tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post8483833858804044425..comments2024-03-26T05:01:57.793-07:00Comments on DREAMS ARE WHAT LE CINEMA IS FOR...: A TOUCH OF CLASS 1973Ken Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-1718057586177359582023-06-10T19:34:35.959-07:002023-06-10T19:34:35.959-07:00Excellent point, Kip. You're right...for all t...Excellent point, Kip. You're right...for all this film's flaws, it never sinks to the depths of "10," nor is there anything one wishes could be excised, as I do with both the Matthau and Cosby sequences of "California Suite." Melvin Frank's biggest crime is being uninspired and stuck in the '60s, comedy-wise. But at no time is "A Touch of Class" ever as problematic as the films you mentioned. Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-49930767411017277742023-06-09T06:31:43.424-07:002023-06-09T06:31:43.424-07:00Thanks, Ken. As I said, it's not very good, b...Thanks, Ken. As I said, it's not very good, but it's still better than Herbert Ross's CALIFORNIA SUITE and Blake Edwards' "10", two other hit 70's movies involving slapstick, adultery and pseudo-bitchy dialogue in a luxury hotel/resort setting. It amazes me that a middlebrow director like Melvin Frank did a better job with similar material than so-called A-listers Ross and Edwards. A TOUCH OF CLASS is watchable and fairly harmless and has nothing truly excruciating in it like the Richard Pryor/Bill Cosby segment in CALIFORNIA SUITE or the Dee Wallace character in "10."Kiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281290996597528859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-60385828918588778972023-06-09T05:28:55.781-07:002023-06-09T05:28:55.781-07:00Hi Kip- Ha! I think I may have to try that Anna Wi...Hi Kip- Ha! I think I may have to try that Anna Wintour trick next time I watch "A TOUCH OF CLASS." I love that you're seeing it for the first time and STILL had to resort to some device to bump up the entertainment value.<br /><br />It's been a couple of years since I've watched it, but the last time I did I remember finding my love for Glenda Jackson the only thing that holds up and keeps me going. SO much of the plotting is tiresomely dated and sitcomy. And I seriously want to strangle Paul Sorvino's character every time I see him. <br />I appreciate your contributing a newbie perspective comment to this post. The comedy writing style is so old and the sexual politics so cliché, you provide my first glimpse into how the film plays to those without a nostalgic attachment (like me). Thanks for thinking to give me an update! Cheers, Kip!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-28969460422090326692023-06-08T07:04:40.833-07:002023-06-08T07:04:40.833-07:00Hi, Ken.
I watched this movie for the first time e...Hi, Ken.<br />I watched this movie for the first time ever last night. I'm not sure how I missed it before, except it always seemed less like a movie I had to see than a trivial pursuit question. It's not very good, but I did manage to find some entertainment value by pretending I was watching ANNA WINTOUR: THE EARLY YEARS. It was good for a few chuckles, especially the idea that Wintour started her career ripping off Givenchy and Yves St. Laurent for the NY rag trade.Kiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281290996597528859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-54074532536897900752022-06-28T02:29:31.812-07:002022-06-28T02:29:31.812-07:00Hello! I'm thrilled that you enjoyed this pos...Hello! I'm thrilled that you enjoyed this post and I am so in accord with your feeling that the wonderful Glenda Jackson was aces in the role, but not exactly deserving of an Oscar win in a a year of so many wonderful performances. Well, everything about the Oscars that year was a bit wonky, wasn't it? The thoroughly pedestrian and unremarkable "The Sting" winning Best Picture is enough to make your head spin ('cause I thought The Exorcist or the not even nominated Paper Moon really deserved it). I love Glenda Jackson, but her win (to me) was like that thing that happened in 2011 with "The Artist"...Academy voters get all caught up in a sensation and voting has less to do with quality than it does with heat of the moment momentum. Glenda Jackson was riding high and I think her win reflected it.<br />She's good, but there were SO many more deserving performances that year for me, too. But in all honesty, don't The Oscars get it wrong more often than right? <br />Thank you for reading this post and commenting. You got me thinking what young audiences might make of seeing "A Touch of Class" today. I can't imagine it not looking like a protracted TV sitcom.Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-50822775437701219462022-06-27T17:12:10.273-07:002022-06-27T17:12:10.273-07:00Ken, another great post. I haven't seen this m...Ken, another great post. I haven't seen this movie since the '70s, and enjoyed it then. Now, it's time to revisit. I will say, Glenda Jackson's second Oscar for this lightweight if charming performance is one of the all-time Oscar flubs. Like you wrote, Ellen Burstyn in The Exorcist would have been a very worthy winner. For me, Streisand in The Way We Were should have taken it. Hers was an iconic performance with so many memorable and wonderful scenes. Who today even remembers Glenda Jackson in this movie besides true movie-lovers who grew up in the 70s like us? Joanne Woodward and Marsha Mason should have won over Glenda, too, but seems like the Academy was just too smitten with the British star at the time. Thanks again for all your wonderful posts. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560245791817155573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-72988186118031905852017-03-28T19:23:05.154-07:002017-03-28T19:23:05.154-07:00Yikes!
