The Group (1966)

In June 1933, eight young women, who are close friends and members of the upper-class group at South Tower College, graduate and start their adult lives. The film documents the years ... See full summary »

Director:

Sidney Lumet

Writers:

Mary McCarthy (novel), Sidney Buchman (screenplay)

Stars:

Candice Bergen, Joan Hackett, Elizabeth Hartman

Nominated for 1 Golden Globe. Another 2 nominations.

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
Candice Bergen	...	Lakey
Joan Hackett	...	Dottie
Elizabeth Hartman	...	Priss
Shirley Knight	...	Polly
Joanna Pettet	...	Kay
Mary-Robin Redd	...	Pokey
Jessica Walter	...	Libby
Kathleen Widdoes	...	Helena
James Broderick	...	Dr. Ridgeley
James Congdon	...	Sloan Crockett
Larry Hagman	...	Harald Peterson
Hal Holbrook	...	Gus Leroy
Richard Mulligan	...	Dick Brown
Robert Emhardt	...	Mr. Andrews
Carrie Nye	...	Norine

Storyline

In June 1933, eight young women, who are close friends and members of the upper-class group at South Tower College, graduate and start their adult lives. The film documents the years between their graduation and the beginning of the Second World War in Europe, and shows, in a serialized style, their romances and marriages, their searches for careers or meaning in their lives, their highs and their lows.

---

Plot Keywords:

female doctor | f rated | child raising | marriage | playwright | 

---

Genres:

Drama

---

Certificate:

Approved

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

4 March 1966 (USA)

Also Known As:

The Group

Filming Locations:

Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, USA

Box Office

Budget:

$2,400,000 (estimated)

Company Credits

Production Co:

Famartists Productions S.A.

Technical Specs

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA)

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

With a budget of $2,600,000, this was the most expensive film to be made in New York to that time.

---

Goofs

When Libby McAusland sits down to lunch at the hospital cafeteria there is spilled coffee in the saucer of her cup. When she picks up the cup in the next shot the spilled coffee is gone.

---

Quotes

Priss: Who'd a thunk it, Polly? That I would be just an experiment?

---

Connections

Referenced in Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Saga of the Viking Women and Their Voyage to the Waters of the Great Sea Serpent (1991)

User Reviews

Busy, bustling, chatty character study-cum-soaper...several stand-out performances

Sidney Lumet directed this busy, bustling, chatty character study-cum-soaper concerning eight Vassar graduates in 1933 who take different paths in life but always manage to stay in touch. Writer-producer Sidney Buchman nearly pulls off the heady task of adapting Mary McCarthy's well-loved novel to the screen, despite insurmountable story obstacles, a self-defeating length, and a persistent claim from professional critics at the time that maybe a female screenwriter should have been hired instead to adapt McCarthy's prose (Pauline Kael was the most vocal in this area). With much crisscross editing between apartments, hospitals, and places of employment, it's nearly impossible to determine how many years pass in the course of the story--and this episodic structure leaves Candice Bergen's Lakey and Mary-Robin Redd's Pokey with hardly any screen-time. Joan Hackett as Dottie makes a very appealing impression in her early scenes (falling for heartless womanizer Richard Mulligan), but then she too disappears. There's far too much of Joanna Pettet in the overtly-showy role of Kay (and with her comes Larry Hagman, doing nothing new in the impossible role of Kay's hard-drinking, womanizing husband). Elizabeth Hartman as Priss and Shirley Knight as Polly end up doing the finest acting work, with Knight practically carrying the film's final third--but then, the screenplay is tipped towards our liking those characters the most (if Jessica Walters' gossiping Libby was revealed to have half a heart, we might feel the same towards her). The scattershot humor is there, but it's always undercut by sourness--which is then replaced with grimness. If Buchman was inappropriate as the writer, Lumet was equally a questionable choice as director. He keeps the pacing lively, but the film is far more vitriolic than nostalgic. **1/2 from ****