Kramer v. Kramer (1979)

It is such a heartbreaking film.

It IS Kramer vs. Kramer!

It could be a MAGA "Men's Rights" manifesto.

Pauline Kael didn't like it. Neither did I. One of the very few times we agreed.

One of Meryl's best performances

When I saw it as a kid I was cheering for Hoffman’ character but his performance seems whiny now for some reason. Maybe because he is an ugly man and makes the same facial expressions no matter the film. Much like Natalie Wood. I love her but she also has a box of expressions. Streep is amazing as is the boy. Both them are in the moment and react differently than the viewer might think. It’s really her film. But the bond between Hoffman and the boy comes off as very real. It’s a man right down the line. It’s clear they want to make her the villain because she left her child- an unforgivable move.

I found it so trashy that he had his fuck buddy walking around naked with his son in the house.

If only Lifetime Made for TV Movies had existed back then.

I loved this movie. Great performances from great actors.

You don’t get bored of making the same threads over and over? We are bored. Hence why you have to reply to yourself so much on these threads

And this is the movie which ended Kate Jackson's time on 'Charlie's Angels'.

Supposedly, she was offered the lead in the movie. She was the first choice. For a brief time, there would be a bit of 'overlap' in shooting schedules between the movie and the series, but Jackson had a plan to work around it without much disruption to the series shooting schedule (she would film all her scenes for those few episodes all at once). ABC said no and wouldn't give her the time off, and Jackson was livid. That's when she decided she wanted out of the series after that current season (1978-79) finished filming - and her manager was able to get her out. For a long time, Jackson said in interviews that 'ABC cost her the Oscar' (because she truly believed if Meryl got the Oscar, she would have, too).

Interesting that ABC didn’t force Jackson to make guest appearances in later seasons the way they did Farrah (who, I thought, looked very unhappy to be there every time she was on).

(R11)

[quote]Interesting that ABC didn’t force Jackson to make guest appearances in later seasons the way they did Farrah

Thank God. Farrah was sweet. Kate was not. Good riddance!

R11 (I don't know why I have blocked. Sometimes I do it accidentally).

Anyway, for anyone who read the book, Kate Jackson was perfect casting for Joanna as described. I believe Kate was also dating Dustin during that period, which might have had something to do with her getting the offer.

Would she have gotten the Oscar, or even a nomination? We'll never know. In the book, the character was a lot colder, a lot less sympathetic. Streep went a long way to changing that; she even convinced Robert Benton to let her write her own dialogue; her courtroom testimony, for example.

It might not have been as good a movie if Kate had gotten the role, (or as well received), but it definitely would have changed the trajectory of her career. She had every reason to be pissed!

Other examples of TV stars who lost out on plum movie roles because their shows wouldn't let them out:

Tom Selleck lost the Indiana Jones part in the first Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Sally Struthers lost the lead role in Day of the Locust that went to Karen Black.

I watched a couple of years ago. Didn't hate it, but am shocked it is considered a classic of sorts.

R10 - seriously, please drop dead.

It was no “Star Trek: the Motion Picture”(1979) or even “The Electric Horseman”(1979) or “The Black Hole”(1979). It was well regarded in its time but is now forgotten. Had it been “Kramer vs Kramer vs Godzilla” it may have had legs.

Dustin's naked fuck buddy was Jobeth Williams in her first movie. She talks about getting the role in this short interview clip.

[quote] Other examples of TV stars who lost out on plum movie roles because their shows wouldn't let them out:

[quote]Tom Selleck lost the Indiana Jones part in the first Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[quote] Sally Struthers lost the lead role in Day of the Locust that went to Karen Black.

You don;t even want to knwo about what happened with me...

I remember David Cassidy saying he lost out on major roles in motion pictures back in the early 70s because ABC wouldn't let him film and take time away from The Partridge Family (though I really don't know how the show would've survived with him missing episodes). That's a major part of the reason why he decided he wasn't coming back to the show for a fifth season - he wanted to break away from his 'Keith Partridge' character once and for all (though I don't think many movie roles were offered to him after 1974).

Not a movie but theater....

