User reviews

James Garner is "Mr. Buddwing," a man who wakes up in Central Park and can't remember who he is in this 1966 film directed by Delbert Mann. Taking the name Buddwing off of a Budweiser truck and the wing of a plane, Garner has a train schedule for a Harlem line, a phone number, and a ring with a crack in it from "GV." Gradually things start to come back to him as he meets various women throughout the day, all of whom he thinks are named Grace. Through them, he relives different stages of his married life: Katharine Ross, a college student; Suzanne Pleshette, an actress; and Jean Simmons, as a drunken blond on a scavenger hunt. Angela Lansbury plays a blowsy woman whose phone number Buddwing finds in his pocket - or thinks he does.

The film is made in an interesting way - one minute, Garner will be talking to Pleshette, for instance, in the present, and then a second later, he's talking to Pleshette as Grace, at some time in the past. The film is like that all the way through, as Buddwing's memories come back. Despite its stylishness and the '60s New York City scenes, "Mr. Buddwing" moves somewhat slowly. Garner does a good job, portraying the man's confusion and frustration well. Both Pleshette and Simmons are excellent; Ross has the least showy role.

A dark movie, worth seeing.

I recently saw this on TCM and was surprised that I had never seen this before. Based on the novel by popular novelist/writer Evan Hunter who wrote such classics as The blackboard Jungle and the screenplay for The Birds this was adapted for the screen by Hunter and Dale Wasserman. this is the story of an amnesiac (James Garner) who wakes up on a Central Park park bench with no idea who he is. Dressed in a gray suit he discovers only two possible clues to his identity, a ring with the initials G.V. inscribed and a piece of paper with a telephone number on it. He has the name of Grace in his mind who he assumes must be his wife and so with the lack of a name of his own his creates one on the spur of the moment in Sam Buddwing and begins his search through Manhattan of himself and of Grace. His adventure brings him to several memorable characters in Angela Lansbury as the loose woman with a kind heart Gloria, Suzanne Pleshette as actress Fiddle Corwin, Katherine Ross as the pretty and studious Janet, Jack Gifford as restaurant owner Izzy Schwartz, Joe Mantell as the 1st cab driver, George Voskovec as a shabby old man who calls himself God and Jean Simmons as the high society blonde out on treasure hunt for a party. This film was nominated for two Academy Awards for Best Black and White Art direction and Best Black and White Costume. It has a gritty New York location feel and frequently uses hand-held cameras and is photographed by cinematographer Ellsworth Fredricks. Directed by Delbert Mann best known for directing such classics as Marty, Desire Under the elms and Separate Tables this is not one of his best but it's quirky and interesting and hold your interest thanks to great on screen performances by the fine cast. Garner is better served as an actor when he has some light comedic roles and he falls a little short in this straight dramatic role where he only smiles once briefly in the entire film. The ending falls short too but all in all it's a different film and I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

Mister Buddwing, a curious made up name for the lead character, finds James Garner as a man who wakes up in Central Park without a clue as to who he is. All he has are a couple of scraps of paper with a phone number on one, an address on another and the name of Grace ringing through his clouded mind. From this he tries to build an identity. He's also given some reason to suspect he's an escaped mental patient.

He also runs into during the course of his day, three women, Suzanne Pleshette, Katharine Ross, and Jean Simmons all of whom as his fevered mind flashes back, play the elusive Grace at some point in his life. And they're three very different Graces. We do find out he was married to Grace.

Some of the issues involving amnesia were done better in Mirage which starred Gregory Peck and Diane Baker and in Garner's own film 36 Hours. In 36 Hours however Garner is made to think he's developed amnesia. Here it's the real deal, the hysterical kind after some kind of mental trauma.

Mirage is a much better film however, far more suspenseful. Mister Buddwing is interesting, but really does lack suspense as a whole. Jim Garner does his best with the Buddwing character, but you really don't develop a rooting interest in him.

Best in the film is Angela Lansbury who plays an Adelaide from Guys and Dolls type character, presumably after she finally married Nathan Detroit and settle down somewhat. She only has two scenes, but you really remember her. Especially now since the character is so different from Jessica Fletcher or Mame Dennis roles we know her far better for.

The role must have been thought of as a challenge for James Garner, but I think he was betrayed by a flawed story.

