Blume in Love

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.

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

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.

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 ****

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.