Amantes em Veneza

Paul Mazursky gave us three fine films: Blume in Love, Harry & Tonto and Moscow On the Hudson, and a host of lesser works that we can still enjoy. I can't think of many American directors of the last half-century with a record like his. Blume In Love is obviously influenced by Truffaut's Jules and Jim, but is funnier, faster and not indebted to literary models as Truffaut's film was.

The triangle of Blume, Nina and Elmo works so well because of Kris Kristofferson's easy charm and rock star charisma. The story would have foundered on Blume's obsessiveness and Nina's Puritan desire to do good ("I haven't done much for the farmworkers, but I boycott the supermarkets") had Elmo not been around to keep things light. The story he tells of the bust in Franklin, Tenn. is wonderfully funny, although a little scary, and the trio's singing Chester the Goat is a delight.

I became a George Segal fan when I first saw this movie, and I can't help but lament the lack of intelligence and depth in today's actors when I see what he does with this difficult character. Marsha Mason is his equal in talent, playing Arlene, Blume's vulnerable lover who knows her days are numbered. The smaller roles are ably filled, particularly Shelley Winters as the woman whose husband left her.

I don't really feel like writing this up, but I'll spend a few moments doing just that. Mazursky can be one of the most painfully self-indulgent filmmakers of the last 30 years, though admittedly I love a few of his films (especially HARRY AND TONTO). But more of his films are chores to get through, and pretentious ones at that. BLUME IN LOVE comes nowhere near the tedium that marks ALEX IN WONDERLAND as one of the worst studio films of the '70s, but it's still pretty lousy. Yeah, George Segal is great, and Kris Kristofferson and Susan Anspach hold up well...and actually Marsha Mason is pretty impressive, but, well, that's about it. The story is flimsy, the screenplay is mediocre...there's just not too much going on.

Thematically, the film is rich and it's interesting to see that Stanley Kubrick featured it in EYES WIDE SHUT (look close - Alice is watching it on television while she talks to Bill on the phone), especially considering the slight similarities between the protagonists of the two films...but who knows if Kubrick featured it for this reason or because he knew Mazursky from way back when (Paul appears in Stanley's first film, FEAR AND DESIRE).

BLUME IN LOVE could've been great, but Mazursky...well, it's another one of his "almost-good" films...I really think the majority of his work fails from half-assed screenplays and poor pre-planning (how else can you account for the aforementioned ALEX IN WONDERLAND)? And, oh yeah, there's that little matter of his phony art film sensibility. Stop trying so hard, Paul, you really don't need to include Fellini and Jeanne Moreau in your films (ALEX...) to show us you're above the Hollywood bulls**t. Frankly, sometimes a little Hollywood bulls**t (like a story) can work wonders.

Plot (or what there is of it)—Husband Blume is divorced by wife Nina after she catches him philandering. Trouble is he still loves her and spends the rest of the time trying to get her back. So how is true love distinguished from true obsession.

Critic Leonard Maltin calls the movie "self-indulgent" and he's right. It's like writer-director Mazurski has gone off on his own personal tangent and made a movie of it. Segal does manage a role in low-key style that could have easily gone over the top. Too bad there's no hint of his very real comedic skills, which I somehow kept expecting. Also, he may get more close-ups than my favorite puppy. As Nina, Anspach has a different look with her long thin face and cloud of platinum hair. Hers is the more interesting character as she struggles with middle-class conventions like marriage. But what's with Shelley Winters' tacked on role as a grieving divorcée. Perhaps Mazurski was reminding casting directors what an inimitable presence she is.

Arguably, the film's best parts are those reflecting political (the farm workers) and youth culture (the "swingers" meeting place) of the early 1970's. It seems Nina is groping for a life outside the conventional but is emotionally stuck halfway. Anyway, her character is the more interesting of the two. At the same time, Elmo (Kristofferson) appears more like a rootless hippie, while Nina connects with that unconventional side. Even Blume seems attracted when a kind of unconventional threesome forms.

Nonetheless, such deeper themes remain conjectural, while the movie itself over-stretches into a barely entertaining two hours that a graphic rape scene doesn't help. All in all, Mazurski's screenplay may be based on a personal experience that somehow got carried away.

i disagree with those who were so put off by the rape scene that they cannot give the movie a positive review. remember this movie was made over 30 years ago at the height of the sexual revolution (i'm not excusing it). mazursky is a very interesting and unique writer/director who is responsible for some really excellent films, to wit: moscow on the hudson, down and out in beverly hills, an unfinished woman and next stop greenwich village. to me this movie has it all, great music, excellent acting and one of the funniest scenes i have ever seen in a movie when george segal, as a divorce attorney tries to calm his client, shelly winters. you'll enjoy it, trust me. p.s. the key word in some of those other reviews is "self-indulgent."

Beverly Hills divorce lawyer Stephen Blume (George Segal) sabotages his marriage by bringing home his secretary and getting caught by his wife Nina (Susan Anspach). He reflects on his self-destructive womanizing love life. He begins a fling with Arlene (Marsha Mason) while Nina starts dating Elmo Cole (Kris Kristofferson).

The 70's had a bunch of these womanizing protagonist and the audience is supposed to be sympathetic. It's probably a response to the free love 60's. Non of these characters are appealing. At best, they are interesting and that's only in moments. I don't know if these characters actually love each other or that they are narcissists loving themselves and their partners only as an accessory to their selves. I certainly don't see this as a social comedy since non of this is actually funny to me. It's a little sad but mostly frustrating. These are not happy people.