User Reviews

I guess I agree that this wasn't a "great movie," but it was better than other reviewers have claimed. Honestly, most movies from this period don't stand up all that well. It was an experimental time and experiments usually go bad. That's the nature of attempting to be creative. Most Hollywood crap barely tries for competent and rarely considers creative.

For no other reason, the context of Thunderclap Newman's "Something in the Air" (on of the all time greatest rock songs) is worth experiencing this movie. A pretty damn good version of "Give Peace a Chance" can be found here, too.

Simon (Bruce Davison) is an apolitical college rower in San Francisco. He is indifferent to the mounting protest on campus about stealing an African-American playground for the ROTC headquarter. He drops by to watch the protest and is taken with Linda (Kim Darby). He follows her into a student takeover of the administration building.

This is a counter-culture film or a counter-counter-culture film. It could be a simple straight stiff turns hippie radical. It does take some unexpected turns. He's not a simple nice guy. There are darker edges. The couple has a difficult encounter with the very black people that they're trying to help. It's not all flower power. I don't buy the shopkeeper. His actions don't feel right. It would be so much better for him to placate and cooperate with the couple before calling the cops. Instead, he's raising his hands which make it less shocking to have him call for the cops. Anyways, it all struck me wrong. There are a couple of notable actors but mostly it looks like an amateur cast. Kim Darby is cute coming a year after True Grit. It all adds up to a lesser, interesting counter-culture film.

Those were the days.1968 had happened and the times they were changing.

A girl: "why didn't we protest before?

another girl: "we did not know."

"That time long ago when we thought our youth was eternal and the rebels were fighting in the mountains "

The story of a twenty-year old young man who worked hard to go to college and then discovers that the world he wants to get into is worthless.Like in the magnificent Joni Mitchell song (sung by Indian singer (and activist) Buffy Sainte -Marie which opens and closes the movie),Simon is "captive on the carousel of time ,where the little horses go up and down".His tiny apartment is a time capsule: the "2001:a space odyssey" soundtrack, a photograph of Robert Kennedy,and Neil Young's "down by the river" .

"The strawberry statement" could be subtitled "lost illusions ";the incident in the park was a real eye-opener;it's the failure of non-violence;that the "hero" should be "rewarded" for having been beaten up by the cops -whereas he was assaulted by one of his mates in the showers- clearly indicates that it's no use singing "give peace a chance" For those who lived through those troubled times and who did not realize they were "helpless" (like Neil Young sings in his classic also included in the soundtrack),"the strawberry statement" will remind them of that time when we could imagine that we were a brother hood of men and that strikes and songs and demonstrations could save the world.

Like this? try these....

"Alice's restaurant" by Arthur Penn

"Harold and Maud" by Hal Ashby(also featuring Bud Cort)

"Taking off" by Milos Forman

Bruce Davison, Kim Darby, Bob Balaban, Bud Cort, that guy who looks like Bud Cort. They're all here along with some great music from Neil Young and others. The finale is powerful but some of the earlier stuff tries too hard to be trippy. The script is pretentious as well.

I caught this film about 1am in the morning whilst sitting up just surfing the channels...I was bored. I came into it about ten minutes in and thought straight from the off that the picture and sound quality was atrocious...so I thought I'd watch it or a laugh. I was actually very surprised how good it was. Once you look past the low level of production, the story is gripping and the scene at the end was one of best scenes I have ever watched in a film.

If you ever get a chance to watch this, give it a chance..you wont be disappinted

As someone who was there, I can affirm that this film captures the mood, angst and general zeitgeist of the late 60's on the precipice of a new decade. Solid cast and location shooting lend credibility. May not have aged well, but should be seen by anyone who wants something contemporary and authentic that can't be delivered in films that look back after the fact. Great Neil Young soundtrack!

This is the perfect movie for anyone interested in the truth about the sixties, the lengths we went to, and how America learned that its people are pretty powerless against the powers that be. Kim Darby is perfection in her role, as she always was, and is! The climax is a living nightmare ... yet, total reality! This movie also shows you why so many Americans turned to drugs, why America is what it is today. When a nation feels powerless, the majority of that nation turns to fantasy / science fiction, and anything else that will make them forget what they have no power to change. This movie showed us the end of hope, and self-respect ... and the beginning of this mess we leave to future generations ..... oblivion!

Interesting topic, but poorly written and poorly acted.

The scene in the playground makes me think the whole movie is a comedy, or put together by 12 year olds.