Other commentators are probably right to say that the plot is totally unlikely, poorly acted and perhaps badly directed. I am no film critic hence do not judge the film from a critical point of view.

Yes, I was aware, while watching the film on TV, that it was completely unlikely, that people just don't act in such a way. Yet I found it compelling, enjoyable, enthralling, haunting. I just had to watch it to the end, and this doesn't happen to me very often these days.

I see the film as an allegory of a man who has lost sight of himself after a personal traumatic drama and is in search of himself through various unlikely encounters, mostly intriguing women. I enjoyed the film as I would enjoy a haunting melody. I guess I see in it an allegory for my own condition.

I saw this movie on TNT after being intrigued by the lackluster comments from reviewers. I typically like James Garner movies. After seeing the movie, I saw it as a religious allegory. James Garner plays Everyman who was searching to answer the question "Who am I?" During the movie, I realized that he asks that question rather than the question "What is my name?" He is asking an ontological question.

Furthermore, there are two scenes where he refers to the deity. In the first scene, where he is youthfully impetuous, he refers to "all the gods of the earth and cosmos" or something. In the latter reference to deity, he soberly and humbly refers to "God." This reference occurs after an intervening scene of a flashback where he tells his young wife that he loves perfection that he finds in music. He then hears Bach's Requiem Mass; they enter a church and stand before an altar. This is an example of how knowledge of nature can lead to God. As the flashbacks bring back more of his life, Garner matures as finally realizes his current, wretched condition.

The final scene is quite touching. He finds life through grace. Of course, Grace is his wife's name but the scene allegorically refers to the "saving grace." The movie is not a typical amnesia movie. It is disjointed and the dialog stilted, but, like a classical painting, many scenes have meaning when viewed from a religious viewpoint. Perhaps seeing this viewpoint requires knowledge of Christian doctrine. I would've ordered it on DVD, but it doesn't seem to be available.

The Evan Hunter novel Buddwing is a hauntingly original, if unrealistic story. The author's idea was to take the mid-life identity crisis to the extreme...literal amnesia. Its 1964 release prompted MGM to pick it up for a 1965 film, possibly thinking they'd have another Blackboard Jungle on their hands. Well not quite. Not to say the great talent of the '60s isn't there: Director Delbert Mann (who did Marty and Fitzwilly), Katharine Ross (The Graduate, Butch Cassidy), Angela Landsbury (Manchurian Candidate), Jean Simmons, and James Garner all do their best in one of the less believable of the 7,000,000 tales of NYC. One obvious fault lies in the dialogue (mostly taken directly from the book) as numerous run-ins between Garner (Buddwing) and the other characters result in conversations that simply don't ring true. Another fault is the director seems to intentionally give this the avant-garde treatment, though he's obviously ill-equipped for it. The disjointed confusing scenes would be impossible to follow had one not read the book.

Especially the scenes with Katharine Ross--he thinks she's someone named Grace, they talk (not making any sense) and then it cuts to a flashback where she IS Grace...GOD I feel sorry for someone trying to figure this out who hasn't read the book. And of course the book's sex scenes are not to be found here. Then Ross is gone--poof--maybe she told MGM to shove the script up their as--side their other failures.

The only interesting aspect to the film is that it's set in Manhattan in the '60s, and it was the last "major" film shot in black and white. Finally the film fails because the director and screenwriter Wasserman simply didn't put any real effort into making this a film of substance...it ends up as a bunch of poorly editted "scenes". As another reviewer said this could be a great remake...if they rewrite the whole thing, have good direction, etc. Anyway, read the book and then watch the film for laughs.

"Mister Buddwing" has an interesting start. Seen from the POV of the protagonist, we find ourselves in Central Park. Searching our pockets for clues to our identity--because already it is clear that we have amnesia--we find a train schedule, 2 pills, a phone number and a ring with an inscription. As a jazz track plays in the background, we make our way out of the park and into a hotel where we see our reflection. We are James Garner!

Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.

Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.

According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.

The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.

When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.

Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).

One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.

After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.