Kathie Lee Gifford chose not to renew her contract with ABC in 2000 for 'Live With Regis and Kathie Lee' because she lost out on replacing Betty Buckley in 'Sunset Boulevard' back in August, 1996. According to KLG, she was offered the role by ALW (yes, but there were dozens of actresses offered the role that summer) and she wanted to take it from September - January. She asked for a slight change to her schedule - off on Wednesdays for those four months so she could do the matinee - and ABC / DIsney said NO. She was furious, losing out on a 'chance of a lifetime'. She vowed she would not renew her contrract when it was up, and she would never work for ABC/Disney again.

In 2006, when Meredith Vieria decided to leave 'The View', it was said Barbara Walters called KLG first to ask her to join the show and take Meredith's place. KLG adored BW, but had to say no - and she explained she would never work for ABC again. (Instead, she went to NBC's 'The Today Show' instead).

25 years later and KLG has never stepped foot inside an ABC studio since leaving her show.

Llike another Academy Award winning film starring Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, this is extremely overrated; it's also dull. Hoffman and Justin Henry as father and son don't seem to ever have been introduced. You feel that he never had to parent this 8 year old .It's really much ado about nothing. And as a recent divorcee Jane Alexander will bore you blind.

'This looks, in retrospect, like nothing much more than a glossy soap passed off as serious drama'.-EMPIRE

At the time I thought it was meh. Man loses wife, man tries to bring up kid, hilarity ensues. Meryl over acts.

But later, I see it more clearly and like it more. Meryl still over acts her role. Director?

R24, don’t say “YOU feel that he never…”. Say I, speak for yourself. I didn’t get that feeling, dearest.

why was there no mention of joint custody? What about the kid being deprived of an available parent by not exploring something joint? Also, Jane Alexader's character seem to have a "Children's Hour" vibe... Jesus, like she is obsessed with Meryl's character. I think Jane made the choice to play the underwritten role that way

I always think of what would have happened to Kate Jackson's career if Aaron Spelling had let her out to do K v K.

They could have done a season of CA where Sabrina is kidnapped and different 'guest Angel' comes in each week to solve the case of the week and help the bigger story of finding Sabrina.

At the time this came out, my parents were divorcing so it impacted me strongly. I was a bit older than the son, but the uncertainty and whipsawing emotions hit home. I remember it being a masterpiece.

I rewatched it in the last year and now appreciate the NYC scenes, the manic aggression of the office. But the judgmental neighbor lady, the court scene, etc. didn’t impress as much. I think my IMDB rating is a 6.

[Quote] You feel that he never had to parent this 8 year old .

[Quote] don’t say “YOU feel that he never…”. Say I, speak for yourself. I didn’t get that feeling, dearest.

then you must have had shitty parents R26

The only parts of this movie that I remember are the very beginning, where Hoffman’s talking to a colleague about buying a Burberry coat; the French toast scene; and the scene where Hoffman knocks the glass into the wall.

R31 Isn't the French toast scene from Ordinary People?

Justin Henry was fabulous. The only part of this movie I liked.

Jane Alexander seemed awkwardly wedged into her role--not as organic to the story as she could have been.

I love it. Justin Henry's performance is by far the best child performance in a film. And I think it's fair to both the father and the mother. Alot of woke feminists now hate it because god forbid they make the man look slightly better, which is kind of hilarious considering back then it WAS considered feminist since it showed men were more than capable of being great caretakers. But some want their cake and eat it too.

[Quote] Alot of woke feminists now hate it because god forbid they make the man look slightly better, which is kind of hilarious considering back then it WAS considered feminist since it showed men were more than capable of being great caretakers.

It did!!! R34 did you watch the scene @ R30?

What in the ever loving hell does this movie have to do with MAGA and Men's Rights? Hell, what do those 2 things even have to do with each other? What an embarrassing post.

There was no “wake” when this film came out, and there was absolutely no uproar about the subject matter. You dump Trump lovers are not fooling anyone.

WOKE, not wake

R35 Yes, I did. It shows a kid testing his father for discipline....I also saw the rest of what happened that night where Hoffman's character apologized, and answered all of his son's questions about the divorce, reassured him that he wasnt at fault and that he would never leave him and it ended with the kid telling him "I love you"......so yeah, it sure did!

Using "woke" = "I'm still fucking that tired old chicken."

