I used to love going to Paul Mazursky's movies, the wonderful Harry And Tonto and the underrated Next Stop, Greenwich Village. Several others.
This one was more serious, and he did a good job with it. Jill Clayburgh was an excellent, popular actress of those days. She had a fine supporting cast.
I wanted to comment here, specifically to address the reviewers who say they couldn't relate to this woman emotionally because she was well off and not living in a depressed neighborhood and didn't have three little kids to take care of and no income, etc. These comments made absolutely no sense to me.
It's not this film's fault the economy of the US has deteriorated since it was made. Yes, even at the time, this was an upper middle class New York woman who had no money worries, and therefore she didn't share a lot with the average woman of 1978. But in 1978, many families were still living on one income. Public college was affordable, food and gas, even rent, were affordable. People didn't travel a lot, and many families had one car. People didn't use credit cards very much. The New York subway cost 50 cents.
Why this film had more resonance in 1978 is that divorce was less prevalent then than now. Women were not in the workforce as much. It may seem hard to believe but I remember just a few years before this, women were not allowed to wear pants in some restaurants and hotels. Many universities were not even co-ed.
So here's a woman facing divorce in this very different time, when many women relied on their husbands, and more than that, relied psychologically on the central thing in their lives, home and marriage. I think it was smart of Mazursky to focus on a woman of means, so that the economic issues would not be front-and-center. Instead, this is a woman whose main crisis is the divorce itself, the rejection, the loneliness, the sexual needs, the need to find oneself and rely on oneself. It works particularly because this was a woman who never really had to rely on herself, before.
It was a very different time and people may find it hard to relate to that time, but it's still a well-made, well-acted film.
This one was more serious, and he did a good job with it. Jill Clayburgh was an excellent, popular actress of those days. She had a fine supporting cast.
I wanted to comment here, specifically to address the reviewers who say they couldn't relate to this woman emotionally because she was well off and not living in a depressed neighborhood and didn't have three little kids to take care of and no income, etc. These comments made absolutely no sense to me.
It's not this film's fault the economy of the US has deteriorated since it was made. Yes, even at the time, this was an upper middle class New York woman who had no money worries, and therefore she didn't share a lot with the average woman of 1978. But in 1978, many families were still living on one income. Public college was affordable, food and gas, even rent, were affordable. People didn't travel a lot, and many families had one car. People didn't use credit cards very much. The New York subway cost 50 cents.
Why this film had more resonance in 1978 is that divorce was less prevalent then than now. Women were not in the workforce as much. It may seem hard to believe but I remember just a few years before this, women were not allowed to wear pants in some restaurants and hotels. Many universities were not even co-ed.
So here's a woman facing divorce in this very different time, when many women relied on their husbands, and more than that, relied psychologically on the central thing in their lives, home and marriage. I think it was smart of Mazursky to focus on a woman of means, so that the economic issues would not be front-and-center. Instead, this is a woman whose main crisis is the divorce itself, the rejection, the loneliness, the sexual needs, the need to find oneself and rely on oneself. It works particularly because this was a woman who never really had to rely on herself, before.
It was a very different time and people may find it hard to relate to that time, but it's still a well-made, well-acted film.