I don't know what you think, but this is the most disturbing film I've ever seen in my life. In fact, it's the only disturbing film I've ever seen in my life! I stayed awake in bed for hours thinking about it, thinking about the very horrific ending that I won't tell you what it is. I'm only 14, but this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I especially liked the brilliant use of camera work.

The story focuses on the Columbia University communist riots in 1968 that I had no prior knowlege of before I saw this masterpiece.

10 out of 10.

At last I found this DVD in Germany, where it is called Bloody Strawberries. Silly enough the film turned out to be dubbed in German, but this was surmountable since it is not quite a piece of poetry and the songs are still in American. Strawberry Statement tells the story of the student revolt at an American University during the roaring sixties. The students organize sit-ins and occupy the living quarters of the university board. The rooms are decorated with antiwar banners and pictures of Che Guevara. It is clear that eventually the board will have the students removed by the police and the national guard. But for the moment the students have a great time and organize their resistance by means of bottom-up activities. Including proletarian shopping, which assumes the implicit support of the proletariat embodied in the shop owner. The main character is a freshman, who is drawn into the actions due to his feelings of attraction to a participating female student. Incidentally this does not prevent him from being orally satisfied by a female admirer of Lenin. She even carols: "Lenin loved large tits". This is adulteration of history, since Lenin was a puritan, and rejected the experiments with free sex just after the Octobre Revolution. He compared free sex to collectively drinking from the same well-thumbed bowl. This minor scene highlights my objection to the film. The story is told form the perspective of a fellow-traveler, who hardly understands the reasons and objectives of the protests. To be sure, the phenomenon of massive fellow-traveling is interesting in itself and deserves a careful reflection. It is startling how even mass movements are usually carried by only a few hard core activists. But hang-ons clearly are not the best source of information concerning the motives. They are usually attracted by the excitement (like here: the freshman's' girlfriend, who by the way highly values her virginity), the unanimity and lack of personal responsibility. I would have preferred a reflection on the actual aims of the resistance, for instance by making one of the organizers into a main film character. The real motives for the student protests were interesting enough: the civil rights movement, the trenching on taboos and unjustified authority, and the demand for co-management. The film barely touches these problems, and leaves the viewer wondering why on earth these kids have gone mad. Lacking an understanding means not being able to feel any empathy, except for the personality of the roaming freshman and his blossoming relation. The viewer even feels relieved, when finally order is restored. I would not call this a happy ending. Because I don't believe in a low-brow self-centered attitude.

The money men at MGM let the kids act out in this shrill protest film against the establishment (themselves)in this sloppy and incoherent tract made fresh on the heels of the Kent State Massacre. It is one bad temper tantrum.

It is the dawning of the Age of Aquarious (Tune in, turn on, drop out.) and the kids have had it with the hypocrisy of their square and out of touch elders who lack their social conscious and righteous dude ethos. Simon (Bruce Davison) a jock on a crew team is at first bemused by the social action of a student group that takes over the dean's office but soon sees the light and is radicalized and ready to stand against the big bad oppressive monolith known as the system. Along the way he hooks up with an innocent and out of touch co-ed (Kim Darby's fashion statement says it all) who soon finds herself dragged into the maelstrom. Things ratchet up and we soon have the fascist pigs gassing and pummeling the beautiful people while an indifferent public at large looks on and in one case wonders if her laundry is done.

Made during a period (Easy Rider) when moguls thought youth was on to something and bank rolled their ideas The Strawberry Statement's let it all hang out style of patchy editing and bad acid camera-work is one visual downer as it clumsily jostles you along with leap cuts from one tantrum to the next. Prolific scribbler Israel Horovitz's scenario is filled with all the requisite cliché blather that puts the students into realpolitik mode but he seems at a loss to flesh out his characters beyond their smug sarcasm and hip attitude.

There's an excellent soundtrack of Neil Young tunes along with CS&N and a warbly rendition of Circle Game by Buffy Saint Marie that supplies some energy to this torpid and hackneyed lecture that the US has lost its moral compass but unfortunately the overheated passions get lost in the fog of tear gas and self righteous tedium all haphazardly put together by a director (Stuart Haggman) and cinematographer (John Woolsey) who look like they cut one too many film studies classes.

