Blume in Love (1973) Online

Paul Mazursky gave us three fine films: Blume in Love, Harry & Tonto and Moscow On the Hudson, and a host of lesser works that we can still enjoy. I can't think of many American directors of the last half-century with a record like his. Blume In Love is obviously influenced by Truffaut's Jules and Jim, but is funnier, faster and not indebted to literary models as Truffaut's film was.

The triangle of Blume, Nina and Elmo works so well because of Kris Kristofferson's easy charm and rock star charisma. The story would have foundered on Blume's obsessiveness and Nina's Puritan desire to do good ("I haven't done much for the farmworkers, but I boycott the supermarkets") had Elmo not been around to keep things light. The story he tells of the bust in Franklin, Tenn. is wonderfully funny, although a little scary, and the trio's singing Chester the Goat is a delight.

I became a George Segal fan when I first saw this movie, and I can't help but lament the lack of intelligence and depth in today's actors when I see what he does with this difficult character. Marsha Mason is his equal in talent, playing Arlene, Blume's vulnerable lover who knows her days are numbered. The smaller roles are ably filled, particularly Shelley Winters as the woman whose husband left her.

George Segal (on a roll at this period in his career) gives his usual solid, likable performance as a Beverly Hills divorce lawyer who soon finds himself divorced as well--from working-girl Susan Anspach; he quickly tries winning her back, despite the fact she has taken up with a hippie musician (Kris Kristofferson). Paul Mazursky wrote and directed this quirky comedy-drama about love and heartbreak, and he only strikes some sour notes in the last portion of the plot (which is saddled with an ending that just doesn't take off). Otherwise, a well-cast, well-written picture for grown-ups, a hidden gem. Bruce Surtees' cinematography is very expressive, supporting performances by Kristofferson and Marsha Mason are first-rate. Worth finding! *** from ****

I have never forgotten the scene where Susan Anspach glides gracefully across the screen towards George Segal to the accompaniment of Wagner's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde. The glorious climax of the music was timed to coincide with the exact moment of their meeting and was, for me, the highlight of the film. Three thumbs up to whomever decided on it's use!

This was a fairly ground breaking movie when it came out first. I saw it in the theatre and we talked about it for days afterwards, especially the character of Nina Blume, here played by Susan Anspach. She was complex, feminist, independent and strong and also very likable. That is what I remember, that and the closing scene in Venice with Tristan Und Isolde played by the orchestra and the camera panning upwards, leaving all the conversations taking place in the piazza still ringing in our ears until the last freeze frame. **Warning***Spoiler*** However, and it is a big however, the rape scene, watched anew is sickening and repulsive and had me disliking Steven Blume, played by Gerge Segal, intensely. This does not bode well for the remaining quarter of the movie which demands that I applaud his compulsive obsessive efforts to woo his ex-wife back into his life. I am surprised none of the other reviewers addressed this truly nasty scene on which so much hinges thereafter. ****spoiler over**** Kris Kristofferson gives one of his standard hazy pot-filled performances, all charmy, twinkly eyed and gravelly voiced. So charmy in fact that Steven Blume along with Nina falls for him too. Marsha Mason gives a multi-layered characterization, whatever happened to her, I believe she married Neil Simon, the playwright. A fine performance. Susan steals the show, her beauty at times is breathtaking. One scene has Steven looking at her across a room and she is ethereal, all blonde curly hair and soulful eyes. 7 out of 10, short on plot, long on talent.

i disagree with those who were so put off by the rape scene that they cannot give the movie a positive review. remember this movie was made over 30 years ago at the height of the sexual revolution (i'm not excusing it). mazursky is a very interesting and unique writer/director who is responsible for some really excellent films, to wit: moscow on the hudson, down and out in beverly hills, an unfinished woman and next stop greenwich village. to me this movie has it all, great music, excellent acting and one of the funniest scenes i have ever seen in a movie when george segal, as a divorce attorney tries to calm his client, shelly winters. you'll enjoy it, trust me. p.s. the key word in some of those other reviews is "self-indulgent."

