I love a LOT of movies made during this period (late 60s through mid 70s) and I really like both Julie Christie and George C. Scott. And a lot of people liked "Petulia" so I really wanted to see it and like it.
But this movie was a big disappointment for me. The fragmented plot and the noisy editing style seemed to be very much on purpose, and though I can enjoy non-linear narrative (e.g., Tarantino), the style seemed to be the thing director wanted to "say". (If I had walked in during the middle of the movie, I might have thought it a TV commercial, for just about any product you could think of.) I could tell that "Petulia" was supposed to be about people not being able to connect with each other to the point of total estrangement, but I don't really want to become as frustrated as the characters I am watching. The movie runs amok with cryptic symbolism to the point where the symbols replace the characters.
*SPOILERS* Why, for example, did the martyr-kook Petulia continue to harass Archie, up until the point where she got beat to a pulp by David, whereupon Archie changed his whole attitude and began to really care for her? Or maybe that WAS the point. The Archie-symbol says to his friend he wants to feel again. So the David-symbol must beat up Petulia, make her feel, so in turn Archie can feel. Or maybe David is supposed to be a repressed homosexual who is not able to respond to admittedly beautiful Julie Christie? Richard Chamberlain was sometimes knowingly cast in these pretty-boy role types, so perhaps. I think he even gets mad once when Christie calls him "pretty". *END SPOILERS*
There were a few lovely shots of San Francisco and George C. Scott gave a good performance. But more often than not I felt like his character, yelling in frustration at Mr. Gonzales in a "foreign" language. I hated that kid, by the way, and I didn't understand why David Chamberlain gave him his watch. Oh, well. The next movie about alienation and made during this period - I am bound to love it! I couldn't get into this one.