Divorce American Style (1967) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
18 Reviews
Sort by:
A Nearly Forgotten Gem from the 60's...
ijonesiii4 December 2005
DIVORCE American STYLE was an offbeat and surprisingly adult (for 1967) that starred Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds as Richard and Barbara Harmon, a wealthy California couple who divorce after 17 years of marriage and the adjustments both try to make being single once more. Smartly directed by Bud Yorkin and co-written by future TV icon Norman Lear, this biting satire died at the box office at the time of release, but is really a well-made and quite revealing comedy about the ins and outs of marriage, divorce, and all the little banalities that these subjects bring about. Yorkin directs with a master hand here...I love the scene right after Richard and Barbara's dinner party where they undress for bed in total silence, getting in each other's way but not saying a word to each other, just "Bury you in six feet under" looks. Or when Richard and his best friend (Joe Flynn)and Barbara and her best friend (Emmaline Henry) arrive at the bank at the same time to clean out their bank accounts and safety deposit box...another scene done with no dialogue but so smartly staged, dialogue is not needed. The supporting cast is first rate...Jason Robards is surprisingly funny as Nelson Downs, a divorce victim who tries to set Richard up with his ex (the lovely Jean Simmons) so that he doesn't have to pay alimony anymore. Lee Grant, Tom Bosley, Van Johnson, Eileen Brennan, Shelley Berman, and Dick Gautier also contribute funny bits. A very young Tim Matheson also appears as Richard and Barbara's eldest son. This delicious and slightly twisted comic confection from the mind of Norman Lear is a delight from beginning to end and if you've never seen it, it's worth a look.
27 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Remarkably Witty and Scathingly Satirical Comedy. Nice Work
Critic-5021 August 1999
Divorce-American Style, a surprisingly intelligent effort from writers Kaufman and Lear and TV power-house director Bud Yorkin, was first in series of witty, satirical releases that included "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" and "Lovers and Other Strangers". This way-paving comedy featured the delightfully flustered pairing of Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds as a successful 'Married With Children' duo who, after years of supporting each another, simply tire. despite it's (minor) shortcomings, the sharp dialogue certainly justifies the screenplay oscar nod. Nice work. ***1/2 out of ****
20 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stuck in the Sixties...
fung02 December 2009
It's amazing how preconceptions can affect a movie's popularity. Multiple reviewers seem to feel Divorce American Style should be "funnier," because they've apparently decided it's a comedy. (And one of a particular type, presumably.) Unfortunately, this isn't a film that fits into any such predefined mold. It's a dark satire, dealing with the insane approach to divorce current at the time of its making (especially in California). And it succeeds splendidly on that level.

No, we're not expected to guffaw as we watch Dick Van Dyke being first railroaded into divorce, then reduced to poverty by punitive alimony payments. We're expected to shake our heads and smile wryly at the folly of the times. And to walk out just a little more determined to push for true equality of the sexes, and a truly rational legal framework for their relations.

We're not there yet, but things have moved forward so unimaginably far that today's viewers may not understand the attitudes in this film. To put it in context, compare it to The Dick Van Dyke Show. Divorce was utterly unthinkable in the cozy world of Rob and Laura Petrie. Yet here, just a few years later, we see Van Dyke and Reynolds playing essentially the same Rob and Laura roles, and not only admitting the possibility of divorce, but tackling some of its uglier ramifications. It was a huge leap forward, for Van Dyke, for Hollywood, and for society as a whole.

Of course, on a dramatic level, Divorce American Style still has a lot of that old-time Dick Van Dyke Show sensibility. But it's sharper than many similar films of the time (courtesy of Norman Lear, no doubt), and benefits from some great performances (especially by Dick Van Dyke, Debbie Reynolds and Jason Robards). The conditions it dissects may no longer exist, but that doesn't have to spoil our enjoyment.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Historical perspective
jwkenne28 October 2009
It seems that not everybody remembers the world in 1967.

To begin with, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce. A divorce had to involve one "guilty" party, and one "innocent" party. Two "guilty" parties would just be blown off with "You two deserve each other." And it was regarded as standard good manners for the man to offer himself up as "guilty", unless the woman was a complete slut or psycho. (See "The Gay Divorcée" for an example of a man who /doesn't/ follow this social rule, because he's a pig.)

