this general framework, the two male protagonists (Sandy being shyer compared to the unrepentant Don Juan Jonathan) feel, in their different experiences, that male dominance is now being questioned and in crisis. But there is especially more to it, namely the limited conduct of those who, like them (especially Jonathan), experience love towards another person by taking more than they are willing to give. In short, it is not a balanced way of loving (as it should be), but rather it is an intense practice of sexual life for its own sake. It is obvious, then, that when they reach middle age they will be very disillusioned, and while Sandy will try to renew himself by living with a hippie girl, Jonathan, now suffering from erectile problems, will resort to finding sexual pleasure by frequenting an upper-class prostitute.

At the outset, I remembered how the film proved uncomfortable for audiences in the early '70s. It is easy to say that, precisely in a historical phase in which the social need to live the sexual dimension more uninhibitedly was strongly felt, a film like “Carnal Knowledge” (a title already evoking the biblical tradition) could appear somewhat moralistic despite the characters’ dialogues being marked by a certain profaneness (which aroused a certain scandal). And yet, in favor of the work, it has the merit of having sensed and hinted at the fact that sexual liberation would sooner or later entail not only benefits but also damage. And in fact, despite the circulation at that time in some youth circles of a line such as “free sex in a free state”, the practice of the open couple also generated the crisis of many couples. In short, sexual happiness was not just around the corner, demonstrating how complex relations between the sexes are. As if to show that love is not exactly a bed of roses, but rather a close confrontation between two people who cannot always be in tune. Undoubtedly, after viewing “Carnal Knowledge”, one perceives a view of life imbued with cosmic sadness, but it naturally leads to the comment, with the French, that “c'est la vie”.

A film, therefore, whose viewing stimulates reflection, in addition to having as a strength the impeccable acting of actresses Candice Bergen and Ann Margret (the latter very attractive), as well as actors Jack Nicholson (as the enterprising Jonathan) and Art Garfunkel (the shy Sandy) unforgettable not only for being Paul Simon's musical partner, but also a great talent as an actor as demonstrated in this performance.