Amnesiac James Garner tries to sort out his apparently complicated past. This adaptation of Evan Hunter's book "Buddwing" (and retitled "Woman Without a Face" for its overseas release) looks terrific but is a distressingly unsatisfying soaper. Photographed by the great Ellsworth Fredericks in crystalline black-and-white on autumnal New York City locations, the movie is saddled with an annoying plot which never comes together. Full of top talent, but only Suzanne Pleshette gives off some heat as a savvy actress. The film attempts to be modern and risqué, but the writing is so ham-handed and the direction so self-consciously arty that the final result just seems alienating and unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****

The whole feel of this film is great - soundtrack, cinematography, location filming - but ultimately, the storyline reveals its secrets well before the final scene. The actors attracted me to this film, shown very early in the morning on Turner

Classic Movies. Late night viewing is perfect for a mid-sixties, black-and-white, jazzy sort of feature. For the first thirty minutes, I was quite intrigued by the plot. It reminds me of Gregory Peck's "Mirage," a similar (and superior) amnesia- based movie from the 60s. The location filming is perfect, though I know NYC is never that dead, having taken a walk by the Plaza Hotel at 7 in the morning, on a Sunday.

The actors cannot be at fault, and I'm certain that the original novel is quite interesting. Perhaps this particular amnesia variation just doesn't work on film.

After the first "flashback," involving Katherine Ross, her "real-life" presence simply vanishes, unlike the other two women who later provide Garner's

character with memory enhancers. This must be to initially throw us off track, as viewers. Incorrectly, I assumed Ross's character was a complete fabrication. Then, later in the film, Suzanne and Simmons are indicated to be real, as is

Lansbury's "Gloria." Garner simply uses their presence to reformulate images of his wife. There is also a bit of cheating regarding repetitive dialogue between the three women. The "real" Simmons repeats dialogue of the "imaginary"

Suzanne; this must be pure coincidence, as Garner cannot dictate what an

"actual" person says. (Believe me, this makes sense, if you've seen the film.)

The film is ultimately disappointing. By the half-way mark, I knew what the

outcome would be.

One side note - that scene with the cop in Washington Square is totally dated and ridiculous. And, PLEASE, can we avoid all NYC scenes involving

characters running into a dead-end alley?????? It has become one of the

major clichés of NYC-based films and TV series.

I don't know why this web site messes up my paragraphs and spacing!!?????

Th is was a cool offbeat film. The real treat is the actresses. They are all lovely and give good performances. They truly elevate the material.

There are also some really cool shots of mid 60s New York, some of which no longer exist.

You have some great talent here - James Garner, , Suzanne Pleshette, Jean Simmons, Angela Lansbury, Katharine Ross. And you have a great idea - a man (James Garner) wakes up on a New York City park bench having no idea who he is, no identification. All he has to go on is a ring with a broken stone and initials "FROM GV", and a piece of paper with a phone number on it with two pills wrapped in the paper. And from there he wanders from woman to woman (see cast above) trying to figure out who he is.

The individual scenes are pretty good. The scenes between Garner and Suzanne Pleshette are excellent, handling controversial subjects for the time, and coming across this scene first made me want to watch the whole thing. My mistake. Nothing is explained very well, and it tries to be too artsy, in a swinging mid 60s kind of way, for its own good. Besides the cast I already mentioned, there are several excessively talky men who show up who really do nothing to advance the plot and just annoy with their grating presence. James Garner had already proved he could handle dramatic material in "The Americanization of Emily" before he did this film. I wonder why he took this part?

What I liked the best were the scenes of New York City as it existed in the 1960s. Small independent stores, the subway stations, diners, soda fountains, Washington Square, the streets teeming with people and still relatively safe, at least during the day. Another unexpected pleasure is Nichelle Nichols as an unnamed player in a craps game in Harlem, the same year she becomes communications officer Uhura aboard the Enterprise on Star Trek, so the film is not without its charms.

Great jazz score. Memorable dialogue. Fascinating characters. Even small parts are interesting. Vulnerable male lead (unlike cardboard cutouts). Ladies with personality. Wonderful performances even by bit players. Gorgeous black and white photography. New York streets. Camera that isn't afraid to dare. Pure gold performance by Pleshette as an ever-aspiring thespian. This movie IS a jazz score. It is about life, midlife and city life. It's suspenseful, but the suspense isn't its central element. Mood is. This movie is perfect from every angle, in every department. Not much more can be expected from images on a screen. A movie with an attitude that presents life as style. Voila.