Apologies Joao Paulo...I honestly don't...Yikes!<br />Apologies Joao Paulo...I honestly don't know how I missed this comment after so many months! Especially since it is another of you finely-observed pieces citing elements in a film that really spoke to you.<br />Like the comment below, I really like that Glenda Jackson's performance so resonated beyond the genre constraints of rom-com. <br />And that's no mean feat. to get you to care about a character in a film as jokey as this...to make her internal journey something you take away...well, it speaks to more than just her popularity swaying Academy voters. I suspect many a viewer were surprised and saddened by the ending. <br />As i often saya bout the comments section, it's eye opening for me.<br />I am very much caught in the whole "infidelity"/ gaining one's happiness at the expense of others side of this movie. But you've illuminated emotional aspects I can well understand others responding to. <br />Thank you for so concisely expressing the pluses and minuses of this film for us. Very enlightening!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-21629942854864978862017-03-28T19:12:40.187-07:002017-03-28T19:12:40.187-07:00What a terrific memory attached to this film (both...What a terrific memory attached to this film (both the sad-ending tears and the memory association with the wonderful name Vic D'Allesio. <br />i think sometimes one of the things I forget about this film is how the quality of Jackson's performance elevated the material to the point that the rom-com cliches felt fresh, and the romance between the characters touched many viewers. And you're right, as sad as it is, the film couldn't have ended any other way.<br />Thanks for sharing a nice memory of your personal experience of this enduring film!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-48645865689285116272017-03-28T09:34:06.152-07:002017-03-28T09:34:06.152-07:00I was all of 19 when I saw this movie with my best...I was all of 19 when I saw this movie with my best friend. The name of a very close older married man friend (who still is) Vic D'Allesio, so INSTANT identification on a number of levels. We cried hysterically at the end, but in fact it was the only way the story could have ended. "They had the perfect love affair...until they fell in love". Raven Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789081791228828868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-18366536978095790152016-11-22T18:00:58.265-08:002016-11-22T18:00:58.265-08:00Not gonna lie, just like you I found myself asking...Not gonna lie, just like you I found myself asking how did Jackson won an Oscar for this movie! Not that is a bad one but looking at the contenders list for that year there were roles that were instant classics!<br /><br />Still, I love her here. I think it's a really tough character to play when all she had to do was, as you said, act "british". When the movie started i perceived her as just the counter-part to George Segal's character and that was okay to me, I'm used to this romantic comedies clichés and I tought it was just one of them. But then she started to captivate me.<br /><br />Nowadays, passive-agressiveness is a cool feature in any character. The give the best lines in a movie, they make the audience laugh, they're so full of attitude and style... but if there's one thing "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wool" taught me is that passive-agressiveness is not a sign of coolness: is in most of the cases the sign of a bruised soul. The more Jakcson's charcater tried to pretend she didn't care it was becoming clear she was hurt and trying to keep her heart intact and I think that's what Jackson did brilliantly. Whereas the script had one simple line she turned that in a moment of subtle explanation of how she wanted to feel loved without having to love someone, without having to destroy the wall she had to build to protect herself. She wanted to have someone in her arms but keep her heart safe. So as the movie progresses you can see her defenses breaking and you begin to worry about her, cause she is so happy but no one can really live a half love, and when the third act comes Steven Segal still doesn't shows a sing of wanting to live his partner. She was completely seduced by love, drowning little by little and she couldn't breathe, we couldn't breathe. AND THEN THE MOVIE ENDS IN ALL THAT DEPRESSION and I cried for half an hour the first time I watched it, cause I was really riding Jackson's wave of emotions and wasn't prepared for that. I didn't see the movie building to that ending!! She was so intelligent here and few actresses would have the capacity to turn this role into a full-fleshed woman. It looks like her character came to the same point she was at the beggining of the movie, but Glenda turned it into a whole journey! A very sophisticated piece of acting and should really be more talked about.<br /><br />This movie is not perfect. Most of it's universe is under developed and even the two leads are not very well build, but we are lucky we got two of the 70s finest here. Their families are never shown (if it wasn't for the one scene when Jackson introduces her kids you could tell she was single), George Segal's had a stereotypical wife and as you said, the fact that only men are showed cheating is hard to pass. The pace is sometimes uneven (it feels like two different movies, when the first half is pure comedy and the second is more mature and heartbreakking), and some scenes are awfully repetitive (like Segal at the concert having to change clothes or Segal playing golf).<br /><br />I laughed a lot, tho. That line when Glenda says something like "a woman's body is not a machine where you press a button and then PAW!!! the world moves" still makes me laugh on the bus, at the restaurant, everywhere. Steven is adorkable here. He's quite dreamy and have that boyish enthusiasm about life and things, it's easy to love him. His chemistry with Jackson really saves this movie, and I couldn't love them more. The airport attendant also deserves mention.<br /><br />In the end it feels like it's a movie about taking chances. They knew this couldn't end well, we knew too, but they chose to believe life and love were easy and so did we. If there's only 1 chance of love in a hundred possibilities why couldn't we try? And what comforts me is that I'm sure Vicki gave love another chance some time after that ending. She deserves to love and be loved <3João Paulo Duarte da Silvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04963026275763481327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-40973064037950567652013-10-25T22:32:31.824-07:002013-10-25T22:32:31.824-07:00Hi Joel
