I'm sorry BUT . . . - An Unmarried Woman (1978) Discussion

[–] mmitsos-1 15 years ago

You're a pill, and probably an ugly old one by now as well, if you were at your "peak" in the 70's. Jill Clayburg was attractive in this film.

reply

[–] mercycroft 15 years ago

The fact that you think Clayburgh has to be stunning (and probably think all the regular looking guys in the film are just fine) speaks volumes. Her husband isn't attractive either, if you notice.

Clayburgh is a regular woman - she's not playing a model. She's supposed to represent an average woman and, as a woman myself (though only a girl in the 70s), I still see some important points in this dated film.

Sounds like you took the 70's and the women's movement pretty badly. By the way how is it that you know this film speaks for a minority of women from that era? How many of them did you date? Or, er, get dumped by? Maybe it's time to heal and move on...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nemetzlj 13 years ago

This response typifies misandry, as demonstrated by the movie. It is one of the most man-hating movies I've ever seen. All the men, save one, are cartoon characters, supposedly driven by only one thing. Only a man-hater could create such fiction.

reply

[–] mswoc 13 years ago

RE: >>Man-Hater<<

it seemed obvious to be a movie made for women to enjoy, so of course the only men who could be good/decent were there to rescue Erica from her horrid predicament, holistically

but there are also some flakey, not so desirable women characters in there -- all her friends make fun of the one dating a 19yo right in the beginning. Her other friend has severe mood swings and shamelessly describes, almost brags about, a warped (though agreed upon) relationship with a man. and the one friend from her group who she describes as "strong" admits that she's aware of but ignores her own husband's philandering. Her daughter behaves like an idiot in a couple of scenes, her token black friend describes her own relationship as an "item" right in front of the guy. even her therapist doesn't come across like a reassuring character who's presence offers a lot of comfort or confidence during such a difficult period
as the progressive attitudes of the 60s morphed into the greedy-me mindset of the 80s, it was the 70s that captured alot of that individual non-conformist style

reply

[–] cookiela2001 8 years ago

It is one of the most man-hating movies I've ever seen...Only a man-hater could create such fiction.

I thought a man wrote and directed it.

At any rate, I don't get a man-hating vibe from it.

.

reply

[–] Shilpot7 14 years ago

'I can tell you that this character represents the vast MINORITY of women, or of MEN'

It wasn't claimng to represent the vast majority. Just one woman, Erica, Erica Benton of 254 East 68 St.

I agree about the looks thing though. Every man she met seemed to fall at her knees and she wasn't so hot...but she was kind of charming and people who like this film, I think, are charmed by it.

As for 'pretentious era'...I think that's a generalisation. Personally I'd take that era over the present one any day for many reasons.

reply

[–] rrb 14 years ago

Well said, swinginglondon.

I had no problem with the men who were attracted to Erica. She was lovely, intelligent and a bit flirtatious. Lots of men would find her desirable. And the movie shows a handfull of men attracted to her, not droves.

The only things I'd change:

1) the character of Martin. He's a two-dimensional jerk. The movie would've been fuller, less facile if we could feel some sympathy for, or at least understanding of, him.

2) the assumption that men's interest in women is defined exclusively by sex. Erica accuses Martin of leaving her for "a good lay," when marriages end for far more complicated reasons. Every man except Saul seems only to want Erica for sex. Mazursky imposes his simplistic and unattractive notion of other men (and presumably himself) on all males in the film, except the One Good Man.

reply

[–] Shilpot7 14 years ago

Yes, I agree with what you say about Martin not being developed enough. It would also have added to Erica's sense of loss if we had had a better idea of what was lost when he walked away. The chemistry betwwen Erica and Martin wasn't really there in the few scenes they had together. They were like strangers really.

I also thought that Erica was quite cold with Martin when he was confessing his unhappiness to her on the bed. She barely looks at him. Their body language wasn't that of two people who had had a good long marriage that we should have cared about coming to an end.

reply

[–] TrentinaNE 13 years ago

Totally agree with you about that bed scene. I found Erica and Martin both unsympathetic from the start. I felt no connection between them.

I disliked this movie when I saw it in 1978 in my early 20s, and watching it again now, I don't like it any better. The "grown-ups" act like kids. Shallow, vapid, boring.

reply

[–] pacwarbuff 13 years ago

This was a film that Roger Ebert had on his "Best Movies of 1978" list. Laughably bad but deliciously dated! Horrendous attempt at relevance--the kind of films that date the worst, or best---this tries to be an unflinching attempt at showing what (Boomer) women went through when their wretched husbands dump them for a younger model. An Unmarried Woman is more "message" than movie and has several excruciatingly directed and performed scenes; in particular the interminable bit with the female shrink--was she even an actress?--which were absolutely hilarious in that wonderfully bad way, especially since I knew that at the time of its release, this film was supposed to be "intense." The attempt at humor during the "casual sex" scene was also pathetic, as if they were trying to imagine what the typical audience member might react in that situation.

