Watch Save the Tiger For Free

Best movie of this year hands down!

Simply A Masterpiece

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

"Save the Tiger" was such an absorbing experience that the anticlimactic ending almost left me puzzled. For one hour and half, I was following a slice of Harry Stoner's life, and expected him to get over with his inner demons or at least, to solve one or two of the several issues that were torturing him. But John G. Avidsen's film, served by a solid screenplay written by Steve Shagan leaves many interrogation marks, for a very few answers.But I wasn't describing a flaw in the story … just an instant thought, that slowly vanished as I let the film's memories grow on me, and as my mind put the film into its context. "Save the Tiger" is not about what happens to Harry, but about Harry. And that makes the whole difference. In fact, a movie like this would have been impossible to make today, no matter how significant such characters would still be, profit and entertainment reduced characters to secondary levels. Like, Harry Caul, Bobby Dupea or Sonny Wortzyk, Harry Stoner is one of these fascinating characters that only the New Hollywood period could have brought up to screen. And the performance of Jack Lemmon contributes to the film's impact more than the writing and the directing. I was eager to watch the role that beat Pacino in "Serpico", Nicholson in "The Last Detail" or Brando in "Last Tango in Paris", I was not disappointed, Lemmon elevates the film through one of his most mesmerizing performances.Harry Stoner is a character that can only be defined by the countless torments that inhabit his heart and mind. Previously, a successful executive at an apparel company, he's facing bankruptcy at the climax of the economical crisis that strikes America. Contemplating the idea of torching his own warehouse to get the insurance settlement, the flirt going with illegality is an occasion to question his values, ideals and to a certain extent his idea of America. Harry Stoner is a man who incarnates the decline of a certain idealism that wrote America's most glorious pages, and through the collapse of a man, it's the decline of America we witness. No time for jazz, baseball and national pride, the time has come for Harry to take a last survival move, this is what the title is about. He's the "Tiger" to be saved, he's –as he reminds his friend and associate, played by Jack Gilford- a vanishing breed.One word about Jack Gilford, he's the second driving force of the story, his interactions with Harry are so perfect, so realistic, that we don't see two actors communicating, but two real persons discussing about how life turned out to be. Gilford is the yin to Stoner's yang, he disapproves the way he provides prostitutes to his clients for business reasons, he firmly condemns Stoner's plans, but fail to convince him as Stoner's mind is already settled, and doesn't need a guardian angel but money, plain and simple. The 70's allowed many social misfits to grace the silver screen and invite a disillusioned population of the Nixon era to identify with. Stoner is one of them, but he's the only one who wasn't born a misfit, he used to be a successful, he used to believe in the American flag, he served his country, but all left are painful memories of a time where money, jazz and baseball filled the air with enthusiasm and optimism.And "Save the Tiger" is built on a series of events illustrating how detached from his world Stoner became. While making a speech at the premiere of his company's new line, he's overcome by the memories of fellow Gis who painted the sands of Capri in red. And, underscoring the process of his personal isolation, he takes a young flower girl to his home, for a night that reveals how ignorant she is of everything that defined his life. Stoner realizes that his 'vanishing breed' motto could've been truer, and on a pure cinematic level, I guess it's the speech and night scene that earned Lemmon his Oscar. The man is so frustratingly possessed by his own demons; he's a ghost evolving on a perpetual nightmare. The film's conclusion is left to many interpretations, unexpected and yet pessimistic within its own poetry. Are we supposed to feel empathetic, maybe not, but Lemmon is so magnetic and real, we understand him.I said the film would be impossible to make today, indeed, "Save the Tiger" is like these character studies that cared less about plots than about mirroring some personal insights trough unforgettable characters, so well-written and well-acted, they left indelible memories. Watching the film is like experiencing the moral agony of a man who tries but fail to fit in a society that goes too fast, or maybe in a whole opposite direction. 1973 was indeed a terrific year, from "Scarecrow" to "The Last Detail", characters trying to find a meaning to their life, a direction to take, all these films didn't have happy endings, but they were not sad either, as life itself can be ambiguous, some would say cynical, I don't think "Save the Tiger" is the cynical type."Save the Tiger" is simple because it only takes Lemmon and Gilford to carry the film with efficiency, the screenplay deserves praise although lesser actors wouldn't have injected the same electricity even in such an ambitious and psychologically rich project. And John G. Avildsen finds the perfect tone to let the emotions being guided by Lemmon, without overusing them, it's the same bleak but powerful directing he would use for "Rocky", a much more inspirational film that the audience certainly needed after 10 years of bleak and dark cinema.Still, like reflecting Stoner's inner persona, "Save the Tiger" is a vanished breed of film.

"Save the Tiger" is not a particularly enjoyable film. It's all about people who, frankly, are pretty shallow and often despicable. Yet, I cannot dismiss the film completely, as it is an interesting character study. And, in many ways it's an 'anti-Hollywood film' that just happened to be filmed there! The film is about a guy in his mid-40s (Jack Lemmon) who is, at least on the surface, successful. However, he is disaffected with life. His marriage has grown cold and daughter has moved out--and his only life appears to be his job. As for the job, he's only a few steps away from bankruptcy and is willing to do just about ANYTHING to keep his business above water....and I do mean anything. And, to justify this to his ambivalent partner (Jack Guilford), he comes up with 1001 excuses to make doing evil seem necessary and even acceptable. He's a pathetic and rather despicable soul that appears headed for a nervous breakdown. And, in a HUGE departure from the norm for Hollywood, the film ends with nothing resolved and Lemmon even more lost and unlikable than ever. And, because he's a soulless jerk, you may not even care that he's left this way.So why watch this film? After all, it's quite unpleasant. Well, for most viewers I don't think there is a reason to see it, actually. But, Lemmon gave a dynamite performance (and he received the Oscar for it) and some middle-aged folks might just be able to relate to him and his life situation. As for me, I am about the same age as his character and the film actually affirmed to me how good my life is compared to his! I am sure that is NOT the purpose of the film--to make me say "wow, his life sucks and mine is so much better!".By the way, I should offer a BIG WARNING--This is a very adult film. While there's no nudity, the subject matter is very adult and the language VERY harsh. It was not surprising hearing Lemmon talk that way (after all, I saw him in "Glengarry, Glen Ross") but seeing the usually sweet Guilford dropping F-bombs amazed me, as I grew up seeing him playing nothing but sweet characters (like the Cracker Jack guy). So, you are forewarned.

