Ted Kramer's wife leaves him, allowing for a lost bond to be rediscovered between Ted and his son, Billy. But a heated custody battle ensues over the divorced couple's son, deepening the wounds left by the separation.
Ted Kramer is a career man for whom his work comes before his family. His wife Joanna cannot take this anymore, so she decides to leave him. Ted is now faced with the tasks of housekeeping and taking care of himself and their young son Billy. When he has learned to adjust his life to these new responsibilities, Joanna resurfaces and wants Billy back. Ted, however, refuses to give him up, so they go to court to fight for the custody of their son.Written by
Leon Wolters <wolters@strw.LeidenUniv.nl>
Ted is talking to his son after the first hearing to determine custody, and in so doing is speaking as if he grew up in the 1920's. Presumably, given Ted's age and the age when he was his son's (Billy) age, in the 1950's, Ted tells billy they didn't have television, Burger King or McDonalds, or diet soda, which is all false. Diet Rite Soda came out in the 1950's, the first McDonalds was in 1938 and they were prolific by the 1950's, Most affluent families had television in the 1950's and the first Burger King was in 1954. "Mostly we just listened to the radio," Ted tells Billy, which is more akin to living in the 1920's, so Ted's exaggerations are flagrant. See more »
After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had kids of their own was making itself felt.
"Kramer vs. Kramer" is one of the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now, because it's known as the film that beat "Apocalypse Now" for the 1979 Best Picture Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them both? Director/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply bad at being married.
The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs.
54 of 62 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this