Musically, Bill Conti's score is among the most laughably inapropriate and melodramatic of any era...though I absolutely love it as a stand alone listen.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen, considering the critical praise (I mean you, Roger Ebert!). Though Clayburgh, Patricia Quinn, and the great Michael "Quintessential Baby Boomer Weasel" Murphy acquit themselves well.

This is the kind of film that probably seemed remarkably honest and cutting edge upon its release. In fact, I watched the film strictly for whatever '70s time capsule enjoyment I could get out of it. The film is worth watching if only for its authentic NYC locations. I love 1970s NYC movies (The French Connection; The Seven Ups; Three Days of the Condor; Taxi Driver, et al.) but this film was poorly directed with static scenes galore--and this is coming from someone who watches countless films and TV shows from that period, so it's not a case of me being accustomed to fast cut editing or anything.

The entire film just reeked of "Boomers Trying to Be Real Adults", and like most everything that is their legacy, it's aged poorly.

reply

[–] TrentinaNE 13 years ago

This is the kind of film that probably seemed remarkably honest and cutting edge upon its release.

Not to me. I was in my early 20s, fresh out of college and set to make my mark in "a man's world," and I found it embarrassing.

interminable bit with the female shrink--was she even an actress?

She was not. And the fact that both she and Erica sat on mattresses on the floor had to be a joke, right? Her "office" looked more squalid than college student apartments of the time.

reply

[–] mswoc 13 years ago

at the time that the movie debuted, it was practically touted that the counselor was not an actress but a real psychiatrist because seeing a therapist was becoming trendy for the upwardly mobile. remember how Erica openly explained her to her new boyfriend at the artist party

RE: >>"Boomers Trying to Be Real Adults", and like most everything that is their legacy, it's aged poorly.<<

remember, it was the "hippies" of the '60s who became the yuppies of the '80s, and the '70s was their morph time for that. granted, not all 20-somethings were hippies in the 60s, there was still the penny-loafer crew-cut preppie set. but even Erica's friend Sue spoke of the '60s as having "Vietnam, Black Panthers, hell of a lot to do."

and while it's currently "in" to bash Boomers because most are starting to stare down retirement, and GenXers, now in their 30s and 40s prime-time are bitter about what the previous generation left in it's wake, the Boomer blame-game is getting old and was always invalid because it only points to economic ruin.

Boomers risked their lives for civil rights -- minorities, women and the physically challenged got a BIG boost in equality thanks to the '60s and '70s, equalities that resentful GenXers -- the 1st slacker generation -- take for granted.

The research, development and promulgation of cell phones, the internet, video games and the entire high-tech entrepreneurial boom of the '90s was grounded in the work of Boomers during the '80s -- their 30 and 40-something heyday -- when they were in corporate America making it happen. Most GenXers (and lots of others) would be lost today without their beloved cell and laptop for websurfing

every generation blames the one before, points fingers complains about the negative fall-out -- Boomers didn't ask to be drafted into the politically-driven but pointless Vietnam conflict anymore than the Silent Generation GIs did for Korea or WWII the latter which they know was fought for good reason. There hasn't been a draft since and GenXers should quit their complaining and be thankful for that. Instead they were the ones who voluntarily joined the military to avoid college loans, then whined like babies when the gov't called them to action for Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf crisis. I recall them actually saying in tv interviews "I signed up so I wouldn't have to pay for college, I didn't think I'd really have to go!"

I beg to differ with you about the legacy of Civil Rights and techno-pop it has NOT aged poorly and most people alive today are or should be grateful for that, they're just foolishly clueless about the impact it's had on their lives and shamelessly uncaring about where credit is due

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mysteria111 14 years ago

Aciolino: You seem to have a lot of hostility. Where did that come from?

reply

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

From having to deal with products of in-breeding such as yourself.

reply

[–] kristenmval 13 years ago

I can't comment on the pretentious claims, because you just name called with that and didn't really explain yourself with that one. Saying "it thinks it's smarter than it is" would not be an example, but a further definition of the word pretentious itself.

In terms of Clayburgh, I first must chastise you for claiming your own opinions on beauty as objective truth. Obviously it isn't if many people find the actress attractive.

Second, I don't believe this woman was supposed to be some pinnacle of beauty, but rather an average woman. And believe it or not, average women do have sex and date. In fact, they are hit on much more often than really gorgeous women because men are less intimidated by them. Men even inaccurately assume such an average woman must not get much attention and therefore will be extra flattered by their advances.