R33 Jane Alexander was a last minute replacement for an actress named Gail Strickland whom Hoffman was terrible to (she had developed a stammer that hindered her line readings because he had treated her so badly during rehearsals). Gail also appeared in Norma Rae that year.

I like the movie, but from reading the behind the scenes accounts, Hoffman comes off as a complete asshole.

Jane and Meryl would get into a bit of a public feud two years later.

R39 Not to my mind. It showed he had no coping skills. He acts like a total jerk in that scene. Kids will be kids. It's reminiscent of Mommie Dearest

R34 Kramer Vs. Kramer-Jonathan Rosenbaum Chicago Reader

Misogynistic claptrap about a divorced husband (Dustin Hoffman) fighting for the custody of and learning to cope with his little boy (Justin Henry)a movie whose classy trimmings (including Nestor Almendros’s cinematography) persuaded audiences to regard writer-director Robert Benton as a subtle art-house director. In this adaptation of a novel by Avery Corman, Benton does manage to get some effective performances from Hoffman and Henry as well as Meryl Streep (the wife who walks out on husband and son) and Jane Alexander, but let’s hope that the slew of Oscars won by this picture (best picture, actor, screenplay, director, and supporting actress) gives the thoughtful some reason for pause (1979). (JR) Read more

Does that reviewer at any point actually point out the misogyny in the movie R44?

I don't know R45 because only the excerpt is available. The reason I posted it was that it showed that some people or at least JB thought KVK was misogynist.

Back then we didn’t know that Meryl would continue to play herself in her next 108 movies.

R28 Two years after leaving CA she did land that big role in the movie 'Making Love' about the wife who finds out her husband is gay. For me, I think she was the weakest link in the movie - she just never came across as ready for the big screen. It seemed more suited for a TV movie.

I love the scene near the end when Ted and Billy are making french toast the second time. The first time was chaos, but by now they each know what to do, no words, in sync. Subtle and poignant.

[Quote] It seemed more suited for a TV movie.

I feel the same way about Kramer v Kramer R48

R32, I thought there was a scene in Kramer vs. Kramer where Hoffman makes French toast and French press coffee?

There is but it's not as famous as the French toast scene from Ordinary People

Re the Streep uproar: Jane Alexander walked so Sharon Stone could run.

“I hate you back, you little shit!”

That’s the realest moment in the movie.

Meryl is really good in this movie. She abandons her kid and you see the impact it has on her ex husband and her son. Then she reappears and demands custody.

You hate her, but you also understand her.

R49 I love the scene where they get up in the morning, each with his own little ritual, and they end up mimicing each other like father and son

R47: you are absolutely inescapably right.

[Quote] “I hate you back, you little shit!”

[Quote] That’s the realest moment in the movie.

It certainly is

"Daddy, why is there pineapple in this ice cream?"

Divorce was so hot back then.

Looking back at 1979, it's amazing this movie won Best Picture instead of Apocalypse Now or All That Jazz or Being There. Even Norma Rae is better remembered.

and The China Syndrome and The Onion Field are far better than KVK

Supremely overrated.

True, r63.

But still: better than Marriage Story.

It wasn’t even a particularly good New York movie. Central Park and the lobby at Della Femina, Travisano. Meh.

It was not “An Unmarried Man.”

why do I think Ted kissing some random woman at the holiday office party where he just got hired was improv'd

KvK was a film that hit theaters at just the right moment. Feminism, "the women's movement" had been making noise and progress throughout the decade.

Women working outside the home, demanding equal pay (and demanding MEN participate in the raising of children, telling husbands that they needed to share in housework+), the ERA all of it swirling around.

Here was a movie where a woman walks out (to find herself) of a comfortable life, forces the husband to step up (which he does) and then she returns and demands that he give up the son... all of that was "in the moment" culturally.

It may not play well in 2025, but the movie made an impact in '79.

Streep filmed her scenes for “Manhattan” during down times.

I never get why they just don't settle on joint custody.

R41 Gail Strickland's stammering was early signs of spasmodic dysphonia which she was diagnosed with in the early 1990s. The condition affected her speech; she continued working for 15 years before it became too debilitating for her to deliver her lines, resulting in her retirement from acting.

R67 Why wouldnt it play well? The only ibjectionable to today's standard's scene is Ted kissing that random woman.