Now, also during this period, the usual rule was that the wife got the kids, and the wife and kids were entitled to be just as well off as they had been before the divorce. (Remember, as far as the Law was concerned, she and they were officially innocent victims of the Big Bad Man.) So alimony could be very high indeed.

As to her getting a job....

There was no such thing as professional daycare. If a divorced woman were poor, she could probably leave the kids with a neighbor, because poor folks have been doing that for thousands of years, but for a middle-class divorced woman to do that would have been regarded as shameless freeloading.

There were relatively few jobs for women, and even fewer that paid decently. A woman could be a secretary, but shorthand and typing take years of practice. (There were no personal computers then; few people could type except for writers and secretaries.) And secretaries didn't make much more than minimum wage, anyway. The same for stitchers in clothing factories (America had clothing factories back then). Beautician? Cleaning woman? Hotel maid? Nurse? None of them paid all that well. There were a handful of woman doctors, lawyers, and the like, but the closest pointer to the future was that there have always been quite a few women in computer programming. But you couldn't just walk in and ask for a programming job if you'd never done it before.

In short, this movie makes the usual exaggerations you expect in a comedy, but it is nowhere near "preposterous" or "ridiculously unrealistic". It's pretty solidly grounded in 1967 reality.

Now, on the other hand, I can't say I like the movie all that much. I guess I'm too romantic to take divorce as a joke. But the performances are sound, and I have to say that Van Dyke and Reynolds both had guts to tackle this script at all. Both of them have always been typecast as "lovable".
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Forgotten 60s comedy
preppy-322 May 2012
The marriage of Richard and Barbara Harmon (Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds) is falling apart. They're always fighting and are extremely unhappy. They decide to divorce and go their separate ways. They're helped by friends and co-workers played by Jason Robards, beautiful Jean Simmons, Van Johnson, Joe Flynn and Lee Grant.

I never even knew this movie existed until it popped up on TCM. It seems to be a forgotten movie which is too bad because its lots of fun. The script is excellent--most of it is a comedy but they also bring up interesting and serious insights into love, sex and relationships. The entire cast is great throwing off one-liners left and right. Also this is a fascinating social documents of the late 1960s to see how couples lived, the things they talked about, the fashions they wore and the houses they had. Sure it's dated but I was never bored. Also it's fun to see 20 year old Tim Matheson in his first film (playing a teenager!). Worth catching.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A scathing depiction of modern American society.
PWNYCNY1 October 2014
This movie is a scathing satire of the institution of marriage in modern American society. It offers a honest and frank glimpse of the problems associated with marriage. In the movie, the women are depicted as shrill and manipulative, the men as dupes and drunks, marriage itself as transient and temporary, and love as a sham. According to the movie, marriage is something "to be worked at," not to be enjoyed. Lawyers are crass and insensitive and the judicial system unforgiving. Dick Van Dyke plays Richard Harmon, a man whose life becomes a living nightmare when his marriage starts collapsing. far from being victims, the children are depicted as deriving much joy from their parents' bickering. Men are shown as being crushed under the weight of alimony and the women openly sneering at their men. Marriage counseling is depicted as being pedantic and out of touch and incapable of resolving marital discord. Set in 1967, the movie also depicts heavy consumption of alcohol and the use of cigarettes to deal with anxiety. Society in general is depicted as decadent and materialistic. The parent-child relationship is shown to be situational and shallow, with little love or affection. The story contains no heroes, nothing gets resolved, with the story ending the way it started, the details of which will not be disclosed in this report. The relationship between men and women is depicted as being a power struggle, with both men and women being prone to fits of acting out behavior bordering on outright physical violence. The Harmon character is shown breaking dishes, drinking, yelling, and losing his composure. His best friend is depicted as a cheater and panderer, and a white-collar pimp. The only character that has any redeeming qualities is the whore who has sense enough not to play into Harmon's acting out, not because she cares but because it would put her at risk. The potential for violence permeates throughout the story. Another of Harmon's friends is an out and out drunk. In the movie nobody cares about anybody; everybody is self-centered. There is no sense of community, no real desire to resolve issues, no personal warmth. Psychologically, all the principal characters are neurotic and are resistant to dealing honestly with their feelings. The worst offender of them all is Harmon whose affable exterior hides a deeply narcissistic personality that sets off his wife, which in turn triggers her own defenses. Sadly, these scenarios are not implausible; indeed they are too, too true.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Would-be scathing and brittle, but bogged down in the obvious...
moonspinner5515 January 2006
Norman Lear-written divorce-comedy has bickering, bored married couple Dick Van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds splitting up, re-entering the bewildering dating scene. Begins well, with amusing, satirical jabs at suburban married life, but it runs out of gas early on. Conrad Hall's evocative cinematography is a plus, and some of the dialogue has snap, but Lear's ideas get bogged down in sitcomville. The introduction of a second couple (Jason Robards and Jean Simmons) doesn't work at all, perhaps because neither actor seems to realize this is supposed to be a comedy, and a segue to "Hip Hypnotist" Pat Collins is simply desperate. Van Dyke and Reynolds are both fair. ** from ****
8 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I Turned It Off
reader428 July 2009
I had mildly looked forward to seeing this film because of the stars. Dick van Dyke is usually good, and Debbie Reynolds almost always is. And I loved "Divorce Italian Style," so I thought the American version sounded promising as well.

