LOVERS AND OTHER STRANGERS
US, 1970,104 minutes, Colour.
Gig Young, Michael Brandon, Bonnie Bedelia, Beatrice Arthur, Richard Castellano, Anne Jackson, Cloris Leachman, Harry Guardino, Diane Keaton.
Directed by Cy Howard.
Lovers and Other Strangers is based on a play which must have been a contemporary attempt to write an American comedy of manners and romantic farce in the French manner. On the whole it succeeds. Dialogue is quite funny, witty, but relies more on American modulations and ethnic mannerisms than epigrammatic turns of phrase. It deftly uses caricature and exaggeration to create character and farcical situations. The setting of the film is a wedding and its preparations. It takes place over a period of about thirty-six hours, the day before and the wedding day. The film starts on the institution of marriage in our society, the values, the nature of love and happiness, the formalism, the hypocrisies. Six couples, who represent various aspects of love and break-up are shown reacting to the wedding.
The acting is all very good and situations are shown without moralising. The episodes are just left with the audience. Richard Castellano was nominated for Best Actor for his supporting role as the Italian father. The danger is that audiences would take it seriously and be offended, but for those interested in marriage and its various species, it is worth seeing and laughing at.
1. What are the implications of the title of the film?
2. Some critics considered this film as anti-marriage and pro-sex. Is this adequate judgement on the film? Why?
3. Did the film reflect modern situations accurately?
4. Is it accurate to call the film an exaggerated comedy of manners or a farce?
5. How were characters overdrawn to make points - consider the dialogue, especially that of the Italian parents and of Susan's father as well as the bookish Brenda and the sensual Jerry?
6. Did the film teach any lessons? Did it come to any conclusions?
7. Did you approve of Mike and Susan's 'trial' marriage? Did you think they were marrying for the right reasons - were there too many pressures? What was the point of the honeymoon before the ceremony? How much success would you give the marriage and what was the final scene supposed to indicate?
8. Why had Richie and Joan's marriage failed? Were they too young and inexperienced when they married? Were their arguments in pointing to other couples valid? Was there any chance of a reconciliation?
9. Was Mike's parents' marriage a success? Enough that they were content?
10. Why was Susan's parents' marriage a failure? Why was Susan's father having an affair? How did his conversations show him as a phoney avoiding responsibilities and decisions?
11. What did we learn about marriage from Wilma and Johnny? What conventional sides of America were satirised? Were they happy, content despite everything?
12. What was the point of Brenda and Jerry's encounter? Why was it so funny? What attitudes were being satirised? How did they end up?
13. We were shown six couples and a range of love and liaisons from seductions to suburban marriage: was this a fair cross-section? Was the film too satirical or did it offer humour and hope about marriage?
