User Reviews

Unavailable on home video and absent from television for decades until a recent screening on Turner Classic Movies, R.P.M. stars Anthony Quinn as Paco Perez, a professor trying to get down with the kids on a strife-torn California college campus. Always one to sympathize with his students, Paco finds himself thrust into a position of authority after activists take over the school's administration building. The Board of Trustees names him President because the kids trust him, but he finds some of their demands hard to comply with, raising the question: how much revolution is too much revolution? Ann-Margret co-stars as Paco's grad student mistress (surely grounds for dismissal?), Paul Winfield and Gary Lockwood agitate the masses, and--in brilliant casting--an uncredited S.I. Hayakawa (himself a veteran of a student sit-in at San Francisco State University) appears as a semantics instructor. Quinn is very good standing in for aging liberal director Stanley Kramer, who probably felt lost at sea during the radical late sixties, but the film's Achilles' Heel is Eric Segal's screenplay, which is generally (though not unremittingly) awful.

Okay some people really didn't like this movie but I did. Yeah the revolting students are stereotypically revolting in their acting and words. Of course I may be just a little biased as I was over in Nam in 1970 (71 and 73 too). So when the cops start busting up the hippies it didn't bother me too much. Now everything leading up to that part was okay as far as acting went. The script seemed a little trite with the speeches by the protesters, pretty standard gibberish of the times. Anthony Quinn did his usual fine job. He is a liberal professor who gets stuck with the deanship of the school when the former one retires from stress caused by the sit in. He tries to talk with the sitters but they not only will not yield on the last three of twelve demands even after getting 1 thru 9 agreed too but are extremely insulting and rude to him. Not really the way to get what you want if you make the powers that be mad. Quinn finally has enough and sends in the cops. Heads get busted and 7 students and 4 cops get sent to the hospital. Ann-Margret is the half his age grad student who he is living with at the time. She is a liberal and cannot understand when Quinn sends in the cops. At the end you see her and other students break the police line to help the sitters who are getting the snot beat out of them. Teda Bracci plays one of the sitters. She is a horse face with the worst attitude of the whole bunch, then when she breaks out with the others kicks two cops in, shall we say, the lower regions. I was so hoping to see her clubbed to the ground and be one of the seven. Oh well, it is only a movie after all.

I first read about "RPM" in a book on bad movies. The review made note of the dated premise and baffling slang. Anthony Quinn plays a college president stymied by the striking student body and hooked on Ann- Margret's striking human body. And the book was right. "RPM" is bad.

Quinn is all wrong for this, but then, I never liked his face. So much of film is visual and Anthony Quinn's terribly inexpressive mug never conveys any emotion, never ever lets the audience in. It's not that he's bad looking- there are plenty of unattractive actors whose faces speak volumes- he just always looks exactly the same: mildly perturbed.

Here he plays hipster professor Paco, who has to stare down the self-righteous protesters at a West Coast university. And of course he's hit on all sides by clichéd slang: "square," "copout," "establishment." But neither he nor the guerrilla student body seem particularly passionate about their causes... they're simply reading the script.

Ann-Margret was still dripping with pheromones and raw sexuality at this point, and as a courtesy to all us edging males she shows us her exquisite breasts. Her character is a grad student and Paco's young lover, and she spends the vast majority of her screen time scrutinizing every aspect of Paco's hypocritical existence. Margret seems to understand how ridiculous and annoying her character is so she plays it with a wink to the audience... and her nipples go a long way toward helping us forgive her.

But the real problem with "RPM" is the direction by Staley Kramer. It is lifeless. It is dull. It shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject matter, the youth culture, and the issues of the day. It renders the movie a hollow and useless experience. Sometimes the book on bad movies is right.

GRADE: D

Stanley Kramer had issues with this movie. A forgotten gem from 1970, R. P. M. Stars an impressive Anthony Quinn and a drop dead gorgeous Ann-Margaret that steals every scene that she is in. Although the on screen chemistry lacks from time to time between the two, both add to the overall theme of political and ethical turmoil that plague the generation. The moral dilemma that Kramer produced may lack in certain areas, but overall, the film does capture the conflict of the time and draws a fine line in the sand on the conclusion. Both sides fail to meet commons terms and both side fail to understand the other sides goal. In the end, they team up to blame someone for their failures. It is my opinion that the moderate conclusion would have created a win / win scenario and made a different ending.

Dull as can be. A terrific performance by Anthony Quinn not withstanding, Stanley Kramer's expose of college campus revolutionaries is a very bad movie. Quinn is a liberal Sociology professor promoted to college president to help squelch the political activities of students Guy Stockwell, Paul Winfield and their minions. Kramer infuses his film with absolutely nothing interesting. Instead of coming across as one of Hollywood's great progressives, this blunder makes him look like a very old fogie. Quinn is actually believable as a college professor and has great chemistry with sexy but smart coed Ann-Margret. However, very few in the supporting cast, aside from Ann-Margret, even register. Stockwell & co. are mired in pseudo-revolutionary chatter, throwing out the occasional dirty word while berating Quinn as just another square establishment figure. The didactic script is by Erich Segal, the genius who also concocted LOVE STORY.

