We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
comedy of Aristophanes with the help of an interesting device—he takes as the basis for his story the commonplaces of Freudian psychology which frequently distorted have become common knowledge. According to this version of Freudian psychology every human act arises from sexual impulses. Taking this as his starting peint Woody Allen intended to strike in two directions: he wanted to attack the petty bourgeois system of morals (the system which has collapsed in fact) and he tried to show how absurd and incomprehensible human relationships would be if they were interpreted on the basis of pseudo-Freudian psychology.
One of the main characters in the movie is a German psychoanalyst with long hair and with so many complexes that it sems he wants to be a living illustration of his masters teaching. His most troublesome patient is a journalist who is too successful with women and too easily stimulated by them. Even though he happens to be genuinely in love, he is not faithful to his beloved. These two men are surrounded by beautiful women who torment the professor by their unaccessibility and the journalist by the fact that they are too eager to be seduced by him.
Peter Sellers plays the part of the psychoanalyst and Peter
O’Toole the part of the involuntary seducer. The latter is interesting as Don Juan because of his basic innocence and almost childish naivete. The dialogue is excellent, sparkling with wit, full of risque, sometimes vulgar jokes and is always original. Woody Allen is talented and much can be expected from his next movie which will be based on his own script and directed by him. He will also have one of the main parts in this movie.
The direction of “What's New Pussycat” leaves much to be desired. The director, Clive Donner, is ambitious and well meaning but lacks artistic sensitivity. Moreover, he has no sense of humour, which in a director of a farce is fatal. As if aware of this flaw in his personality Donner speeds up the action of the movie and becomes heavy-handed in his treatment of individual scenes. It seems that in this way he wants to compensate for his lack of humour. As the result the original objectives of the movies are not realised. The movie is primitive without being subtle.
The director, therefore, is to blame for the fact that “What's New Pussycat” is not a success. But artistically it is on a suffciently high level to make one sympathetic toward it. The indignance of the N.Y. critics is hard to understand in Europe.
(CopyRIGHT: KRONIKA, London)