HotToastyRag
Two for the Seesaw is very heavy. It's one of those movies you watch once, appreciate the acting, and never want to see again.Robert Mitchum is getting a divorce, and in 1962, that's not a common occurrence. He picks up a loose dancer at a party, and in their mutual loneliness, they become really close really fast. Behind the scenes, Robert Mitchum and his leading lady Shirley MacLaine had an affair, and you can see the hurt and romance smoldering off the screen. Both actors do a fantastic job and handle a depressing script with realism rather than melodrama. Maybe it's because I knew they'd had an affair, but when they argued in the film, I almost felt embarrassed watching it, like I was intruding on a private argument. It's very powerful.However, it's a downer. It was based off a play, which is usually a clue that it's going to be depressing, and it absolutely is. Back in 1962, it wasn't common to make a movie about the highs and lows of one couple's relationship, as it is now. So, if you watch it, try not to compare it to its contemporaries and appreciate it on its own. Also, make sure you're in the right mood; if you're just coming out of a breakup, wait a while before renting it.
MieMar
Very unexpected gem... but you gotta like them talky to love this one.Based on a play and that really shows. But LOVE the way it examines the nooks and crannies of a relationship.Its about two people who have something to learn from each other, and not in an obvious way either. Who is hanging their hope and dreams on who here...? And completely disagree with those who find Mitchum too deadpan for this... he is completely his character, a old school guy of another generation (compared to Gittel, or MacLaine for that matter)... but enough of an off-beat to head to New York to live with some bed bugs once his marriage goes south. The phone calls between him and his wife are painful, Mitchum who himself had a long suffering wife who he had married young and ultimately stuck by (despite, apparently being super unfaithful), I think gives a very brave performance, possibly inspired by the cheer chutzpah of MacLaine's talent. He really shows the complex emotional ties that come with a very long marriage....for the generations who really, without a second thought, thought they married for life.The emotional tables are turned on them both several times, and you always think its completely true.There are a couple of clunky moments, and you must honestly also just take it on the chin (pun) that this was made in an era when a "slutty" woman could expect to be slapped for flaunting her "lack of morality". Here its all part of her problem though, the way she accepts how others treat her, much too readily.Great, very little known film that seems to fit no genre what so ever.Maybe its closest relatives are some french new wave relationship dramas. And those it beats, hands down. Because, unlike the Le French, its not about Women and Men but about people...
editorbob
This film is a good example of why I love black & white movies.Director Wise, cinematographer Ted McCord, and productiondesigner Boris Leven craft light, shadow, and line into two hours ofabsolutely lovely images, making the most of such elements asthe contrast between MacLaine's hair, eyes, and skin, and thejuxtaposition of the hard lines of doorframes and shadows withthe softness of rumpled fabric and fluid dancer's movement. (And Iloved the split set.) Total eye candy for B&W lovers, and anincidental, abrupt reminder of what a beautiful woman the youngShirley was.Unfortunately, the script seems very dated here in the twenty-firstcentury. The characters' relationship is frustrating, and (reportedoffscreen chemistry notwithstanding) MacLaine and Mitchum lookvery much mismatched. (Supposedly it was originally to be LizTaylor and Paul Newman. I can't see Liz here, but a MacLaine- Newman pairing could have been hot. But we'll never know.) Ifound MacLaine's character to be much more believable--morerounded, containing more nuance--than Mitchum's. While thisseems mostly the script's fault, I do feel that MacLaine here bringsmore quirky humanity to her work than does Mitchum (who I likevery much in general)."Seesaw" stands out for me as one of those films that, because ofits meticulous attention to visual detail, becomes an archetypalperiod piece as it ages--firmly among the films everyone making amovie set in the early 1960s should study carefully.
David (Handlinghandel)
Probably sweet and even touching onstage, at two hours, with essentially only two characters, this is lethal.Shirley MacLaine plays a hapless New York Jewish girl. One asks: Why? Made up to look like a cross between Molly Goldberg and Betty Boop, she is appealing but never convincing.Robert Mitchum (who, according to his biography, began a serious romance with his co-star during the filming; and chemistry there is) is appealing, as he generally is. But, with a strange, shiny hair style and his typical laconic style, he too seems like extremely illogical casting.
AD
