this and then I never felt it was quite right and then it was."

Still perplexed by the 1968 setting of the film, I asked if the intent towards sexual roles was to show how much our society's attitudes have changed.

"I think whether you call it intent or not, I think it's undeniable that particularly the role of women has changed. George is kind of the dumb blond of the movie. He is the sex object and I think that kind of male consciousness has not changed an awful lot.

Shampoo is especially depressing to men, because it really shows the women. using men as sex objects; difficult for us to take. It also gives an undercurrent of something that attacks the nuclear family, in a way that is disturbing. No one repents in the end. It is difficult for the generation that is now 30, a generation that grew up before the pill. For the young people it's not so tough, they say, 'Yeah, that's what happens when you fuck around so much."

When George is not dashing off on his motorcycle to one of his eager loves, he is found in the beauty salon. The owner of the salon is Norman (Jay

Robinson), who is cast as a screaming faggot. Norman and Ricci (Mike Olton), who also portrays a faggot, are the only other hairdressers with substantial roles in the movie. Disturbed by this tired image of the homosexual hairdresser, I asked, "Because the film promotes certain views on women's liberation or sexual philosophy, plus a definite attitude towards politics, there also seems to be a backdoor statement about homosex. uality or the image of a homosexual. By using the character of a hairdresser, it seems the scenes in the shop, with the focus on Norman and Ricci, support the view of the faggot hairdresser. Do you see this as a 1968 attitude or a present one? It seems you have promulgated the image of the homosexual hairdresser."

"I did?" he replied defensively. "Your movie did." I answered. Pause. "I don't know what to say about that. Could be we were a little heavy on the character of Ricci and Norman, because there were no other hairdressers. Maybe you're right, I don't know. Sometimes you broaden things when you try to be funny and that was the source of a couple of gags,

maybe some cheap gags. We only dealt with three hairdressers, one was heterosexual and two homosexual.

One cut from Lester saying, "Too bad he's a fairy" to a shot of George blowdrying a woman's hair while her head hovers around his crotch leads to another question. Doesn't this sequence play on the stereotyped image of a homosexual hairdresser? In defense Beatty said, "I would think the two homosexual characters equate to my part, since my role is so much bigger."

Just like the facile and cheap political theme, Mr. Beatty admits tu, though does not apologize for, the cheapness of the homosexual images, in the film. Audiences do not see the hairdressers as 1968 characters. They laugh at the image with a 1975 mentality. The modern view is necessary for the joke to work.

Hollywood no longer makes films with blacks rolling their eyes. It's time they became aware of other minorities. Ann Weldon, a black actress in the film, comes across as straight as possible, without making her white. Dare Beatty make a joke about her to evoke Lester's views on race?

The intention of the film is good, but the structure falls apart. Unnecessary bits, such as the momentary pathos evoked by the death of Norman's son or the childishly absurd portrayal of a politician singing Indian songs, lend no perspective to the picture. Our society has changed but not as markedly as Mr. Beatty thinks or demonstrates.

Shampoo would have been more valuable if it had been set in 1975 and showed us where we are now, rather than showing from where we have come. But, the best laid plans of....

VECTOR 45