I have enjoyed Paul Mazursky's direction on a few occasions, notably in Harry and Tonto. I like his work in Blume in Love as well, but am close to being disgusted with the repulsive ending. George Segal plays Blume, an obnoxious ex-husband of Susan Anspach. He has an overactive libido that gets him in trouble in this film in more ways than one. He spends the majority of the movie pining over the loss of his wife while comprehending why he can't perform sexually the way he wants to. The end of the story really got my goat (and yes, there is another goat in this picture I won't comment on here). Rape is no laughing matter, committed by anyone no matter what the situation. This film made light of the whole occurrence, and made Kris Kristofferson (Anspach's live-in boyfriend) look like a putz. To top it all off, the film ends happily, with the wrong people (immorally) getting back together. I would have been more content if the film stayed on its obsessive keel, maybe even if it went into a screwball comedy. Unfortunately, it traverses into absurdity and non-sensical behavior. I enjoyed the first half of this, had a bit of a titter or two, but was most displeased in Blume in Love's finish. Rating: Two stars.

Blume in Love is honestly one of Paul Mazursky's best films. George Segal is fantastic as the charismatic, yet deeply pathetic protagonist Stephen Blume and Kris Kristofferson bounces off of him enjoyably in one of his early film roles. The script creates an engrossing, believable portrait of romantic relationships in the 1970s, while also having several laugh-out-loud moments. Additionally, Mazursky makes great use out of both Los Angeles and Venice, Italy as locations. Dramatically effective and boasting several memorable characters, Blume in Love is in the same league as An Unmarried Woman and is a a must-see for Mazursky fans.

I have to admit right off the bat I have no fondness for Paul Mazursky's films. I remember reading, somewhere, that he was a West Coast Woody Allen. If that is true, then he is Woody Allen without humor, or more importantly, without soul. This film follows George Segal (whom I've always liked) through his marriage, divorce and re-attachment with Susan Anspach. There is nothing innately offensive in this film. In fact, it strikes me as though it should be stuck in a time capsule of 70's film-making. And kept there. This is one of those films where you can't exactly pinpoint what is wrong with it but simply leaves you unsatisfied, unless you are a 70's film historian, I suppose. There is no connection with Blume, unless you are of his milieu. While (being NJ bound) I have affection for LA and the 70s, this film struck me as ingrown, meant for cognoscenti. A smart "ha-ha" that shows no outreach. And little comedy.

This is not as smug as "An Unmarried Woman" But at the end of 1:55, you will have shrugged your shoulders and gone "huh?" Maybe it was potent in 1973. But today, that just means its dated.

"Blume In Love" (1973) begins in Venice, Italy as Blume (George Segal) talks about how this most romantic place changes the way couples think of sex and love while they are visiting. As the movie pushes along Blume talks about his divorce from his ex-wife Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) and his regret from having an extra-marital affair. We also see images of Nina and Blume's honeymoon to Venice. But now Blume is back in Venice on his own after Nina had asked him to leave for a couple of weeks so she could work things out. The rest of the movie contains flashbacks of before and after the divorce.

I have seen one other film by Paul Mazursky [Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)], which was a film that dealt with two couples experimenting in sexual freedom. "Blume In Love" is about a divorce-lawyer named Blume (Segal) who suffers from impotence and despair after he is divorced from his beloved Nina (Anspach). He "can not live without her" he exclaims, and "would rather die if he can't have her back." And dying is something Blume doesn't want, so he has to win her back. He eventually wins her back in an ending that is either ambivalent to the viewer, joyous or they are repulsed by it as was the reviewer before me. It was a very romantic and happy ending, but it was far from realistic

"Blume In Love" is a well-directed film by writer and director Paul Mazursky. The performances by Susan Anspach, George Segal and Kris Kristofferson as Elmo are all wonderful. Kris Kristofferson's Elmo is a very likeable character. His easy-going, laid back "Nothin' To It" look on life is a sharp contrast to the emotional conflict between Nina and Blume. Elmo is a traveling musician who moves in with Nina after she divorces Blume. He enjoys playing his music and having a good time. Blume ends up liking him too, and uses him as a reason to come and visit Nina to win her back.

In the end this was a story about a man desperately trying to win his ex-wife back. He will do everything possible to do so. Along the way we follow him through his despair and sometimes we laugh at it and sometimes we cry.

Directed and written by Paul Mazursky. (Mazursky himself plays Segal's law partner.)

