According to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, more generally known as the ‘DSM-IV’ agoraphobia is defined as anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) … situations that include being outside the home alone; being in a crowd, or standing in a line. It remains a serious, debilitating psychological condition that imprisons its sufferers within the confines of their own room. I can readily empathize since I have been for the most part house bound for almost twenty year as a result of a significant loss of mobility. There are two factors that make my confinement different from the protagonist of the film under review here, ‘Inside Out (1986). First I still enjoy going out, I do not have the panic normally associated with the classic depiction of the disorder. Second I had my confinement greatly mitigated by a high speed internet connection. This allowed me to hold down a good job, order most things I needed not available through phoning neighborhood establishments with delivery service and kept me connected with friends and the outside world. While watching this film it is vital that you keep in mind the social and technological status that surrounded the man characterized in this story. Back then a person with agoraphobia was viewed as that strange recluse who never comes out. In a large city it was possible for a person of financial means to compensate for his inability to push past the portal of his apartment but it was nothing compared to the relative amelioration that telecommuting and an Amazon Prime account can offer. The flow of circumstances portrayed in this drama while still possible were more imminent then they were twenty five years ago. While not that long ago it still qualifies this as a period film; one that is highly dependent on the time and place the story is set in. it still holds together as a strong character study and affords an excellent showcase for talent on both sides of the camera. It is one of the difficult to locate films now available through MGM’s manufacture on demand series. The technical specification may be less than many are used to but in this instance it reinforces the vintage look and feel of the production.

Many consider Jimmy Morgan (Elliott Gould) odd even by the eclectic standards of New York City. Jimmy is afflicted with agoraphobia but he appears to make the best of the situation. Thanks to his television and telephone Jimmy is the king of ordering in. almost every conceivable need can be easily summoned to his doorstep. He is familiar with the delivery men of the nearby restaurants and his barber and manicurist make regular visits to keep Jimmy groomed although they are practically the only ones to ever notice. The baser desires of Jimmy’s personality are also managed. His cocaine is only a phone call away as is the lustier services of call girls summoned when the need arises. One of them, his favorite, Amy (Jennifer Tilly) serves for emotional companionship in addition to the regular carnal relief. His perchance for gambling is met by a neighborhood bookie willing to make house calls to stratify his need to bet on any football game around. His life style, as it were, was maintained by his stock portfolio and other business investments. Human interaction is also on delivery. His best friend, Jack (Howard Hesseman) stops by to try to coax Jimmy out for as friendly diner. In rapid succession Jimmy’s well regulated life unravels before his eyes. Some football teams did not perform as he predicted leaving a sizable dept with an understandably upset book maker. The stocks that had been performing well plunge taking the bottom out of his financial stability. To make matters worse his business partner embezzled the rest of Jimmy’s fiscal stability. Rubbing salt in the fresh wounds comes when his ex wife announces she is moving out of New York City taking their eleven year old daughter wife her. Soon the only contact Jimmy has is via the intercom to the front door with a homeless man taking shelter in the building’s doorway. Jimmy has to try to wrap his mind around the concept that very soon his worse fear will be made real and he will be out on the street, homeless.

Robert Taicher made is writing and directorial debut with this film. At the time he was still on the learning curve for both endeavors but credit must be given for selecting a rather emotionally involved topic for his freshman composition. He does well considering but the screenplay could have been richer in nuance perhaps through the inclusion of some of Jimmy’s internal monologue. The script also stunts some of the stylistic potential in the direction. In ’12 Angry Men’ Sidney Lumet used a genius combination of lens and camera angles to highlight the claustrophobic intensity of his drama. Taicher choose another means of visualizing the story that while perfectly valid did not seem to be as emotionally satisfying as if he altered the audiences’ perspective. He chose to present the film as if it was a stage play. In that he was successful; the film reminded me of some of the experimental plays my late wife and I used to see in Greenwich Village. The story is framed like many two act plays of the time. It just would have been interesting to see how the emotional intensity could have been reinforced with the camera as an active participant rather than a voyeur. Gould is a well accomplished actor with an incredible range. Although he didn’t have much in the way of a script to work from he pulls off the rolls pathos effectively by sheer willpower.