In the turbulent cultural and political year of 1968, movies hadn't quite yet figured out how they wanted to address current events, or indeed whether they wanted to address them at all. The year's Oscar winner for Best Picture was "Oliver!," an entertaining but utterly irrelevant big-budget musical; "Funny Girl," another stage-to-screen musical that hasn't aged at all well, was also among the nominees. "The Lion in Winter" found Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn bickering in period costumes, while "Romeo and Juliet" gave Shakespeare a jolt of sexiness for the younger generation. Movies that actually felt like they had their finger on the uneasy pulse of the changing times, like "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Rosemary's Baby," "Faces," and "The Battle of Algiers," were nominated in lesser categories but none were up for the big prize. That fifth slot went to "Rachel, Rachel," in which Paul Newman directed his wife, Joanne Woodward, to a Best Actress nomination."Rachel, Rachel" certainly did not deserve a place at the Oscar podium above those titles just mentioned that weren't even nominated, but it does have much to recommend it, and the themes it's about speak more to a modern-day audience than those of many of its contemporaries, because they're both universal and timeless. Woodward plays a woman in her 30s, living with her annoying and needy mother and watching her life slowly drip away from her day by day. It's about that moment -- and I have to believe anyone over a certain age has experienced it at least to some degree -- where one realizes that he/she isn't so much living a life as dying a slow and inevitable death. What one does with the time in between suddenly becomes urgent in a way it hasn't ever felt before, and one understands how easy it would be to do nothing and let that slow death gradually come. Woodward's character, brought up in a mortuary and morbidly obsessed with death, doesn't exactly figure out what to do with the time left to her, but she does figure out that she needs to try something different, which is perhaps the best any of us can hope for. Woodward gives a beautiful and nuanced performance as a shy turtle coming out of her shell one painful inch at a time. The movie is melancholy and sad, but it's also hopeful in its conclusion that it's never too late to at least make a grab for, if not happiness, then at least contentment.In addition to its nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress, the film also received nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Estelle Parsons, as Rachel's closet lesbian friend), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Stewart Stern). Newman himself was not nominated for Best Director, which doesn't really surprise me. The Academy has always shown a penchant for acknowledging the showy over the subtle when it comes to that particular category.Grade: A

This is the sort of movie the critics love, but it's not one that particularly appeals to me. My guess is that the original novel, "A Jest of God", was probably a lot more ironical and bitter than this soft, misty-eyed all-the-way with Joanne Woodward version, indulgently directed with more close-ups than a TV soapy, by husband, Paul Newman. Still, within its limits, the direction is occasionally rather stylish. And the film is attractively photographed on some occasionally effective locations. But somewhat disappointingly, the music score by Jerome Moross is both uncharacteristic and unobtrusive. The Geraldine Fitzgerald sequence seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the movie and is an embarrassment that should have been left on the cutting room floor. Otherwise, the movie is reasonably effective within its limits.

A Haunting Story of a Middle-Aged Spinster (read virgin) Trapped into Living with Her Mother. While Obsessing with Death and Contemplating a Worthless Life, She Discovers Sex and a Possible, Positive Change in Her Completely Unsatisfying Life.Joanne Woodward Gives a Powerful Performance and the Movie is Directed with Restraint by Paul Newman. The Third Act is the Weakest but Getting there is Strong Cinema. Rachel's Mind Games that She Plays with Herself (not the flashbacks) are Quickly, Neatly, and Effectively Cut into the Drama and these Little Bits of Business go almost Unnoticed but do Reside in the Sub Conscious.This Stylistic Flourish is all but Abandon in the Second Half, Probably because of Rachel Finally Discovering Something that allowed Her to be Released from Her "Cage". Her New Found Carnal Knowledge was Wonderful for Her Emotional Maturity but the Film doesn't Hold the Grip it Once Held After that.But Overall it is quite a Strong Story with a Fine Cast and one of those "Ground Breaking" Experiments that were Unleashed on the Movie Going Public as the Studio System Collapsed and the Rules of the Game began to Change.

Both the camera and the man behind it were obviously in love with the actress on screen, and, that actress, Joanne Woodward, was arguably never better than she was in "Rachel, Rachel," husband-Paul-Newman's first directing effort. The low-key story involves a woman who reaches the middle of her life and realizes that she has yet to start living. Trapped in a small apartment above a funeral parlor with her whining possessive mother, Rachel is a schoolteacher with daydreams of having a life and children of her own.Rachel's emotions are written on Woodward's face in a way few actresses have ever conveyed feeling. Words are superfluous, because the actress's subtle shifts of expression reveal the woman's raw vulnerability and, eventually, her sexual and emotional awakening. A course in film acting could be taught with this film as the primer. Although Kate Harrington, James Olson, and Estelle Parsons provide able support, the film is Woodward's showcase, and Newman's sturdy direction does not detract from his star. The shifts between Rachel's present and her memories and dreams are seamless, clear, and illuminating rather than distracting.The film requires patience, but that does not imply boring, but rather leisurely paced, much like life in a small town that lies off the main roads. Getting to know another person requires time, and Rachel is worth knowing. "Rachel, Rachel" is a not to be missed minor masterwork with a performance that will haunt and linger in memory indefinitely. Newman never surpassed his directing here, and few actresses have surpassed Woodward's achievement either.