Third, what is it with men who get very uncomfortable with women they don't find attractive having sex? Your suspension of disbelief is so high that you can't possibly fathom a women you don't like might be liked by someone else? And it's not like the men in this film would be considered supermodels either.

reply

[–] jrs-8 13 years ago

Personally I think Jill Clayburgh was very attractive but not in the fashion model sense. If she had looked like Angelina Jolie wouldn't it have been absolutely ridiculous that she would be married to Michael Murphy? Both were attractive in their own way and quite believable.

As far as the claim by the OP I believe that the scene on the bed showed the marraige was already over - I disagree. I think it showed that they had become complacent in their lives - maybe even a little lazy. There was NO way she thought it was over or she wouldn't have looked so bowled over when he confessed he was in love with another woman.

reply

[–] SkaterDave 13 years ago

I think it's hysterical when a man says that a woman is ugly just because she's not supermodel looking. It shows a complete lack of any depth on his account. Women or men for that matter don't necessarily be stunning beauties to be attractive, sexy and desirable, that is if you're capable of looking past the physical which out little OP obviously is incapable of doing.

reply

[–] sonomagirl2120 13 years ago

Most of the viewing audience expects to see attractive people up on their movie screens even tho, in real life, most people are pretty ordinary, especially as we age.
However, we women have had to sit through some unbelievable pairings when it came to men in the movies. I just recently watched Sideways and had to try and believe that Virginia Madsen would fall for a guy like Paul Giamatti. Or Woody Allen movies w his incredible cast of beautiful women falling in love with him....it was really stomach turning watching him kiss and fawn over Dianne Keaton in Annie Hall. Or how about Jackie Gleason w the stunning Audrey Meadows? I mean the list goes on and on but I am still only half awake and too lazy to make a big list.

reply

[–] mswoc 13 years ago

It was obvious when men ruled in Hollywood that they enjoyed casting nerdy, ho-hum looking guys with hot women, obviously getting back at some resentment they'd once felt. Studly looking men were saved for chick-flick or to make a point.

Check out the husbands in the original ('70s) Stepford Wives -- the women are all gorgeous, though they dress frumpy before they get changed over -- but the men are balding, pouchy stomach, dull, etc -- point being that they were able to snag hot women but had to get them controlled, after all the movie was post-Lib movement.

Then the trend came to cast aging actors like Michael Douglas with Demi Moore who could be his daughter. Same with Richard Gere and Diane Lane in Unfaithful, making it obvious that aging male directors and casting folks want to feel like they still "have" it. stupid.

reply

[–] mswoc 13 years ago

It represented what was going on at the time -- the divorce rate was growing rapidly and it was no longer a shameful or bad thing, just like Erica tells her friend Jean in the bar.

So what does a woman who thought she had it all do when her hubby shocks the s--t out of her? that's what it captured and at that time, lots of folks felt like it hit the nail on the head. Divorce was becoming acceptable to the point of being "trendy" almost, women were drifting away from depending on hubby and starting to build real careers they could work on, not just getting a degree and perhaps working but more likely to get married with a job that wasn't nearly as significant as hubby's because he paid all the major bills and his income enabled a comfy lifestyle.

I agree, Clayburgh isn't a "classic" beauty but her hair and slender build was part of '70s era appeal for the "look". As an auburn redhead she stands out from her 3 brunette friends.

one thing I found fascinating, I read some background on it that all the 4 girlfriend characters were Jewish, which kinda comes through when she introduces them with last names at the artist party, but the filmmakers didn't want to make that obvious. The only reason I found that interesting, there's a small Christmas tree near Martin's office obviously to set a seasonal time pass marker, but never a mention about any holiday. and while it's not unusual for a movie to skip any holiday scene, there's no direct nod to Jewish culture, except for Elaine's talk about going to the Catskills (another ethnic '60s icon that's fizzled away). subtle hints, though it wasn't unusual back then for Jewish women to talk about finding a Jewish guy

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chuckymom 13 years ago

I'm watching this right now and all I can think is: pretentious 70s claptrap. It's so somber and earnest and everyone is constantly talking about sex in a very unappealing manner. Also, everyone is so unattractive by today's movie standards. And the gratuitous nudity!! Hilarious and unnecessary! Everyone's skin looks bad and their teeth and on and on. How about the date that attacks her in the cab with a giant comb over and silver looking teeth!!! These people are not old - most are in their 30s - maybe 40s. But they look dreadful with the awful 70s hair/make-up/clothing, etc. But - hey - I could handle that if the plot and characters weren't so stereotypical. How about the period discussion with the therapist?? Why?? Just so two women could discuss periods in a movie?? ROFL And what is up with the husband crying on the street??
I never saw this movie when it was originally at the theaters, but I can't believe I would have liked it back then. BTW I'm now 56, so I lived through the 70s as a young adult. Terrible decade culturally, my least favorite movies and music come from this era - though I know many my age who love the 70s.

reply

[–] Kristi_Luv 13 years ago

ROFL And what is up with the husband crying on the street??

Yes, and not a tear to be found! Crying like a child, he looked ridiculous!

reply

[–] crazyhellboy 13 years ago

And don't forget Erica turning the corner and vomiting..cue bombastic score...WTF?

I shall call him Squishy and he shall be mine and he shall be my Squishy.

reply

[–] jac91604 12 years ago

chuckymom, you don't know too much about cinema if you think the 70s was a bad decade for films.

1939 and 1974 are considered to be two of the best years in the 20th Century in regards to movies by film historians.

Films like "Chinatown" and "The Godfather Part 2" were released. Also in the 70s were "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", and "Network", just to name a few.

Was this a great film, no, but it's still better than a lot of the garbage turned out today. At least it required the viewer to pay attention and follow a story. So many films today are nothing but violence and special effects, stories are too hard for the average moviegoer today...LOL.

When you have an actress nominated like we did this year for a film like "Bridesmaids"(ironically Clayburgh's last film), and nominated is Melissa McCarthy for being fat and loud and taking a crap in a sink, it shows how far films have slipped, and what is considered quality entertainment.

Cheech and Chong did that kind of stuff in the 1980s but never back then would a film like that(and there is a place for films like that, but not at the Oscars)been nominated.

Like I said this film isn't great, but it does have some nice shots of NYC and therefore gives a glimpse of history of NY at that time.

I loved the ice skating at Rockefeller Center, and having grown up in NY, it brought back memories.

reply

[–] chuckymom 12 years ago

I know a lot about cinema and personally do not care for the vast majority of 70s films. I prefer "classic" cinema of the 60s and earlier. My two favorite films of all time are North by Northwest and Kubrick's Lolita.
It's a personal preference. The 70s saw a lot of "realism" which was actually another style of filmmaking that I don't care for. Yes there are a handful of great films from that decade but this film was ridiculous on so many levels. My husband is a big fan of 70s pop culture - the Godfather is his favorite film and he thought AUW was awful too. It's dated, pretentious and was considered "serious" in it's day, but now it's just a bunch of unappealing people obsessed with sex!
As for today's films - it's all about the CGI effects. I saw two good movies this year: The Artist and Midnight in Paris - both nostalgic. So don't think because I don't care for 70s films I automatically love today's video game movies instead!
1962 is also considered to be a "classic year" for film. I had not heard that about 74, but I would disagree - I found Chinatown confusing, Network uneven and Alice depressing and artless. Again, it's a matter of taste and style, along with storytelling that determines what I consider to be a good movie.

reply

[–] activista 12 years ago

@chuckymom

Just wanted to say that you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, the 70's (and '60's) were a truly revolutionary time for movies,due to all the upheavals and changes in society going on at that time. That's when the movies/cinema itself grew up,so to speak, and started to deal with life as it actually was and not how Hollywood thought it should be. That's why I find '70's era films so fun,fascinating and lively to watch. I also think it's silly and shortsighted to say that films from one entire decade are just awful---I don't get that. The truth is, you're going to find good films and bad films from literally any decade you could name or think of. Plus another thing that made the '70's exciting as far as cinema were the "blaxsploitation" films, kung fu films, and the openess of cinema to deal with subjects that were formerly taboo onscreen---open talk about sex,race, women's issues,civil rights and writer/directors of color making and showing their own work onscreen filtered through their experiences,as opposed to having to see themselves through the racist,stereotypical lens/white perspective that Hollywood has always seen people of color through. Anyway, so that's my take and my defense on why I love '70's cinema.

Haven't seen this film yet, but might check it out if I get a chance to.

reply

[–] chuckymom 12 years ago

I said it was MY personal preference. There MIGHT be a few movies from the 70s I personally consider to be artistic masterpieces, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. I know I'm going to be bombarded with The Godfather! Star Wars! etc, etc. Again, it's MY taste. BTW ALL of my husband's fave movies are from the 70s. I attribute that to him being in his 20s at that time. For most people, young adulthood is the "real world" and they measure everything through that prism. Same thing with music. Most of my contemporaries love The Who, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Led Zeppelin, etc. Not me - can't stand 70s music.. I'll take the 60s and 80s any day! And don't get me started on 70s fashions.....

reply