A TIME FOR GIVING
US, 1969, 108 minutes, Colour.
David Jansen, Kim Darby, Peter Deuell.
Directed by George Schaeffer.
A Time for Giving is based on a successful Broadway play called "Generation". It concerns a young couple who opt out of wealthy American society to live together quietly and without money in Greenwich Village. The action takes place when Doris is about to give birth and rich, typical U.S. businessman Dad, arrives on the scene horrified at the couple's way of life. Of course Dad does not come off too well, but all is not completely on the side of the couple, either. They all have to make concessions, at least in understanding each other.
The film should be better than it is. It is marred by a certain staginess, but more by having too many corny humour situations (farce rather than comedy) when, as a matter of fact, it has much delightful comedy and many wise and humorous lines. David Janssen shows quite a flair for comedy and Kim Darby does well in the role of the daughter. An unpretentious minor film which, although no world-shaker, is full of wise comment on the behaviour of the generations today.
1. The title of this film in the U.S. (and of the play on which it is based) is Generation. Generation suggests giving birth and the generations of parents and children. How does 'generation', in these two senses, open up discussion of the film's themes?
2. The themes of the film are fairly serious in themselves, but the film uses comedy as a way of getting them across. How effective is comedy as a way of communicating themes to an audience?
3. How typical do you think the principal characters are?
4. Is the film slanted against the older generation? U.S. bourgeois rich father with hang-ups versus Greenwich Village, nice poor dropouts; the capitalist business executive and the needy photographer.
5. What attitude towards marriage does the film take? The couple marry for the child's sake? love is important, there is no meaning in the form (look at the civil ceremony and its speed). Is it worth marrying for the child's sake? What of the contrast with the father's marriage?
6. Why did the couple drop out or rebel; note the father image they dislike.
7. Contrast the father's and husband's attitudes towards the baby's delivery. Dad thinks money can do all, he thinks conventionally about doctors and deliveries; tricks the young couple. Husband and concern for exercises, photos and being aware of the reality of the birth.
8. The point of the end of the film is that each person has to make concessions. Do you agree? Dad is forced to co-operate and judge that all he dislikes is not bad; the couple have to learn that some system is necessary and they can't be absolutely independent. Are these realistic lessons? Why?
9. Although some of the situations are stock humour, there is considerable wise humour in the dialogue; how adequate a moral judgment on the themes of the film is it to say that it is better to accept life as we find it and then try to build up rather than merely deplore?