I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. What a disappointment! The first twenty minutes consists largely of people all yelling at each other at once in different venues: a conference room, a living room, a courtroom...

Debbie Reynolds has never looked less attractive. In fact, I have never seen her look unattractive until I saw this film. With her hair piled up on top of her head, and her pallid makeup, she reminded me of a blond version of the Katzenjammer Mamma.

I nearly recognized Jean Simmons with her short blond hair, reprising her faded look from "Mister Buddwing" the previous year.

Almost any movie that keeps my interest till the end rates at least 4 stars. I turned this turkey off after a grueling forty minutes. I didn't even laugh once. The only reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 2 is that it has a lot of well-known and talented people in it.
8 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Divorce is an extremely sad and, uh, unpleasant business."
Irie21213 September 2009
I'm amazed I made it past the first half hour of this, beyond the scene where Lee Grant plays a prostitute (paid mistress, if you prefer) as if she was Joe Flynn's temperamental, demanding fiancée.

The plot is preposterous—an abrupt divorce, contrived for no real reason, railroaded by opportunistic acquaintances and lawyers. What's even more contrived is the legal system, as pointed out in the IMDb review by "trudyr". This movie is one of those where the theme (divorce) suddenly redefines the entire world. Everybody's divorced- - oh, and by the way, the kids are just fine with it. In one scene, a mishmash of men and women—1st husbands, 2nd husbands, ex wives, current wives, and all the combined children— leave a group picnic. It attempts Keystone Cops-style mayhem, and if that isn't funny enough (it isn't), wait for the punch line: they leave one kid behind because nobody is sure who's responsible for it.

The sad thing is that the four principals—Van Dyke, Reynolds, Robards, and Simmons—all do fine work. It's the only thing that raises this movie about the level of total disaster
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fairly mediocre with good moments
funkyfry31 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Boredom, American Style
Art Vandelay8 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
What happened to Debbie Reynold's face? I didn't think it would be possible to make Debbie Reynolds look scary but I was wrong. Did she have plastic surgery the day before this film started shooting? Or did this production hire the makeup man from the Batman TV show? And her hairline. I've seen aging sportscasters with hair plugs that looked more realistic.

This is such a painful try-hard movie with zero realistic scenes. The bowling alley where Jason Robards sidles up to Dick Van Dyke? I would have called the lawyer and got a restraining order. By the time we're let in on why he's so persistent we've cringed out way to premature wrinkles. Credit where it's due, however -- Jean Simmons was a fine lady. She is so far above this dreck it's alarming.

