Skip to main content

Yeah, she loused up one of the five best days of your life.

Kramer vs. Kramer
(1979)

(SPOILERS) The zeitgeist Best Picture Oscar winner is prone to falling from grace like no other. Often, they’re films with notable acting performances but themes that tend to appear antiquated or even slightly offensive in hindsight. Few extol the virtues of American Beauty the way they did twenty years ago, and Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t quite seen as exemplifying a sensitive and balanced examination of the fallout of divorce on children and their parents the way it was forty years previously. It remains a compelling film for the performances, but it’s difficult not to view it, despite the ameliorating effect of Meryl Streep (an effect she had to struggle to exert), as a vanity project of its star, and one that doesn’t do him any favours with hindsight and behind-the-scenes knowledge.

That vain star being Dustin Hoffman. His behaviour on the feature, with regard to Streep in particular, has been a longstanding of bone contention (some might suggest his approach was effective, given it garnered both actors Oscars, although such voices would be in an ever-increasing minority). There was the glass-breaking incident (you can see Streep’s shock on screen), and method Hoffman indulging in verbal abuse to elicit what he believed would be a better performance from his co-star (it’s evidence of how detached from reality a self-involved method actor can be – the sort who needs to be told “Why don’t you just try acting?” – that he’d think it okay to goad his co-star with the name of her dead fiancé). And also that he slapped her without warning during a scene (as recounted by Meryl last year). Oh, and how he groped her breast (which she related to Time magazine at the time of the film’s release).

Of course, Hoffman being difficult has been fodder for articles forever, but the recent #MeToo allegations added an extra spin on this; it’s impossible to watch Kramer vs. Kramer now and fail to note potential connotations when Ted Kramer touches the breast of platonic friend Margaret (Jane Alexander) or pats her bum. Was that improvised and agreed upon, or was it spontaneous Hoffman? And then there’s Ted’s impromptu kissing a Playboy Playmate (Ingeborg Sorenson).

None of this necessarily speaks to whether Kramer vs. Kramer is a good – or great, even – movie. Any more than the fact that it won five Oscars, two of them going to Robert Benton for his direction and screenplay – Francois Truffaut was originally attached in the former department – and was the biggest movie of 1979 by some distance (well, in the US; we don’t have global figures), out-grossing more obviously audience-pleasing fare like Rocky II, Apocalypse Now, Moonraker and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Benton’s screenplay was based on the book of the same name by Avery Corman, on which he collaborated heavily with Hoffman (to the extent that Benton suggested a co-credit, which the actor reportedly magnanimously nixed), and it brings with it a loaded dice – some might even suggest reactionary – premise that Streep, fighting for her character’s corner, could only do so much to counter. After all, Joanna Kramer’s role is a relatively small one and is characterised by unsympathetic or antagonistic decisions. The film is recognised for starting a conversation, and one people cared a lot about, hence the box office, but it didn’t necessarily establish its goalposts in a fair place; it isn’t enough just to stir the pot.

A New York Times piece at the time questioned the picture’s claim regarding the assumption that rulings would side with the mother in divorce cases, and in particular the unflinching and partial processes of the court (“the trend in the courts, they said, is not to presume in the favour of mothers in custody disputes over young children”) to the extent that “It’s too bad that the legal profession was portrayed as 50 years behind the times”. The panel said the custody court simply wouldn’t work the way it does in Kramer vs. Kramer, but it undeniably works to bestow sainthood on Ted for being treated so unfairly.

It’s for this reason – areas outside her control structurally – that Streep’s efforts are ultimately to little avail. Even Joanna is disgusted with the line taken by her lawyer, and she’s so in awe of Ted’s relationship with Billy (Justin Henry) that she chooses to concede custody to him, despite the judge’s verdict. Apparently, Joanna was less relatable in the original script, but we still have a character who walks out on her child and husband in the opening scene and is painted as unstable. Then, when she shows up again, after an hour of father-son bonding, she wants to take him away from them. You couldn’t have the material more structurally positioned against her in terms of sympathy.

Hoffman and Benton even go to some rather strained lengths to suggest the maligning/ martyring of their hero, most notably the line of attack taken by Joanna’s lawyer, which includes, rather self-defeatingly (although, evidently not to the judge), all those times Ted’s work suffered because he put the welfare of his son first. Ted’s position culminates with an impassioned plea that a mother shouldn’t necessarily be deemed the better parent just by virtue of her sex, and a nation of hard-done-by dads lifted their brewskis as one in toast to him.

That said, many of the reasons this was the success it was then are still in ready evidence. Hoffman in his heyday (less so from the 90s on, when he seemed to chill out a bit too much) demanded attention as a performer, and the relationship he forms with Henry is both affecting and believable. While significant time is spent on it, fortunately this is not Mr. Mom, and their mutual adoration isn’t everything to the movie. And the centrepiece scene, in which Billy tests his father’s patience by refusing to eat his dinner, instead taking ice cream out of the fridge, is as effective as ever (“And I hate you back, you little shit!”)

I was curious what uber-critic Pauline Kael made of the picture, but if she reviewed it outright, it isn’t in any of her collected volumes. She wasn’t a fan of Streep (quite understandably; I don’t much like her 80s, colourful accent period, Silkwood aside). Apparently, she hated it, though, and accused it, in Taking it All In, of having been “made for an audience of over-age flower children. These pictures express the belief that if a man cares for anything besides being at home with the kids, he’s corrupt. Parenting ennobles Dustin Hoffman and makes him a better person in every way…” Of course, Kael didn’t like Ordinary People either; anything of that touchy-feely Hollywood ilk was anathema. To an extent, what she’s suggesting is fair comment, and it’s often the case that the shallowest of material is celebrated by Hollywood as holding the greatest import. But Kramer vs. Kramer works as a piece of drama despite its flaws and blatant manipulations; there’s too much craftsmanship involved for it to be otherwise.

The supporting roles are all carefully built around Hoffman/Ted to show his rise as a dad and emotionally accessible person. The relationship with Billy is key, of course, and the naturalism makes it easy to see why Henry received an Oscar nomination (still the youngest actor to do so), and also, given his ice cream antics, why he threw a hissy fit at the Golden Globes when he didn’t win. Alexander’s is the performance that most impresses on revisit, though; underplaying and vulnerable, she may be there to make Ted look good, but she extracts more from the part than there is on the page. George Coe is an unfiltered jerk as Ted’s boss, though (“I’m getting very nervous”), and it’s more of the picture overplaying its cards to elicit sympathy for Ted; although, it does lead to the equally overdone but irresistibly can-do sequence where Ted has to get a new job in twenty-four hours in order to say he’s gainfully employed at the custody hearing.

As mentioned, Kramer vs. Kramer was the big success story of the 52nd Academy Awards, winning five of its nine nominations (one of which wasn’t the score, since it strikingly relies on Vivaldi’s Concerto in C Major for Mandolin for its impact). I doubt anyone would seriously argue today that the winner shouldn’t have been Apocalypse Now, but simultaneously, going back to the zeitgeist comment heading in, it retains some credibility in terms of so recognisably being of a piece with its era (in that respect, the following year’s – superior – Ordinary People is less essential). And while the film is arguably awards bait, it manages to be so while not looking consciouslyas if it’s caught in the act of being awards bait (for the flipside, see another of that year’s nominees, Norma Rae. Or rather, avoid it). Kramer vs. Kramer isn’t a classic movie, but it’s classic Best Picture material.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.