Tras 17 años, las cosas se han vuelto demasiado predecibles en un matrimonio. Discuten, visitan a un consejero matrimonial y finalmente se separan. Tras conocer a otras personas, se reencuen... Leer todoTras 17 años, las cosas se han vuelto demasiado predecibles en un matrimonio. Discuten, visitan a un consejero matrimonial y finalmente se separan. Tras conocer a otras personas, se reencuentran en un club nocturno.Tras 17 años, las cosas se han vuelto demasiado predecibles en un matrimonio. Discuten, visitan a un consejero matrimonial y finalmente se separan. Tras conocer a otras personas, se reencuentran en un club nocturno.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Nominado para 1 premio Óscar
- 3 nominaciones en total
- Mark Harmon
- (as Tim Matthieson)
Reseñas destacadas
Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds are unhappily married with almost twenty years of bickering under their belts. Before middle age comes around the corner, they decide to call it quits and get a divorce. But what they thought would solve all their problems only complicates matters. The legal red tape drags on, and the settlement is grossly unfair. Dick hilariously quips, "The uranium mine to Barbara, and the shaft to me," during a meeting with their lawyers. Starting over and meeting new people is also more complicated than either of them thought. With well meaning friends setting them up, they discover that strangers are just that: strange.
Basically, some people will love this movie and some people won't. It's an example of "the devil you know" argument set to a marital comedy, and if you don't agree with the screenwriter's point of view, you probably won't like it. I really liked Van Johnson's character, and even though he shows up towards the end when the whole movie turns a bit silly, I was really hoping for him to find a happy ending. Jean Simmons, the "predator" who targets Dick as her latest conquest, is also far more likable than Debbie's character. She doesn't have any actual acting to do, but it would be nice if a movie showed the benefits of starting over instead of the age old theme that dominates Hollywood stories.
The weekly shuffle of dual-custody children between households yields some kinetic chaos that could be ripe for comedy, but its basis in reality only reminds the viewer of the real costs to all concerned.
The economics of divorce are a harsh truth detailed in the film. One divorced couple strategizes about matchmaking between divorced men and women to alleviate the economic tolls of divorce settlements, but that portion of the story becomes less funny when real emotions muddle the plan. Watch for exes played by Jason Robards and Jean Simmons, who become objects of empathy.
How does it end? With love or enmity, depending upon how you look at it.
This is a black comedy with a bitterness that may be too bitter for some viewers. The movie is tainted by a depressing feel which suppresses it comedic side. Nevertheless, there is some dark fun to be had and Norman Lear has sharpened his pencil to deliver a few deadly swipes at the modern marriage and the divorce legal system. I didn't actually laugh much but the subject jabs are still appreciated.
To begin with, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce. A divorce had to involve one "guilty" party, and one "innocent" party. Two "guilty" parties would just be blown off with "You two deserve each other." And it was regarded as standard good manners for the man to offer himself up as "guilty", unless the woman was a complete slut or psycho. (See "The Gay Divorcée" for an example of a man who /doesn't/ follow this social rule, because he's a pig.)
Now, also during this period, the usual rule was that the wife got the kids, and the wife and kids were entitled to be just as well off as they had been before the divorce. (Remember, as far as the Law was concerned, she and they were officially innocent victims of the Big Bad Man.) So alimony could be very high indeed.
As to her getting a job....
There was no such thing as professional daycare. If a divorced woman were poor, she could probably leave the kids with a neighbor, because poor folks have been doing that for thousands of years, but for a middle-class divorced woman to do that would have been regarded as shameless freeloading.
There were relatively few jobs for women, and even fewer that paid decently. A woman could be a secretary, but shorthand and typing take years of practice. (There were no personal computers then; few people could type except for writers and secretaries.) And secretaries didn't make much more than minimum wage, anyway. The same for stitchers in clothing factories (America had clothing factories back then). Beautician? Cleaning woman? Hotel maid? Nurse? None of them paid all that well. There were a handful of woman doctors, lawyers, and the like, but the closest pointer to the future was that there have always been quite a few women in computer programming. But you couldn't just walk in and ask for a programming job if you'd never done it before.
In short, this movie makes the usual exaggerations you expect in a comedy, but it is nowhere near "preposterous" or "ridiculously unrealistic". It's pretty solidly grounded in 1967 reality.
Now, on the other hand, I can't say I like the movie all that much. I guess I'm too romantic to take divorce as a joke. But the performances are sound, and I have to say that Van Dyke and Reynolds both had guts to tackle this script at all. Both of them have always been typecast as "lovable".
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe judge presiding over divorce proceedings in the film is played by John J. Anthony, a real-life marriage guidance counselor. This was his only acting role in a film.
- PifiasWhen Barbara is curling her hair and Richard is cutting his toenails, the viewer sees Barbara from behind and her reflection in the mirror. There are clearly two rollers pinned to the top of her head. Richard cuts a toenail that lands on Barbara's vanity table. She is shot from the front and she flicks the toenail off the table with no rollers on her head. In the next shot from behind again, the rollers magically reappear.
- Citas
David Grieff: Well, now to the property settlement. I've prepared a list here of major items of community property with some suggestions as to how they may be distributed amongst the parties.
Richard Harmon: [looking at the list] Seems to be fair. Split right down the middle. The house to Barbara; the mortgage payments to me. The furnishings, colour TV and piano to Barbara; the monthly payments to me. The insurance benefits to Barbara; the premiums to me. The uranium in our uranium mine to Barbara...
David Grieff: Uranium mine?
Richard Harmon: And the shaft to me!
- Créditos adicionalesSPOILER: Opening credits (and the musical score) begin when a conductor--having just walked across a field and set up a music stand--raises his baton, gives a downbeat and "cues" the sounds of husbands and wives arguing from the houses in the neighborhood below. At the end of the picture, the conductor again appears in the field above the neighborhood and begins conducting the final musical score through the closing credits--and drowning out the sound of arguing.
- ConexionesFeatured in Film Review: Film Review (1967)
Selecciones populares
- How long is Divorce American Style?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- El xicot de la meva dona
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 12.000.000 US$
- Duración1 hora 49 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1