I felt embarrassed for all involved.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheaper to keep her
bkoganbing24 January 2015
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ridiculously unrealistic
trudyr_199917 February 2009
This movie is extremely dated and was undoubtedly unrealistic upon release, no matter how hip the filmmakers thought they were being. Husbands impoverished by alimony and child support while their ex-wives live in the lap of luxury? Please. Post-divorce, women were (and are) the ones most likely to have financial struggles, due to the continuing inequities in society, but they have also proved themselves much less dependent than the women in this movie, going to heroic heights in trying to support themselves and their children. Of course, this movie never acknowledges that maybe a divorced woman could get a job! Actually, for all its melodrama (which is enjoyable in itself), 1945's Mildred Pierce is more realistic in this regard--after Mildred and her husband split up, she goes to work as a waitress and then (you go, girl!) opens her own restaurant. At least filmmakers Lear and Yorkin dealt more intelligently with social issues a few years later in All in the Family. This movie does have an excellent cast, down to the supporting players, but they deserve better. Sitcom great Dick Van Dyke never had much luck with movies, and Jean Simmons, a wonderful actress, made few films that were worthy of her talents. Debbie Reynolds and Jason Robards, happily, were in many better movies.
6 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absurd plot, good portrayal of the legal system
m-leschack15 June 2010
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.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Divorce American Style is Not that Funny **1/2
edwagreen20 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The film fails because it could have easily been made into a drama with some twists.

Dick Van Dyke has some actual dramatic moments as Richard, a non-college graduate whose promotion has put a strain on a 17 year marriage to Debbie Reynolds. Ditto for the Reynolds character as well.

Their marriage actually falters because of their friends, attorneys and marriage counselor, all of whom literally drive them to divorce.

The film does take on some comical tones when it is shown that alimony is so high that an ex-husband, nicely played by Jason Robards, tries to marry off his wife so that he can be rid of that money responsibility.

The film is all-too predictable. You know that some sort of reconciliation will be reached by Van Dyke and Reynolds just before their one year divorce decree becomes final.

Van Johnson appears as a bachelor caught up in Robards'scheme to marry off his ex-wife Jean Simmons.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Seventeen Year Itch
wes-connors19 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Bickering married twosome Dick Van Dyke (as Richard Harmon) and Debbie Reynolds (as Barbara Harmon) decide to take the plunge - and head for Divorce Court. But, like they say, "In America the ring costs two dollars to put on, and a fortune to take off!" Due to high alimony payments, Mr. Van Dyke finds it difficult to make ends meet. Acquaintance Jason Robards (as Nelson Downes) is likewise strapped for cash; so, he decides to help lonely ex-wife Jean Simmons (as Nancy Downes) walk Van Dyke back to the alter. To free up additional alimony money, Reynolds is paired up with Van Johnson (as Al Yearling).

The landscape of this Yorkin/Lear satire is excellent. However, it's always evident the characters played by Van Dyke and Reynolds really love each other. Sure, "marriages don't break up, they unravel," but the marriage in question is never shown unraveling. And, it really isn't ever threatened by infidelity, either. The "Pat Collins, Hypnotist" ending is mind-bogglingly stupid, and predictable. Otherwise, the cast performs exceptionally well. Although flawed, the production, with its wonderful cast and crew, is too good to thumb down.

****** Divorce American Style (6/21/67) Bud Yorkin, Norman Lear ~ Dick Van Dyke, Debbie Reynolds, Jean Simmons, Jason Robards
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
weird movie with a few excellent moments
dailyshampoo4811 June 2016
the comedy of this film falls entirely flat (hurr durr divorce edgy hurr) there are a few moments which make this worth the watch. van dyke of sitcom fame plays rob petrie, corrupted, and seems terribly comfortable in the role. debbie reynolds is interesting in her own way, as the slightly daffy housewife. jason robards, jean simmons and van johnson are also very entertaining and darkly funny in their respective roles. as a character study it's great, as pseudo-experimental 60s film with nifty camera tricks, it's a failure. all of which makes you wonder if they had put all these great actors in a room with one another, with a script, a rolling camera and no direction, there might have been a happier result.

I enjoyed watching the various characters, especially the men, walk a moral tightrope of sorts; curiously, van dyke's character seems to maintain an air of decency despite it all. i wondered briefly if it were purposeful that the problems the characters identified in their marriage weren't the true ones after all; debbie on one hand seemed to have entirely unrealistic expectations about human behavior, while her husband seemed somewhat unimaginative and even intellectually stunted. "women need to stop crossing the lines between the sexes," what??

seems to work best when it lets the story tell itself; otherwise unbearably clever, with a touch of hubris even.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprising Different Tone of Divorce
DKosty12325 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews