Blume in Love (1973)

Very well executed

Memorable, crazy movie

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I have to admit right off the bat I have no fondness for Paul Mazursky's films. I remember reading, somewhere, that he was a West Coast Woody Allen. If that is true, then he is Woody Allen without humor, or more importantly, without soul. This film follows George Segal (whom I've always liked) through his marriage, divorce and re-attachment with Susan Anspach. There is nothing innately offensive in this film. In fact, it strikes me as though it should be stuck in a time capsule of 70's film-making. And kept there. This is one of those films where you can't exactly pinpoint what is wrong with it but simply leaves you unsatisfied, unless you are a 70's film historian, I suppose. There is no connection with Blume, unless you are of his milieu. While (being NJ bound) I have affection for LA and the 70s, this film struck me as ingrown, meant for cognoscenti. A smart "ha-ha" that shows no outreach. And little comedy.This is not as smug as "An Unmarried Woman" But at the end of 1:55, you will have shrugged your shoulders and gone "huh?" Maybe it was potent in 1973. But today, that just means its dated.

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."

This was a fairly ground breaking movie when it came out first. I saw it in the theatre and we talked about it for days afterwards, especially the character of Nina Blume, here played by Susan Anspach. She was complex, feminist, independent and strong and also very likable. That is what I remember, that and the closing scene in Venice with Tristan Und Isolde played by the orchestra and the camera panning upwards, leaving all the conversations taking place in the piazza still ringing in our ears until the last freeze frame. **Warning***Spoiler*** However, and it is a big however, the rape scene, watched anew is sickening and repulsive and had me disliking Steven Blume, played by Gerge Segal, intensely. This does not bode well for the remaining quarter of the movie which demands that I applaud his compulsive obsessive efforts to woo his ex-wife back into his life. I am surprised none of the other reviewers addressed this truly nasty scene on which so much hinges thereafter. ****spoiler over**** Kris Kristofferson gives one of his standard hazy pot-filled performances, all charmy, twinkly eyed and gravelly voiced. So charmy in fact that Steven Blume along with Nina falls for him too. Marsha Mason gives a multi-layered characterization, whatever happened to her, I believe she married Neil Simon, the playwright. A fine performance. Susan steals the show, her beauty at times is breathtaking. One scene has Steven looking at her across a room and she is ethereal, all blonde curly hair and soulful eyes. 7 out of 10, short on plot, long on talent.

I have never forgotten the scene where Susan Anspach glides gracefully across the screen towards George Segal to the accompaniment of Wagner's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde. The glorious climax of the music was timed to coincide with the exact moment of their meeting and was, for me, the highlight of the film. Three thumbs up to whomever decided on it's use!