R64 I laughed myself silly when people tried to compare "Marriage Story" to this when it came out, even more if favorably. Marriage Story was nothing but Adam Driver's histrionics and the kid was AWFUL. Absolutely awful. No talent or charisma. That movie did nothing for me.

Howard Duff was great as Hoffman's old salt of a divorce lawyer

Meryl is pretty awesome in her first scene. She's trying to hold it together and methodically tell him about the checking account and his dry cleaning. Then when he grabs her and tries to pull her into the apartment her whole demeanor changes and you get a hint of how disturbed she really is.

R67: Well said.

BTW Meryl said that Dustin slapping her was improved and she was shocked. She says you can still see the imprint of his hand in the film.

^ improvised

Did anyone here read and recall the book? If I remember correctly, didn't they change the ending and Joanna was given custody?

R73 agreed, but I think the courtroom scene won her the Oscar. You could obviously tell she was unraveling when she left Ted at the beginning, but you really sympathize with her in the courtroom, and how much she fought her way back to try to get custody of Billy. When the Duff character shouts at her WERE YOU?!, you really feel the words go into her like a knife. She was absolutely riveting in these few minutes.

[quote] Alot of woke feminists now hate it because god forbid they make the man look slightly better,

Oh, those Feminazis! What a menace they are.

I actually like this film. When it came out, there had not been a mainstream film on divorce that had this kind of impact. It was the number one movie of the year at the box office, which I can't even imagine happening now for a drama (I believe that the last drama that was number 1 at the box office was "American Sniper," but that had guns and violence). Meryl was just catching on and this established her as an A list actress and box office star. She appeared in three best picture nominees in a row over three years (Julia, Deerhunter and Kramer v. Kramer). It's a terrible comparison, but Timothee is having a similar trajectory where he vaulted to A list pretty quickly with the cover of TIME, etc. But I don't think he is as talented, and his movies will be forgotten (especially Wonka or A Complete Unknown).

Meryl Streep taking off on her little boy triggered my abandonment issues.

[Quote] Here was a movie where a woman walks out (to find herself) of a comfortable life, forces the husband to step up (which he does) and then she returns and demands that he give up the son... all of that was "in the moment" culturally.

Her character is very murky as is the marriage between Hoffman and Streep who make an unlikely couple and did people feel that she was being selfish.

'While the picture has its detractors some of whom rightly question the plot use of Joanna as a villain...' Evey 70s Movie [Peter Hanson]

I think this movie does portray Joanna as a villain whether it means to or not. I mean, she leaves her own kid with a man who obviously has left ALL the child rearing up to her and didn't have a clue about what to do with him. That's pretty cold. It never made sense to that they just didn't put him in daycare so she could keep her career.

The movie then has Ted redeem himself. Once it is clear that he has, Joanna returns and eventually gets the kid back. But Ted absolves her of her abandonment in court and she is so overcome by what a great father he is now that she rewards him by giving him the kid back... and we don't even get to see a scene of Ted informing Billy that he doesn't have to move out after all. IMO that is a very odd flaw in this movie.

[Quote] It never made sense to that they just didn't put him in daycare so she could keep her career.

There are a lot of lucanas in the film Why didn't Ted hire a housekeeper?

'So you end up with the absurdity of a mother who has flown the coop, a father who puts in extra long hours at the ad agency and a 6 year old who presumably walks himself home from school and takes care of himself for several hours thereafter'-John Simon

I remember when they were first casting for the film, before Hoffman or Kate Jackson were mentioned, it was thought that this could be a dramatic vehicle for Lucille Ball, but it would be difficult to find the right leading man. Though she was too old to play the mother of a six year old it was generally assumed that just as lighting and makeup had worked to take years off her age for Mame, the same would hold true with her and Kramer v. Kramer. Streep was incredible, but I think Lucy could have really knocked Joanna out of the park and completely changed the trajectory of the third act of her career.

[quote]Did anyone here read and recall the book? If I remember correctly, didn't they change the ending and Joanna was given custody?

In the book, the court awards Joanna custody, then she calls Ted and tells him he can keep Billy because, "I guess I'm not a very together person. ... You can have him, Ted. He's yours."