During the sixties of the last century the North-American movement for civil rights became increasingly radical, partly as a result of the ongoing Vietnam war. The movement consisted of a variegated coalition, which included hippies, students, blacks, and feminists. In this social climate of shifting moral values tiny groups of students revolted against the board of their universities. Students like to test their social bounds. For them a fire in the kitchen is something to laugh about. Their actions had a strong impact on society, and resulted in several film versions. RPM is one of them. I am fascinated by these cinematic reports, because they show how social resistance can escalate. RPM manages to elucidate the crucial aspects of the occurrences. And although as a rule I am indifferent about the casting, here the personality of Anthony Quinn indeed adds to the credibility of the story. He is a professor in sociology, Perez, whose lectures actually inspire the students to rebel. In his leisure time he engages in drunk driving on his motor bike. He prefers cocktails of carrot juice and whiskey, because he can see for miles (joking). The situation is piquant, because Perez is also the university dean. The rebels have occupied the main university building, and refuse to leave. In several scenes Perez negotiates with them, and offers them significant concessions. However, just like in the other films (and reality) the students do not know when to stop. Their leader wants to tear down the complete university system. He defines aggression as any violence, in which he does not participate. He believes that the board looks down on the students, but stands on the verge of the abyss. Soon Perez is disgusted at the immature and abusive behavior of the rebels. He advocates reforms, but not revolution. Thus in the end he feels compelled to have the rebellious students removed by the riot police. The students shout: "I pay your salary, you know", but the officers are not impressed. It is a loss-loss situation. Although Perez has acted in good faith, his decision has also made him the symbol of institutional violence. I love the ethical dilemmas in this film, as well as in its cinematic companions Strawberry Statement and Getting Straight.

Has Gary Lockwood ever played a character who didn't think he was a demigod? The script is full of nonsense. Ann Margret who is usually a stunning person comes off very guttural. Anthony Quinn's character is stale. Of course watching a liberal professor have to deal with the real-life consequences of his lectures would be a fascinating concept, but the film came at it from the wrong angle and the possible paradox was not explored well. I can say the film exposed the student movement for the ludicrous, hypocritical abuse that it was. Sadly the point was not driven home because I'm sure that wasn't the message the studio was trying to convey. As it came off it was very tepid, and undecided. Full of stale ideals that even in their day were not widely accepted. The characters were far from empathetic and with such a cast I would have thought that impossible.

Stanley Kramer called his movies heavy dramas but they're what are often called message films. A liberal, he brought issues to the public eye through his movies like the dangers of nuclear war (On the Beach), fascism (Judgement at Nuremberg, Ship of Fools), creationism against evolutionism (Inherit the Wind), greed (It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World) and racism (The Defiant Ones, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner).

While Pauline Kael saw his movies as "melodramas," and "irritatingly self-righteous," she also had to realize that they had "redeeming social importance."

But in 1970, maybe he was past his expiration date.

Did he feel like Professor F. W. J. "Paco" Perez (Anthony Quinn) does in this movie? For years, Paco has been the radical, the one that stood outside the mainstream. He says at one point that he fought Franco and McCarthy and has learned so much, but the young people don't want to learn anything. Did Kramer feel that way, an old man in the New Hollywood that was so much more in touch with the youth?

Is Paco just a fifty-year-old fanny chaser, as out of touch with the time as the administration he's been asked to be a part of?

Radical student activists - Paco is impressed that the blacks and whites have worked together - occupy the administration building with a list of 12 demands. President Tyler (John Zaremba, who spent the 70s and 80s wandering the Earth searching for the best beans for Hills Brothers Cofee) resigns and the Board of Trustees looks at the list that the students have written up of the presidents they would be happy with.

Top on the list? Paco.

It's after midnight and he's asleep with his grad student girlfriend Rhoda (Ann-Margret). Yet he's urged to rush out and fix things. The next day, he starts his new job, showing up on a motorcycle.

Paco reads their demands and many of them, like inner-city scholarships, a college reinvestment program, no military research on campus and adding an African American to the all-white Board of Trustees make sense. But the idea that students can hire and fire faculty doesn't work for him. He's already reached the first time where his theory and reality begin to not work together.

With Rossiter (Gary Lockwood) and Steve Dempsey (Paul Dempsey) leading the students, Paco tries to be the person between them and the Board of Trustees. But when Rossiter says that he will destroy all of the campus' computers, Paco has to make the tough decision to call in the police. They come charging in with tear gas, turning their hero professor into just one of the old people never to be trusted. When the cops round up the students, Rhoda is one of them.

What they don't know is that Paco has signed off on their bail. Yet he still walks past the crowd and is screamed and booed at. He has learned the hard way that the lessons of books and classrooms often mean little in the real world.

I really liked the songs by Melaine, "We Don't Know Where We're Goin'" and "Stop! I Don't Wanna Hear It Any More," that were in this. It's quite preachy, but it also feels like this movie was Kramer attempting to determine where he fit in any longer. Then again, Kramer would say that this was his least favorite film that made the lowest amount of money. The dialogue may get silly sometimes, but that's because it's written by Erich Segal, who also did Love Story.

After this movie, however, I understand why my dad and other older male relatives would say Ann-Margaret's name with the reverence they otherwise reserved for the saints.