Whether you interpret the plot line as a vehicle for allegory or an ultimately flawed exercise in suspense, the highly successful photography, editing and musical scoring in "Mister Buddwing" deserves an audience. It is difficult to imagine a more urgent, dread-tinged, unsettling adrenaline rush as that brought on by the Jean Simmons sequence culminating in the Harlem craps game, even if the climax following is a bit of a pedestrian let-down. Sam Buddwing's grown-up Holden Caufield-like exile in urban wilderness - a bleak mid-1960s Manhattan where he encounters memorable, goodish Samaritans tainted by their own agendas(Jack Gilford as a cafeteria owner preoccupied with Judaism and Angela Lansbury in one of her trampish roles, but distinguishable from, say, "The World of Henry Orient" by her lower social class) and a park vagrant claiming to be God make for a very rich cinematic experience, and the final camera shots, essentially the opening ones in reverse, provide a strikingly satisfying coda.

Notable for its time are a couple of overt homosexual references which don't seem to be significant to the plot, but contribute a degree of realism probably intended to be grittily alienating. In the most poorly-handled scene in the film, where Buddwing is accosted by a beat cop and a crowd, unlikely in its sheer numbers, quickly forms around them, an out gay man makes an appearance which is pretty significant considering the pre-Stonewall setting.

With a story as confusing as the situation described by it, Mr. Buddwing ranks among the few movies made the way the lead character is really experiencing the story. Characters shift from confused recollections to reality and back as an amnesiac tries to piece together his few memories, his location, and an obscure scrap of paper with a phone number on it. As bits of memory resurface, "Mr. Buddwing" (as he has arbitrarily named himself) wonders if he could be the killer described in the news, but also feels a compulsion to rescue the women he encounters: a lonely socialite, a suicidal divorcée, and a captivating student.

Although not the best performances by any of the actors, the engaging story and rare style make this movie a must-see for any fans of the genre or the performers. Anyone who appreciates the song "D.O.A." by Bloodrock will appreciate the style of this story.

Mister Buddwing has two-thirds of the recipe down pat: a terrific cast and suspenseful direction. Ironically, for a movie about an amnesiac, it forgets where it wanted to go and winds up bailing out on unsatisfying cliches. This is a shame because Garner is excellent, Simmons has never been better, and Peters is particularly good.

I like the film for its New York mid-60s esthetic, but I agree with others who liken the film to a religious allegory.

The use of the name "Grace" and the frequent mentions of God....allegorical. But instead of reminding me of other amnesia films, instead it somewhat reminds me of The Swimmer with its conversations that begin as if we already know all the characters involved and the circumstances therein.

Jean Simmons and Suzanne Pleshette give performances that are called for in this type of production (what fun to see Correges white fashion boots on Pleshette, just like the ones I wore in high school in 1966!). And I do love James Garner, but as someone else has stated, Anthony Perkins would have owned this film.

One of Garner's best films ever was another B&W called "The Americanization of Emily."

Tall, handsome James Garner was quickly typecast as a slick character, and his fate was pretty much sealed after playing "the scrounger" in The Great Escape. It wasn't until the mid-1980s that he was able to thumb his nose at Hollywood and use the Hallmark channel as an avenue to show off his acting chops. However, if you dig deep enough, you'll be able to find a couple of movies in the 1960s where he was allowed to act: 36 Hours and Mister Buddwing.

The story is mysterious and actually interesting, if you can stick with it long enough to understand what's happening. James wakes up with no memory of anything, not even his name. He finds a phone number in his coat pocket and telephones, hoping it'll give him a clue of his identity, and a loose woman invites him up to her place. It's Angela Lansbury, in a negligee, smeared makeup, and a low-class New York accent! But she can't help him figure out who he is, and he weeps in her arms. As the movie progresses, he meets different women (Katherine Ross, Jean Simmons, and Suzanne Pleshette) and has seemingly disjointed interactions with them. But certain things start to repeat themselves, like two women saying, "That gave me goosebumps," or the same argument repeating with different outcomes. I won't spoil the movie for you, but if you like mind-benders like Vanilla Sky or Seconds, you might like this one. It's definitely unusual, so don't expect your typical James Garner flick.