The novel seems to be something of a wish fulfillment story for Corman, whose parents divorced when he was 5 (in 1940); his father left and he never saw him again. "He, his older sister, and his mother went to live with his aunt and uncle, both deaf mutes. His mother became a saleswoman at Alexander's department store to support the family, and discouraged him from discussing the divorce. The embarrassment of a child of divorce during the 1940's and 50's was profound, he said. 'She had a struggle,' he said. 'In those days it was humiliating. Her struggle became my struggle, Living in a house with deaf mutes, and no father, and having to be secret about everything. .'"

Thank you R85. I discussed a little of this upthread, now I will add some....

After having read the book, I felt Streep absolutely deserved the Oscar because of what she brought to the role, (including changing parts of the script and adding her own dialogue to the court scenes), and making Joanna both a more complicated character AND sympathetic. I recall the book being relatively one-sided.

I also mentioned that, physically, Kate Jackson fit the role to a tee. I read the book after seeing the movie, and despite the resonance Streep left, I couldn't help but picture Kate Jackson as Joanna because of the description. Had Jackson been able to essay the part, she probably would have stuck to the script as written. She would have been fine; serviceable; but it would have been a lesser movie and I doubt she would have been nominated. As conveyed in the book, Joanna wasn't really an Oscar role.

I hate the fucking haircut on that kid. Every kid in Hollywood had that hair at some point.

"Well, I can certainly see why you left him" is such a delicious line.

I just realized I have KvK saved on my DVR. I recorded it last year on TCM and totally forgot about it. If I have time, I’ll try to watch it sometime this week.

I loved this film in 1979, and I still love it today. I realize though that I have a blind nostalgia for anything made in the 1970s, my childhood years.

Others have made good points and criticisms, but I will continue to watch it every once in a while, mostly for nostalgia.

Enjoyable discussion here for sure.

I didnt read the book but from what I heard, its 1000 times more unforgiving to Joanne than the film.

I will never get the idea that she is the "villain" in the film...antagonist at best but a very sympathetic one. The scene where Joanne leaves Ted you absolutely see why she leaves him...he is wrapped up in his own world, doesnt listen to her or take her seriously,for instance. But its funny that some accuse the film of misogyny because she is made to be the bad one when thats more of a reflection of how harshly some still view women who don't fit the nurturing role. The ones accusing the film of hatred of women do so because they themselves are the ones guilty of judging her more harshly.

The one criticism I might make is that Ted wises up and learns a little too fast. The "redemption" is a bit quick and easy. The speech he gives to his son about what went wrong with his marriage is a little too perfect and neat. A little too self aware and emotionally healthy. Its something I'd believe he'd figure out after maybe 4/5 years, not 2. Its less that Joanna is portrayed unsympathetically but more that he is perhaps a bit too sympathetically, too fast.

Still a great movie though. Just not perfect.

[quote] Though she was too old to play the mother of a six year old it was generally assumed that just as lighting and makeup had worked to take years off her age for Mame, the same would hold true with her and Kramer v. Kramer. Streep was incredible, but I think Lucy could have really knocked Joanna out of the park and completely changed the trajectory of the third act of her career.

I-

[quote]r84 before Hoffman or Kate Jackson were mentioned, it was thought that this could be a dramatic vehicle for Lucille Ball

I do remember reading about Ball’s involvement, but the lead role of Ted was being rewritten so that SHE was a highly placed advertising magnet who’d never even had a kid. Billy was the son of boy toy Joe (Dustin Hoffman) from a previous marriage.

When Joe sets off to pursue his Chippendales dream on tour, Lucy has to finally struggle with all that motherhood allows. Hilarity ensues!

Well, it became obvious early on that Ball was not up to the physical demands of the role, plus Justin Henry was terrified by her chain smoking. She was allowed to bow out (citing a supposedly torn ligament for insurance purposes) and Hoffman took over the role.

People lost their shit over this at the time. Armistead Maupin banged in about it all the time.

Never been aired since. And I can see why.

The Lucy stories are not funny or relevant.

R41, thank you so much for the background on Jane Alexander. Your post is the kind that keeps me coming back to DL. 🙏

oh, I LOVE Gail Strickland! She guested on everything from Mary Tyler Moore to Dallas to Family Ties!