Director: Robert Taicher
Cast: Elliott Gould, Howard Hesseman, Jennifer Tilly

A number of years ago, I watched an interview with the imprisoned cult leader Charles Manson, who as you probably know was the key figure in the Tate-Labianca murders in Hollywood in 1969. One of the final questions the interviewer asked Manson was, "Is Charles Manson crazy?" Manson pondered the question for a few seconds, and gave his answer. His answer was that years earlier he used to think that he was probably crazy, but since then behind bars, he had seen on the news a number of tragic stories of people doing things that even he was taken aback by, so he was no longer sure of the answer to that question. This of course provokes a question to be asked: When can a person be safely labelled as being "crazy"? I think that it usually depends on the person in question, the circumstances, and the people judging the person. When I took a Canadian law class in high school, I learned that when it comes to Canadian criminal cases when the sanity of the accused is brought into question, Canadian law made a firm decision about this back in 1980. It was decided that it must be proven that at the time of the crime, the sanity of the accused must have been in a manner where the accused could not appreciate the nature and results of the crime, or that the accused did not have knowledge that what crime he or she did was wrong. Other lawmakers in other countries have decided variations of this. From what I understand about the law in the United States, it has sometimes been also argued that the accused could not distinguish between fantasy and reality, or that the accused simply cannot take care of his or her basic day to day living because of psychosis. Also, if the person in question is prone to making severe impulse decisions, that can sometimes label that person in layman's terms as "crazy".

As you have just read, those points can legally brand someone as "crazy". But as you no doubt know, the world of the law is often much different than the day-to-day world most of us live in. It's very interesting to see not only how attitudes to people who are not in "the norm" are today, but how they were in the past and how they evolved to this present day. One big example is with people with certain sexual orientations. As you probably know, homosexuality even just a few decades ago was not only a quick provocation to hostility and disgust from most people not with that orientation, but in the medical community was considered a great sickness. But today, the western public's attitude towards homosexuality is now a lot more tolerant, and the majority of doctors don't see it as anything like a mental illness. Of course, there are still plenty of people in the world who think otherwise, but it's interesting to see the significant shift. Thinking about it, it sure seems like many people who are "different" in one way or another can be perceived depending on their location and time period. I was born with a certain disability, and while I have managed to make many big accomplishments in my life, I know I'm lucky to be where I am now. Years earlier, in my country or in another country, I might have been considered "crazy" by many people, and denied the freedoms and opportunities I have now. The question comes as to what may be considered "crazy" in this day and age. I thought it might be interesting to review a movie concerning an individual whose thinking and actions might get a wide range of reactions from its viewers, which might include "crazy" from some. I was especially interested in what I would think of the person, since I have a perspective different from most people around me. From its description when I first learned about it, Inside Out seemed to fit that bill.

Inside Out is about a man named Jimmy Morgan (Elliott Gould, The Naked Face). At first glance, you might think that Jimmy has an enviable life. He lives in a great New York City apartment filled with modern conveniences, which enables him to get everything from food, illegal narcotics, regular visits by his housekeeper (Beah Richards, Beauty And The Beast), and regular visits by his favorite hooker Amy (Jennifer Tilly, Imps) to his home in a moment's notice. He doesn't even have to go to his stock market job, which is managed by his business partner Leo Gross (Dana Elcar, MacGyver). And Jimmy has a circle of other friendly acquaintances in his life that includes his old friend Jack (Howard Hessman, Whiffs). But as the movie progresses, we start to see signs that things may in fact not be good for Jimmy. He gambles a lot, and always seems to lose big. He is divorced, and his young daughter Heather (Nicole Nourmand, Summer Camp Nightmare) doesn't seem to have a good connection with him when she drops by. Things get even worse when Jimmy finds out that the bad market is draining his finances, but he doesn't know that also Leo has been stealing money from him. But Jimmy seems unable to fix any of these problems, because we eventually find out he's a severe agoraphobe - he hasn't left the confines of his apartment for an extremely long time. Years, as a matter of fact. When people in Jimmy's life get some idea of what Jimmy is suffering from, they try in various ways to offer help, but Jimmy is resistant. Even though as every new day passes, Jimmy loses more money and more control of his already shabby life, Jimmy feels unable to exit his apartment and try to make the necessary changes to improve his life and relationships with others.