Desperate, agitated Harry Stoner has recurring bad dreams and massive regrets about his past. World War II invades his restless sleep. And his nightmares have a thousand anguished fire bombs to lob. Meanwhile, his clothing line floats along aimlessly, wounded, between solvency and bankruptcy. And all the while, a raft of what-ifs drift through his mind like a toxic cloud of jaundiced smog. At times pea green, the Los Angeles air chokes the life out of all things living: "It's the pollution, Harry. It makes everybody crazy." So says Harry's business partner (Jack Gilford). He's the moral compass. Stoner lives a complicated life. His home life is mired in an open abyss of emotional torment. He attempts to close it by suggesting to his wife some ways in which they can spice up their love life. He is rejected. He looks somewhere else for solace. The highlight of the film is the one-night stand Harry has with a hippie chick. It's everything his life with his wife isn't: loving, caring, exciting and different. She's a good listener. The picture moves into darker territory when Gilford and Lemmon take in an x-rated flick, a Swedish affair, at the local art house. The picture leaves them less than compelled. But they are there to hire a professional arsonist to torch their establishment. "Watch the screen, Harry," the arsonist says in hushed tones. Director Avildsen has a deft eye for the material. Marvin Hamelish's score works well. I love the movie's poster of Harry Stoner gazing out toward the horizon. It's an understated gem. And the baseball metaphor hits a home run ("Hey mister, you can't play with us!"). Good game.

Jack Lemmon was the finest American motion-picture actor of the late twentieth century. He is often written off as a comedy star, and certainly some of his efforts in that realm of Hollywood entertainment are forgettable (though more than a few are still very human and very funny). But it is always exciting to see Lemmon unlimber his acting chops and portray the middle-class schlub trying to thrive and then just trying to survive modern life. His portrayal of Harry Stoner in SAVE THE TIGER ranks with his Joe Clay in THE DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES, Ed Horman in MISSING, and Shelley Levene in GLENGARY GLEN ROSS, to mention only his most notable dramatic roles. I'd like to think the Best Actor Oscar that Lemmon received for SAVE THE TIGER (he had been awarded Best Supporting Actor for playing Ensign Frank Thurlowe Pulver in 1955's MISTER ROBERTS) was the film community's overdue recognition that he could play for sighs and tears as well as for laughs.Seeing this film recently on TCM through the filter of 35 years, I was still moved by the commitment of Jack Lemmon to Harry Stoner. Unfortunately, SAVE THE TIGER remains an awkward and extremely self-conscious movie, as much so as when I first saw it in a theater in 1973. Steve Shagan's script contains no references to the Watergate scandal that had started the year before; but in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, American popular culture was becoming increasingly obsessed with moral decay. Many novels and films of the 1970s suggested that political corruption and official deceptions had blurred the boundaries of conventional good/bad, black-and-white morality with which most Americans had supposedly been comfortable. (That was the standard they usually saw in the movies, after all.) Viewed from the perspective of the early 21st century, the suggestion that government and corporate wrongdoing could somehow make personal immorality understandable, or even commendable, seems rather quaint -- a sop, perhaps, to a movie-going Baby Boomer generation that was coming of age and groping for its own moral grounding.There are many problems with this clunky script, not so much in terms of plot as in terms of texture. Harry Stoner's obsession with the joys of his youth -- baseball and big bands -- quickly turns into a heavy-handed exercise in nostalgia, as though Shagan is showing off his knowledge of 1940s popular culture (Shagan was born in 1927). Harry's apparent readiness to hire an arsonist to save his troubled business makes his moral agonizing less involving, though perhaps Shagan meant to enhance the difference between Harry's seeming confidence and the severe misgivings of his partner Phil (Jack Gilford). The big dramatic setpiece of the film -- Harry's speech to the buyers at his firm's fashion show -- is extremely suspicious. Harry strikes me as too much of a professional to start losing it at such a vital moment. Why THAT event for a PTSD flashback? (There's another scene toward the end of the film -- Harry standing alone on a beach, replaying the soundtrack of Anzio in his head -- that's more subtle and more effective.) And then there's Myra, the happy-go-lucky hippie chick with whom, Shagan apparently thought, "the kids" could identify. (With a smile, she offers to have sex with Harry about 47 seconds after they meet. Yeah, I could identify with that.) Myra's seeming innocence and optimism have so little to do with Harry Stoner that she seems not a contrast but an irrelevance.Shagan's script benefits from the direction of John G. Avildsen. The opening shot of Harry's swimming pool is haunting, and industrial Los Angeles looks appropriately unglamorous. All of the actors (including Laurie Heinemann as Myra) are credible. But the real reason to see SAVE THE TIGER is Jack Lemmon portraying Harry Stoner. If his performance can't rescue the film, it is still compelling -- an exploration of a human heart that will break your own.