This exuberant, irreverent, tender, glorious film is THE cinematic embodiment of the sixties. This is one of the greatest films ever made. The camera work sparkles. Plot becomes almost irrelevant. This movie invented music video. It is much more than a movie about this or that. It is a celebration of life, youth, craziness, dreams. It leaves you yearning for life, and makes everything look beautiful. Watch this film to see how limited and timid most films are. What a breath of fresh air!!!!!

You had to be there or at least you have to be intrigued by the on-going concept of polarization (which is what "The Strawberry Statement", both the James Kunen source book and the movie, is really about). Others may want to give the film a wide berth which should be easy enough to do as ownership complications with the music rights continue to keep this interesting counter-culture film from a DVD release.

The title comes from a statement made by a Columbia University administrator in response to student demands for more say in the decisions being made by the school's administration. He said something to the effect that the opinions of the students on these issues meant no more to him than whether they liked the taste of strawberries. Needless to say this simply played into the hands of the most radical of the students and became a rallying cry for the protests that would rock the university.

The film transports the events from NYC to a fictional university in San Francisco, at least in part because "The City By the Bay" was quick to offer its location to film makers; even though the area was busy with its own considerable student protest events (The Free Speech Movement, The Oakland 7, and People's' Park come to mind).

Taking its character motivational elements and cinematography style from Haskell Wexler's "Medium Cool" (1969); it is all about a "Man With A Movie Camera" (1929) observer gradually being pulled through his lens into the action itself. A little broken camera symbolism. In both there is a surprisingly authentic feeling romance, which serves as both a tension release and as a source of character motivation.

The action he has been observing is essentially a "Hellbound Train Effect" as the young students aggressively test the system and the authorities stubbornly refuse to defuse the situation.

The film includes a great period soundtrack which I owned before I had even seen the movie. The songs nicely complement what you are seeing on the screen. Neil Young's "The Loner" gets an especially good montage effect. Joni Mitchell's "The Circle Game" (sung by Buffy Sainte-Marie) bookends the film and the morphing of the hero (played by Bruce Davison) from distanced jock (crew team) to involved student.

There is a curious foreshadowing of Davison's signature role in "Willard", a film he made just a year after "The Strawberry Statement". Instead of conversations with a house of rats he talks to the cockroaches in his kitchen. There is probably a profound symbolic commentary there but just exactly what it is escapes me.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Movies we remember have touched us. I saw "The Strawberry Statement" 30 years ago and I still remember it and want to talk about it, so it must have made a powerful impression on me, right? Yes, indeed, it did. This movie is an artistic documentary about the Flower-Power Age of youth, innocence, love and unselfish interest in the improvement of societal conditions: in humanity, justice and equality. It's about fighting with flowers in hands against those holding batons. It's about kindness and meaning well, yet raising ferocious opposition in those whose only ambitions are about power over others. I remember long hair flying in the air and sunshine everywhere. I remember the taste of strawberry which reminds me of the red colour of love... and blood.

I wish I could see this movie again in this age of DVD...

Decent kid named Simon (Bruce Davison), a university student at Berkeley who works hard on the rowing team and lives off-campus, volunteers for a student strike for peace and is soon radicalized by a pretty girl he falls for (Kim Darby). She and her anti-authoritarian, anti-racism friends are rebelling against the school administration, and are willing to fight the cops and go to jail for their rights. Time-capsule movie about the effects of student demonstration, from James Kunen's novel "The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary", boasts a talented cast and a good rock soundtrack, but it's too dated and superficial to make a big impact. Director Stuart Hagmann spells everything out in elemental visual terms: in the opening scan of the protagonist's apartment, we see a poster of Robert Kennedy (telling us Simon is a Democrat), a cut-out of a naked girl (Simon is straight), cockroaches he talks to and doesn't kill (Simon is a pacifist), soundtrack albums of "Doctor Zhivago" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" (Simon is a romantic and a film-lover); meanwhile, the protesters throw a dummy off the school roof covered with slogans, they hang a sign saying "Revolt" on a university statue, they've put up posters of Che Guevara on the walls. Hagmann doesn't seem to be interested in the young people as individuals, anyway; he wants to make statements of his own--arty statements in montages depicting how the archaic brass misunderstands "the movement", and how youthful anarchy leads to violence because "the pigs" want it that way, not the kids. But blaming the proverbial escalation into bloodshed completely on the police doesn't wash here when the demonstrators appear to be spoiled, upper-class, would-be martyrs. The clichés are thick and come at us continuously, curdling on the screen and turning the film into an overeager potboiler. *1/2 from ****

Students are rebelling against the war in Vietnam, against co-operation of their university with corporations from the military-industrial complex, but also against the university's appropriation of a playground in the poor African-American neighbourhood. The protesting students decide to occupy one of the university's buildings.

