I WILL... I WILL... FOR NOW

US, 1976, 108 minutes, Colour.
Elliott Gould, Diane Keaton, Paul Sorvino, Victoria Principal.
Directed by Norman Panama.

A good way of confronting inhibition areas is the light touch of comedy. The American tradition is the tough-edged sentimental approach, veering towards frankness, but all within a framework of the basic permanence of marriage. This is the mid-70s version, clever at times, relishing the farcical, though not as witty and sharp as Bob and Carol... Elliot Gould has a casual ease with these comedies and Diane Keaton, after her Woody Allen films, is an expert, charming and vigorous comedienne. Reflecting the current permissive ness, the film has an old-fashioned flavour. It pokes fun at Masters and Johnson type clinics without satirising as much as it might. American adult comedy.

1. Comment on the American tradition of marital comedies, sex comedies. The varying styles over the decades? How does this marital comedy reflect the morals and attitudes of the 70s? Style, issues? How does it question the traditions, reinforce the traditions?

2. Was the film a successful comedy? The tone of the title and its irony? A light look at marriage, love, sexuality and inhibitions? The appropriateness of the light touch? The basic insight into marriage and love? The tone of the theme song, the humour and irony of the Tolstoy quotation?

3. What picture of modern American marriage did the film give? The status for divorce and its reasons? The hero and the heroine and the reason for their marriage, ten years of success, failure? The reasons on the part of each for the failure? The presentation of couples living together but no marriage? The reasons for this, the benefits, the limitations. the frustrations? A type of freedom? The presentation of the contract? The humour and irony of the contract ceremony? Its influence on the hero and heroine?

4. The presentation of the modern American woman, the ordinary American woman? Her ability to cope. inability? Her need for marriage, need for relationships, sexuality? Independence and dependence? The humorous presentation of the character, the tangles of her emotional and marital life?

5. The picture of the modern American man? The businessman, with wealth, chasing women? The adolescent man? His needs and longings? The humorous presentation of these?

6. How well did the film rely on humour for its communication about the hero and heroine? For example, the humour of the hero's ricked back, the sex manual etc.?

7. The details of the presentation of married life according to the contract? The establishing of the contract, its clauses, compromise and concessions, in practice, work, days off, arguments etc.? The possibility of give and take? The possibilities of love within the contract? The contrast with the couple and the prospect of their baby. the lapse of the contract within a gear?

8. The importance of the lawyer? His skill in various games, beating the hero, yet subduing himself? The best friend and lover? His love? The red gown? His singing? His being present at the contract and the pain for him? His manipulation of the California showdown? The importance of the showdown with the hero, the mock violence? The reason for his losing the final game of poker?

9. The presentation of the interest in sexuality and clinics in America? Masters and Johnson and their reputation? The sex clinics and California? The serious side, the interviews and therapy? The humorous side and the broad farce? Mistaken identities in rooms? The visual presentation of the rooms? The service, the games nothing unnatural etc.?

10. How attractive a character was Jackie? The humour of the sex symbol? Her contrast with the wife? Her charm? The story of her husband and divorce?

11. The humour and the personal implications of the mix-ups at the clinic? The humour of the visual presentation of the doctor-patient game and the way it was played?

12. The insight for both couples? The possibility of reconciliation? On what basis?

13. The strengths and weaknesses of comedy for modern audiences learning something about themselves and their attitudes to marriage, love, sexuality?