In a vulnerable role that would have been perfect for either Montgomery Clift or Anthony Perkins, big, hulking JAMES GARNER is supposed to be afraid of who he is and why he can't remember anything. Somehow, it just doesn't work.

Not all of the fault his his. The script is a muddled thing, and has him going from woman to woman trying to find himself. He thinks each woman is Grace--someone from his past that he hasn't forgotten. A low point is a rather embarrassingly written scene with ANGELA LANSBURY as a warm-hearted, boozy type who slobbers all over him when she realizes his predicament is really too much. A little less risible is the sequence with SUZANNE PLESHETTE, but it too is poorly conceived and written. Most of the characters he comes into touch with are either obnoxious or stupid. So much for the screenplay...and the film itself has to be regarded as a complete misfire.

That this is directed by Delbert Mann is surprising. He's usually so tight and forceful in his direction--whereas MR. BUDDWING is a series of vignettes that don't ever seem real, however unpredictable they are.

Nice try--and maybe Evan Hunter's novel got it right--but the only redeeming feature of the film is some nice location shots in New York City's Greenwich Village area.

As for JAMES GARNER, he's much more suited to the cocky sort of roles that he played later on in films like THE GREAT ESCAPE. Vulnerability is not his forte.

A quirky, moody, sleight of reality. As this movie progresses it becomes more an altered chronology of remembered events rather than a series of hallucinations. The city of New York is more than a geographical location, it is an artistic "set". The use of black and white rather than color gives this particular "set" a role in establishing the mood and tone. ALL the shots are for dramatic effect, not a wasted inch. High contrast but in a muted way. A perfect example is the black iron walkway leading to the bridge against a NY skyline and Suzanne Pleshette in a white coat and boots (ala '60"s). This composition has great dark lines and light forms but almost in an early evening haze.

Then, I also must comment on Jean Simmons like I've hardly ever seen her. She was so coquettish, lush, lively and degenerate at the same time that I thought I was seeing Vivien Leigh as a young flapper. I was quite mesmerized trying to reconcile this Jean Simmons with "Young Bess". I thought she was the spark of the whole movie.

The cutting and arranging of the sequences lent themselves to dramatically unfolding the story in non-chronological order. This is what made me think of "Memento".

Like "Memento"'s Guy Pearce, James Garner mostly stumbles through "Mr. Buddwing" fairly stupefied. This behavior seems about right to me if someone were truly experiencing this altered reality.

I recommend this movie for a dark, hushed evening, especially if you have friends willing to "suspend dis-belief" and careen around New York and James Garner's head.

For a movie with an interesting premise and a stable of talented actors, this movie really left a lot to be desired. A man who wakes up in Central Park with amnesia and sets out on an odyssey of discovery, should have been riveting. With a tighter script and a better director, this could have had Oscar buzz.

James Garner plays the amnesiac who encounters several women through the day whom he imagines are a woman he once loved named Grace. Katherine Ross, Suzanne Pleshette (always a personal favorite) and Jean Simmons play the ladies. Along the way he also encounters a helpful Angela Landsbury and Jack Gilford. You could also count the City of New York itself as a character as Director Delbert Mann beats you over the head with the scenery.

The story is compelling, but the characters are not believable. This takes place in the 60s so maybe attitudes were different, but all these women invite this stranger into their homes/lives with almost no thought. Even when he becomes agitated about not remembering things, they don't kick him out. Each scene seems to be its own entity and doesn't really tie to the next one. There is a sub-plot about an escaped convict who may or not be Mr. Buddwing, but this plot is dropped quickly and never developed. It would have been interesting to keep that going. Then, just when it appears the movie is about to pick up some steam, it just...stops. We never get a denouement of any kind. Perhaps that was the director's intent, but after having to slog through the slowly paced film, we should have gotten something. A saving "grace" if you will.

Not to say the movie isn't good. The actors/actresses do a fine job. It was odd seeing Garner play against his hero type for once. Pleshette is lovely in her role which is the best written of the three main females as well as the most touching. Jean Simmons was fun as a spoiled rich girl out for a good time. Character actor Gilford had some nice chemistry with Garner but his scenes are brief and then he is gone.

I wanted to like this film, but it felt like a college drama class project with all the artsy shots of New York rather than a taut drama about a man trying to find himself.