These rebellious students are mainly characterized by youthful enthusiasm and shallow analysis packed with common places. They are generally confused, being more liberals than revolutionaries, but even that is dangerous for the system in a situation of widespread social injustice and aggressive war, unfair even by the criteria of a government that started it, when proclaimed liberal values of democracy and freedom are openly diminished, and utter hypocrisy and corruption of the system become widely apparent.

The University authorities decide to call the police and the National Guard to intervene and remove the students from the occupied building, and these decide to engage in non-violent resistance. Based on actual events.

Timely reminder of how flat out dull were the hippies, as well as smug and hypocritical (i.e. Their long hair regimentation was at least as severe as that of the buzz cuts of the military they so despised). Biggest disappointment for me was the empty dialogue from the usually sharp, incisive Israel Horovitz. Second biggest disappointment was a mediocre Kim Darby performance (you hardly ever see that). Good 60s score, though. C minus.

I've grown older, I've grown sedated - this was the first time in I don't remember how long that a movie really made me FEEL so much. The music, the camera-work, the speeches, the feeling of just wanting to c h a n g e so much! I got completely wrapped up in it, especially, like someone else wrote, since the state of the world is at it is today; it makes this movie feel more accurate than ever! Why, oh why, aren't there revolutionaries like these on the streets and in the universities of today? One thing though. The movie very accurately portrays women of this time and this movement, and by that I mean they are portrayed either as sexual objects, passive jewelry for the revolutionaries (men) to lean on in their "headquarter" (in this case the dean's office)or as frail and beautiful little birds the men have to care for. It is true that this is how women of the movement were treated - as someone who could make coffee whilst the men drew up revolutionary plans of how to overthrow the government - that is until women fought back and started their own revolution. I just wish that when revolution comes next time, there will be no sexism in its lines...

the film is sometimes ridiculous, (the final climatic scene comes to mind in which the students dive, scream, yell!.. all to avoid the police viciously attacking them.. with what you can obviously see are in fact fake plastic batons that bend when they hit people) the film is sometimes widely unbelievable, (i won't go into the chances of a character changing his very made up mind almost from one shot to the next)... beside it's ridiculousness, besides it's flaws, beside these things: it's a striking, cool, funny film that really gets you involved in what's going on and really interested in the characters, the characters are believable, the acting is great and it's worth seeing however you manage to

Had to respond to some of the extreme negative reviews. As one who was involved in the campus radical movement during the late 60s and early 70s, I found this film to be one of the most accurate representations of the student process of radicalization during that time...that includes the portrayal of guerrilla theater, the endless meetings where we tried to decide on whether to vote to have a vote, the demonstrations, and even the police/guard confrontations. I question whether those who are so negative had any personal experience with the period. I'm curious about the locations as I recognize San Francisco and New Orleans but cannot tell about the river sequences...nevertheless it was put together to make one city, in part due to campus jitters at the time about the story line. Particularly noteworthy with this film are the great Editing and Cinematography...also one of the greatest Music Compilations for a soundtrack. It definitely deserved the 2 awards is won at the Cannes Film Festival. Hats off to Director Hagmann as well. I just finished watching it again on TCM and was struck by the feeling of suddenly being drawn back in time and a feeling of reliving the experience. This is a fine film for us old revolutionaries from the 60s; actually a Screen Gem!

This movie gives you a good look at the student revolt (late sixties/ early seventies). Although some of the camera, sequencing and cutting techniques are out of date, the movie does have its moments.

The main character, Simon, is a student and he's gradually getting more and more involved in the student movement.

The final scenes (sweeping of the students) I found very impressing, almost as if you were watching a documentary.

8 out of 10

This movie will be of interest to anyone curious about the mores, attitudes, fashions, and lifestyles of the those involved in the radical student movement of the late 1960s. It presents a compelling portrait of the times. Personally I was left with the impression that the students were largely naive, spoiled idiots, and I found it difficult to sympathize with their agenda and methods. Nevertheless, I did feel for the duration of the movie that I was immersed in a reasonable, realistic representation of those times. The movie presents a more reality-based view of the late 60s than hippy freakout pieces like "Easy rider," for example, so you the viewer is advised to look at it as a kind of window into an era gone by.