During your life, you have almost certainly heard about people like Jimmy who have chosen to hole up away from the outside world for years. You've probably wondered why those people are afraid to go outside. But if you are expecting to get some clear explanation as to the why of this syndrome, Inside Out will probably disappoint you. It's never made clear why Jimmy has chosen this lifestyle. There is one scene when confronted by his friend Jack about his phobia, Jimmy spouts off in anger and panic a long monologue where he talks about all the dangers and bad things in the outside world. However, these are things we non-agoraphobes know and live with already, so we know that there must be more to Jimmy's problem than that. The drugs he takes probably don't help, there are hints his past divorce from his wife hit him hard, but these and other small clues don't give a definite answer. I actually didn't mind this, because I think one of the main attempts with the portrayal of agoraphobe Jimmy is to show that this phobia could happen to anyone, even one with the advantages that he has at his disposal. It's an illness, one that we must keep vigilant about not getting ourselves. What we see of Jimmy right from the start of the movie is that he's a real mess despite those aforementioned advantages at the start. Right from the first shot, he doesn't look right - downright physically ill, as a matter of fact. Throughout the movie his behavior is numb and not totally comprehending of his situation or mounting problems. When he interacts with someone face to face in his apartment, there's always something that gets in the way of the relationship warming up, such as when he makes (burnt) toast to his housekeeper and casually makes a stinging wisecrack about her love life. He does anything he can to justify his lifestyle, like having a framed and underlined article (in a picture frame) about, of all people, Hugh Hefner talking about why it's not necessary to travel.

That is not to say that Jimmy doesn't crave human contact - it just has to be on his own terms, like when he strikes up a rapport (via security camera and microphone) with a homeless person who camps in his building's lobby for a few days. Jimmy is stuck between his need for companionship and a desire to be absolutely safe, which makes him a very complex character that would be challenging for any actor to successfully pull off. But actor Elliott Gould pulls it off magnificently. As mentioned earlier, he always makes his character look like there's something not quite right with him. Gould goes further than this, however. When Jimmy is under building tension, such as when the visit from his friend Jack gets closer, and then subsequently has to make excuse after excuse when Jack tries to get him to go out on the town with him, you see the agony and panic all over him. There are several times when he loses control of his sick-looking passivity and immediately erupts into a rage; Gould makes this believable not just with the main transition, but making sure afterwards to show that Jimmy deflates by showing regret or devastation in his face and body. Gould is simply fabulous, making Jimmy both extremely believable and somebody that you can't help but keep your eyes on even during the times that he acts in a manner that would be off-putting in real life. But some credit for the portrayal of Jimmy has to go also to writer/director Robert Taicher. Incredibly, Inside Out gave him his first directing and writing credits, but he seems very professional with his direction for the most part. Almost all of the movie takes place in Jimmy's apartment, but the lack of background variety doesn't hurt the movie. In fact, I would have preferred if all of the movie took place in the apartment; it would have made the claustrophobic and dismal atmosphere around Jimmy even greater. The dismal atmosphere comes from tricks like reduced lighting and the surroundings (furnishings, the painted walls, etc.) looking somewhat shabby. Taicher uses other techniques like Jimmy's television almost always switched on, and an answering machine that is constantly called. Both of those techniques quickly give the viewer irritation... but I think that is what was intended, and in this movie they are effective.

Taicher's directional style does, I admit, have some mixed results here and there. One technique he does use is abruptness. This does work in some scenes, like when a scene starts up with Jimmy's young daughter having a visit with him. Since there had been no mention of Jimmy having a daughter before, the surprise is effective, making us wonder what other things Jimmy might be trying to hide from us. But there are also some moments when Taicher suddenly ends a scene in midstream for no apparent reason, such as when Jimmy is arguing the first time with his ex-wife on the phone, and we cut to the next scene before a reasonable conclusion can happen. Also, there are several subplots with characters (hooker Amy, the homeless man) that are simply dropped before the end of the movie before they have a chance to be resolved. Still, even in unfinished subplots such as those, what we do get to see has some real insight into not only Jimmy, but the people around him. For instance, when Jack learns the truth, he can't seem to find the right way to comfort or help Jimmy ("How could you do this to yourself?" and "What's the matter with you?") Jimmy's housekeeper tries a bit of tough love, but even she seems to realize the immense size of her challenge. And when Jimmy confronts his business partner Leo about his shady practices, Leo knows Jimmy so well that he manages to put the blame on Jimmy - and in a very nasty manner that reduces Jimmy to clutching to straws for ay kind of defense. I also appreciated that the movie ended on a note that while may look happy on its surface, still reveals with a little thought and observation that Jimmy still has a heck of a lot of problems that he has to deal with - and whether he would be able to fix things is left hanging in the air. A realistic ending like that is refreshing in a cinematic world that for the most part ties things up completely and happily. From that, and what I have also described about Inside Out, you can probably see that this movie is no feel-good blockbuster, and definitely not for a general audience. However, those who like to stray off the beaten path (like me!) and are interested in a movie that admits the unhappiness that can happen in life, and a movie that also admits that there are no easy answers to some problems, will find the honesty (and strengths) of Inside Out to be extremely interesting.

(Posted September 25, 2025)