Les choses de l'amour

I haven't been able to read anything about this movie that comments about the handsome young man played by Ian Linhart who is seen several times in the Venice scenes. He looks like the young actor, only a few years older, who played the boy Tadzio in 1971 in Visconti's "Death in Venice" who becomes the obsession of an older man. Ian Linhart 's only other role was in Visconti's "Ludwig " in 1973-- the same year as "Blume". He's obviously in this movie for a reason but I can't see the significance

"Blume In Love" (1973) begins in Venice, Italy as Blume (George Segal) talks about how this most romantic place changes the way couples think of sex and love while they are visiting. As the movie pushes along Blume talks about his divorce from his ex-wife Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) and his regret from having an extra-marital affair. We also see images of Nina and Blume's honeymoon to Venice. But now Blume is back in Venice on his own after Nina had asked him to leave for a couple of weeks so she could work things out. The rest of the movie contains flashbacks of before and after the divorce.

I have seen one other film by Paul Mazursky [Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)], which was a film that dealt with two couples experimenting in sexual freedom. "Blume In Love" is about a divorce-lawyer named Blume (Segal) who suffers from impotence and despair after he is divorced from his beloved Nina (Anspach). He "can not live without her" he exclaims, and "would rather die if he can't have her back." And dying is something Blume doesn't want, so he has to win her back. He eventually wins her back in an ending that is either ambivalent to the viewer, joyous or they are repulsed by it as was the reviewer before me. It was a very romantic and happy ending, but it was far from realistic

"Blume In Love" is a well-directed film by writer and director Paul Mazursky. The performances by Susan Anspach, George Segal and Kris Kristofferson as Elmo are all wonderful. Kris Kristofferson's Elmo is a very likeable character. His easy-going, laid back "Nothin' To It" look on life is a sharp contrast to the emotional conflict between Nina and Blume. Elmo is a traveling musician who moves in with Nina after she divorces Blume. He enjoys playing his music and having a good time. Blume ends up liking him too, and uses him as a reason to come and visit Nina to win her back.

In the end this was a story about a man desperately trying to win his ex-wife back. He will do everything possible to do so. Along the way we follow him through his despair and sometimes we laugh at it and sometimes we cry.

Directed and written by Paul Mazursky. (Mazursky himself plays Segal's law partner.)

Here is pleasurable entertainment, a sort of neurotic farce, full of irony, but better yet. George Segal, the best thing here in a sort of a mess of a film. A jumbled comedy which never quite reaches it's peak, it's intentions not entirely clear, where the story kind of strays off path. There seems to be too much going on here. Segal is a womanizer, a swinger, and has another real dilemma of a problem. He's still in love with his ex wife, the delightful Anspach (Montenegro) who now shacked up with hippie, ex con (Kristofferson) adequate, The film too kind of drags a little towards the end. Shelly Winters as one of Divorce Lawyer (Segal's clients) and Marsha Mason as a swinger, lend fine support, and there's a real funny tracking shot of our three leads in a vee dub. I liked it how Kristofferen and Segal form a buddy friendship, inrrespectful of their love, Anspach, who's such a delight to watch. I love watching these 70's films of a by gone era, you just love to revisit, but BIL. Doesn't fully bloom, and just comes off as a bit bland a comedy/drama. Definitely worth a view, but more than that, a great, unmissable, engaging performance from Segal.

George Segal (on a roll at this period in his career) gives his usual solid, likable performance as a Beverly Hills divorce lawyer who soon finds himself divorced as well--from working-girl Susan Anspach; he quickly tries winning her back, despite the fact she has taken up with a hippie musician (Kris Kristofferson). Paul Mazursky wrote and directed this quirky comedy-drama about love and heartbreak, and he only strikes some sour notes in the last portion of the plot (which is saddled with an ending that just doesn't take off). Otherwise, a well-cast, well-written picture for grown-ups, a hidden gem. Bruce Surtees' cinematography is very expressive, supporting performances by Kristofferson and Marsha Mason are first-rate. Worth finding! *** from ****

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.