A Touch of Class

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.

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.

Glenda Jackson and George Segal are the big plus of this romantic sex-comedy that starts of in a really funny way and promising to be absolutely hilarious but then, as the movie turns rather melancholic or sad or `serious', loses a lot of its power and becomes even a bit improbable.

The two actors – today we don't actually know either of them any more – seem to have no problem with the fact that the screenplay contains a lot of long, argumentative dialogue and they even manage to enhance the sharpness and wit of these dialogues by their acting. The quarrels between this odd couple are absolute highlights in the history of the comedy of sexes, those before their `relationship' as well as those in the hotel in Málaga, where the relationship almost ends.

As soon as the two come back to London, I got the feeling that the director rushes the story. The film could have been longer without becoming boring, indeed it should have taken its time to describe the developing love more accurately. In fact, characters introduced are not dealt with any longer (Vicky's gay colleague was absolute unnecessary), both of the two have children but they don't turn up any more. And then, quite suddenly, the movie is over.

It's really a pity. With these two fantastic actors, this comedy could have been a hit.

A TOUCH OF CLASS was a charming romantic comedy about a married American businessman (George Segal) who lives in London and drifts into an affair with an English fashion designer (Glenda Jackson). Though the script borders on the cliché, Segal and Jackson manage to rise above rather ordinary story thanks to their surprisingly effective on screen chemistry. Jackson actually snagged a second Best Actress Oscar for this film (something that still baffles me to this day)but Segal is just as good as she is. Personally, I think this is one of Segal's best performances...Segal's Steven Blackburn is urbane, sophisticated, witty, and sexy and his attraction to Jackson's Vicki Ellesio is a bit of a puzzle since her character is sort of a bitch, but the film is still worth a rental if you've never seen it.

A love story with a built-in dead end: they're crazy about each other, but he's already married. Attempt to recapture the sophisticated romantic-comedies of yesteryear is put to the test under a heavy-handed direction which doesn't know what it's going for, laughs or pathos (the former occasionally bumping clumsily into the latter). There's nothing wrong with a good mix of laughs and tears, but this scenario is cluttered up with too many dolts (like Paul Sorvino's "best friend" character, who is tiresome the minute we meet him) and too many montages which set no certain mood. Oscar-winner Glenda Jackson is warmly sarcastic throughout--and she's delightful working with George Segal--but their characters lost my interest after an hour or so. There's too much bickering over nothing, too much intensity melting away into love-starved giggles. The picture is a situation comedy but there are only occasional laughs, all early on. ** from ****