Divorce American Style (1967)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The strains of an almost 20 year marriage are starting to show in the marriage between Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds. So they've decided to get a divorce and just call it quits. And do it Divorce American Style. With a script by among others Norman Lear Divorce American Style is a look at the institution of marriage and the troubles of going through a divorce. They certainly can leave a man and even now, let alone 1967 broken right down to the burlap. A wiser head Jason Robards, Jr. has his own agenda as far as the Van Dyke/Reynolds divorce is concerned. Robards divorce from Jean Simmons is costing him plenty to. Simmons if she got married again would be someone else's financial burden. So get her to go out with Van Dyke. As for Reynolds, Robards and Simmons have an old friend in mind in used car king Van Johnson.What was fascinating here is that in 1967 the idea of the working woman had not taken hold yet. Neither Reynolds or Simmons or various others of the female gender is working. In fact the only working woman I see is a hypnotist who has a lounge act where the climax of the film occurs.There's a wonderful scene where divorce lawyers Dick Gauthier and Shelley Berman are making plans for golf outing in between Van Dyke and Reynolds. Lawyers too have lives away from their profession. There's also a nice scene with Lee Grant as an upscale prostitute.We were just free of the code, but having leads like Van Dyke and Reynolds guarantees this film will be slightly naughty, but no more lest they offend the family audiences these cultivated in their careers.

On the whole, this is not a great film, and it seems in a lot of ways like a feature length sitcom episode, esp. with Van Dyke doing essentially his stock character. Debbie Reynolds was done no favors by the wardrobe, hair and makeup departments, as I've never seen her less attractive at this point in her career. The film didn't spend enough time establishing her character either, to the point that I found myself rooting for Van Dyke to hook up with Jean Simmons' character. Jason Robards plays a very strange and kind of funny divorcée who is desperately trying to marry off his ex-wife (Simmons) in order to free himself to marry his (very pregnant) ditzy girlfriend from Bakersfield.The settings and music are quite typical and induce nostalgia even in those who did not live in that time and place. There are some really amusing gags that come and go, such as the son who keeps a scorecard of his parents' argument, and the beginning conceit with the conductor on the hilltop who seems, like a god, to be orchestrating all the arguments in the suburban valley below.These smart bits of humor don't really make the film flow any better or make it any more of a complete experience. By the time Van Johnson shows up, we're thinking there are so many interesting side characters that we don't really care anymore what happens to the original couple played by Van Dyke and Reynolds.

A lot of not has been made of a very well known cast here. Bud Yorkin who would go on directing and do a lot of television including Sanford and Son does pretty well here controlling a talented cast with a lot of well known stars and characters. Dick Van Dyke is very good in this film and Debbie Reynolds while not as attractive as usual throughout the early parts gets it on later in the movie. The opening sequence of the divorce meetings with the Lawyers more worried about Golf and other cases is spot on. This couple is divorcing more because of a miss understanding than about a relationship problem. Then the Lawyers and the court run away with it. As for the story that the husbands got the shaft in these things in the 1960's- that it totally accurate. The only thing the film does not put enough of a point on is the fact that the mothers almost automatically got the kids custody during this era and courts never cared about their thoughts often.Still it is here, though the reason for that is it is made as a comedy. The sequence where all the children are together from previous marriage inside of as with Tom Bosley (Happy Days) doing the score card is funny. Bosley goes through how each kid arrived there and which marriage each kid is from, who the kids parents are, and who was married to who is amazingly complex. Makes things sound like a Peyton Place with staggering effectiveness. The old "ball and chain" references are still here. I did not recognize a younger Eileen Brennan in the cast until the credits roll. She has the least script here which is a waste of talent. This is a good movie that really does a good job of stereo typing people from the 1960's.The message of trying to stop this madness is a good one but was ignored in the 1960's and beyond until today, Not only are a lot of relationships rocky but we are now adding gay relationships into the mix.

This movie is too absurd for words. I find it really upsetting that Debbie Reynolds and Dick Van Dyke two stars known for their great physical humor and perkiness are totally unable to breathe real life into their parts. It is not humor nor sarcasm nor social commentary, nor drama. There is no understanding of the characters and their motivations.What impressed me as one who handled many divorces is the partly believable scenes in the lawyers' office and the courtroom. Non lawyers will think this is satire of what goes on. In fact it grossly understates what goes on in the court system in a divorce. It is a very messy process that often takes years to unravel. It causes unbelievable harm to the children and both spouses. Both parties are made to feel like criminals. It also largely impoverishes both spouses and prevents them from going on with their lives. The no fault system that now exists does little to heal the pain. There are two scenes which take place in a lawyers office which is called mediation and in the courtroom. What actually goes on is a lot of screaming by the clients about the unfairness and lying that occurs. What is not understood by the lay public is that their anger is extremely painful to the lawyers and judges as well. Lawyers are also traumatized by the bloody duel and deal with it by acting civilly to each other (hopefully). The lawyers' social chit chat is their way to break the tension. It prevents the lawyers from going over the deep end.