A Touch of Class

A Touch of Class starts off being about a married cad's misadventures in attempting to hook up with a divorced woman who's up for the no-strings-attached sex. It makes the movie's title somewhat ironic, doesn't it?

More than likely, "A Touch of Class" refers to double-Oscar winner Glenda Jackson (Women in Love and this movie), who's just about one of the classiest actresses I've seen. Beautiful, regal, and armed with acerbic British wit, she's the perfect foil to the brash and American George Segal, who incidentally looks just about the same 30 years ago as he does now in Just Shoot Me, except with a better body.

A Touch of Class demonstrates how opposites attract - something I've very familiar with. It's a romantic comedy but its comedic element peaks halfway through the movie with a scene in which the two leads engage in an all-out battle that culminates in a clothes fight and a sex fumble. After that, it's primarily about the two trying to make their love affair work despite Segal's marriage. A successful romantic movie draws us into its convolutions by making us care for its characters and what become of them, which A Touch of Class achieves by giving us the realistic trials and tribulations of an extramarital couple.

You've got to view this as a reflection of the Sexual Revolution in its full 70s "swinging" mode, where infidelity within an unhappy marriage was viewed as less simply immoral than now. As such it's a charming time capsule with very good casting. I thought this movie was terrific (albeit imperfect) at the time, when I saw it as a teenager. Of course it seemed very sophisticated to me then--and it made me infatuated with George Segal, who seemed so goofy and charming and attractive. A perfect post-Bobby Sherman interest for a curious 12- year-old.

As for Jackson's Best Actress win--well, there really weren't a lot of good roles for women at the time. This is a particular instance (like Louise Fletcher's very-supporting Best Actress win for "Cuckoo's Nest") that proves how dismal the competition was in that era. Of course there were fine actress performances in films during the 70s, albeit ones too small or too foreign or too art-house-y to be noticed by the Academy. But really, the whole era just sucked in terms of substantial women's leading roles.

The film's own dated sexism is apparent in its obliviousness toward divorcée Jackson's drop- everything-whenever-called neglect of her children (guess she has nothing better to do!) whereas much attention is given to Segal's neglect of his wife and children (he's a guy, so of course he's got better things to do!). As if her commitments aren't important, while his naturally are.

"A Touch of Class" seemed overrated at the time (this movie got multiple Oscar nominations in the same year as "Mean Streets"?!?), and it hasn't aged brilliantly. Nonetheless, it's an excellent example of a romantic comedy reflecting a very different moral complexity than movies allow nowadays.

Bittersweet comedy helped immeasurably by the chemistry of the stars and the skill of their performances. Glenda is brash and delicate in equal measure, George bombastic but good natured. While it shows the pitfalls of infidelity it doesn't judge its characters for their choices and actually presents all the relationships, including Glenda's gay assistant's, evenhandedly rather surprising for the 70's. As far as her receiving an Oscar for this performance, she's sprightly and more relaxed than she usually was on screen but I doubt that even she expected to grab the prize for what is a customary solid job but hardly extraordinary.

I saw this movie when I was twenty-three years old. Paul Sorvino's line or question never really made any sense to me. He asked Steve (George Segal) if he loved her (Vicky, Glenda Jackson) enough to give her up. What kind of a nonsensical question is that? Vicky had nothing to lose with Steve choosing her. She would only lose if he DIDN'T choose her. So what does she get when Steve blows her off? Exactly what she already had. Suppose however that Sorvino had asked Vicky that question. THEN it would have made sense. Because Vicky would have been making a choice between having NOTHING or having Steve at the price of destroying a happy marriage. Vicky would have actually SACRIFICED something, her own "happiness" for Steve. But Steve wouldn't have the same sacrifice presented to him. His choice was simply, THIS woman, whom you love, or THAT woman, whom you also love. BFD!

2 years later, I found myself in such a situation (from the Vicky perspective), in circumstances so unique, I might as well have been in another galaxy. And I made the wrong choice. I destroyed a relationship and as for myself, I wound up with nothing anyway.

Underrated, as far as I'm concerned. One of the top sex comedies about two very real people who are both mature and interested in sex. It doesn't hurt that Glenda Jackson's so very committed to the role and George Segal's so very sexy.

That title tune's a pip, too. Nominated for Best Picture and deservedly so. This is the sex comedy that modern filmmakers should look to.