I love the points you brought up! I too fo...Hi Joel<br />I love the points you brought up! I too found the characterization of George Segal's wife to be troublesome. Not only does she seem an unlikely match for the coarse American, but they seem to have such a terrible relationship that it undermines his character's repeatedly voiced love for her and his desire not to break up his happy home.<br />I'm sure the problem is a screenwriter's dilemma: It's imperative that the audience like Jackson and Segal. Portray Segal's wife as appealing and sympathetic and the audience dislikes Segal for cheating on her, and hate Glenda Jackson for coming between them.<br /><br />I'm glad you brought up the actress who plays the travel agent (Eve Karpf). She really IS wonderful in her brief time onscreen.<br /><br />Glenda Jackson does have a great chemistry with George Segal and is a marvelous comedienne. i only saw Elizabeth R for the first time two years ago, and was completely blown away. With he display of versatility in this role, it's easy to see how Academy voters could be swayed. <br /><br />So much appreciate your sharing your fondness for this film and passing on many interesting observational points! Hope you visit again soon. Thanks!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-8338660801458450892013-10-25T18:25:40.820-07:002013-10-25T18:25:40.820-07:00I've always enjoyed this but I agree it is a d...I've always enjoyed this but I agree it is a different experience watching today than it was the first time I saw it, which was some time in the 80's I believe. The loosey goosey attitudes towards adultery mark it as a relic of a much more liberal time. I'm not condoning adultery but that woman that George is married to in the film would be enough to drive anyone away. She irks me for every second of her screen time. Speaking of screen time somebody who steals her brief time in the film is the actress who plays the travel agent, her sly delivery of her lines is one of my favorite parts of the movie. No matter how much the film dates what doesn't change is the dynamite chemistry between George and Glenda, which I've read was a reflection of their backstage camaraderie. <br /><br />A great actress, her work is the mini-series Elizabeth R will never be bettered, it was fun to see Glenda cut loose which she did rarely but its not an Oscar worthy role.<br /><br />A cute bauble with great views of 70's London you're completely right that the undeserved Oscar attention weighs the film's reception down when watched now. I own a copy and have lent it to friends with little preamble other than saying the film is one I like, once they've given it a view most say yes it was pleasant but having read the back and seeing that it was a nominee for best picture and Glenda won they just didn't get why.<br /><br />I have to disagree about Ellen Burstyn's being the performance that should have taken the prize, although she should have one more than she does-for Resurrection in 1980. For me the winner should have been Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were, talk about a film with potent chemistry!. She gave a fully lived in performance equal to her Oscar winning debut in Funny Girl.joel65913https://www.blogger.com/profile/14526657073681774683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-91050929178756906362013-10-18T15:28:31.169-07:002013-10-18T15:28:31.169-07:00Thanks, Joe
I agree with what you say about Jackso...Thanks, Joe<br />I agree with what you say about Jackson's very 70s appeal and its dim chances of ever eve being unearthed in the films made today. <br />She was a very striking woman, the type usually referred to as "handsome", but she had an appeal via her talent that registered considerable sexual heat and a unique beauty.<br /><br />I think her look in this movie is the most glamorous she ever appeared in a film (she's photographed very lovingly), and for some reason, her stiff Cleopatra-style hairdo didn't seem all that odd to me back then (I guess with all those blunt, geometric Toni Tennille/Dorothy Hamill Sassoon cuts of the era, it fit right in) but is downright distracting to me now. What it most reminds me of is the similar kind of studio glamour job they tried on Karen Black in "Airport 1975".<br /><br />You're also on point in noting that "A Touch of Class" was a hit with the oldsters. I worked as an usher at the theater where it opened in San Francisco, and the blue-haired matinee ladies ate it up. I know my mom loved it, after finding George Segal in "The Owl & the Pussycat" too vulgar.<br />Ah, the 70s! Thanks a heap, Joe! Great hearing from you!Ken Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940648971296673233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2627032459273165000.post-47556579654948603232013-10-18T11:22:28.859-07:002013-10-18T11:22:28.859-07:00Terrific post, Ken.
You are so good at endorsing a...Terrific post, Ken.<br />You are so good at endorsing an older film that is now questionable on more than one level. Glenda Jackson was wonderful in almost everything and - like Karen Black - could only flourish in a crazy time like the 1970s. Can't imagine her landing supporting roles in contemporary Hollywood productions, let alone leads. She was not conventionally attractive to be sure but her talent made her beautiful.<br />I think 'A Touch of Class' was a hit in 1973 because it was one of the few films of that era aimed at older moviegoers. Even though it had some of the sexual frankness of the era, it was essentially old-fashioned. I remember my mom loving "A Touch of Class" but hating the other George Segal comedy that came out that year, "Blume in Love," which was too '70s for her. <br />The one puzzler for me in "Class" has always been that odd, wiggy hairdo Jackson sports in the film - the studio's attempt to glamorize her? Joe Meyershttp://blog.ctnews.com/meyersnoreply@blogger.com