***************WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************

Made in the seventies by director Paul Masursky with George Segal Kris Kristofferson, Susan Anspach and Shelley Winters. I first saw this on ex-rental video and was surprised that it was (and still is), a good film. I'm not a big Masursky fan but he was modish for a period and his work rose to prominence with the romantic comedy Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, which I have never seen because it was considered too risqué for children. (Definitely showing my age here, folks).

As a follow-up, 'Blume in Love' is another thoughtful and funny meditation about relationships, seen from the point of view of Segal (as Blume) trying to win back his ex-wife who has left him and made a life of her own that, unfortunately, no longer includes him. Blume's wife has shacked up with a musician and dropped out of the middle class rat race. Since he is a lawyer, Blume believes that his wife is being unfair by comparing his uptight lifestyle with that of her boyfriend. As a result, he takes action of a drastic nature which only serves to alienate his wife even further.

Blume appears to be a loser in love and Segal gives us a sympathetic portrayal of a romantic who is confused, but lovable. His wife may not love him but the audience is meant to. There are some amusing situations and interesting observations about the 70's singles scenes when women were supposedly liberated. That did not mean however, that they were necessarily happy. There is an excellent dream sequence later on in the film, shot outdoors in Venice as Segal imagines that he has successfully retrieved his wife from the hands of the hippie wastrel Elmo (as played by Kris Kristofferson). The sequence is set against a backdrop of classical music and a lot of flying birds in a beautiful looking Venetian square densely populated with many Italian people sipping on their cappuccinos. It serves to illustrate the Hollywood belief (or is it cliché?) of the eternal nature of romantic love and Blume's foolish hopefulness that his wife will reject Elmo and return to him.

Susan Anspach plays Blume's ex-wife, (she was also Woody Allen's ex-wife in Play it Again, Sam) and Shelley Winters has a single scene as a client of Segal's (if I haven't already mentioned Blume is surprise! a divorce lawyer) which is quite funny but seems irrelevant to what is going on in the rest of the movie. Maybe its meant to illustrate how neurotic divorced women are supposed to be, who knows?

'Blume in Love' is the type of film that will leave cynics to protest about how warm and fuzzy it makes them feel while the rest of us will have no reason to complain. 'Blume in Love' is delightfully wry and observant and I hope this review reveals my fondness for it

Many years ago this poignant film found its way onto several Top 100 films of all time...how times have changed! BTW Gunga Din has fallen off these lists as well...sad but true. Paul M. is considered to be one of America's finest filmmakers so be careful criticizing him...(try writing a romantic comedy and you'll see what I mean).

Plot (or what there is of it)—Husband Blume is divorced by wife Nina after she catches him philandering. Trouble is he still loves her and spends the rest of the time trying to get her back. So how is true love distinguished from true obsession.

Critic Leonard Maltin calls the movie "self-indulgent" and he's right. It's like writer-director Mazurski has gone off on his own personal tangent and made a movie of it. Segal does manage a role in low-key style that could have easily gone over the top. Too bad there's no hint of his very real comedic skills, which I somehow kept expecting. Also, he may get more close-ups than my favorite puppy. As Nina, Anspach has a different look with her long thin face and cloud of platinum hair. Hers is the more interesting character as she struggles with middle-class conventions like marriage. But what's with Shelley Winters' tacked on role as a grieving divorcée. Perhaps Mazurski was reminding casting directors what an inimitable presence she is.

Arguably, the film's best parts are those reflecting political (the farm workers) and youth culture (the "swingers" meeting place) of the early 1970's. It seems Nina is groping for a life outside the conventional but is emotionally stuck halfway. Anyway, her character is the more interesting of the two. At the same time, Elmo (Kristofferson) appears more like a rootless hippie, while Nina connects with that unconventional side. Even Blume seems attracted when a kind of unconventional threesome forms.

Nonetheless, such deeper themes remain conjectural, while the movie itself over-stretches into a barely entertaining two hours that a graphic rape scene doesn't help. All in all, Mazurski's screenplay may be based on a personal experience that somehow got carried away.

I don't really feel like writing this up, but I'll spend a few moments doing just that. Mazursky can be one of the most painfully self-indulgent filmmakers of the last 30 years, though admittedly I love a few of his films (especially HARRY AND TONTO). But more of his films are chores to get through, and pretentious ones at that. BLUME IN LOVE comes nowhere near the tedium that marks ALEX IN WONDERLAND as one of the worst studio films of the '70s, but it's still pretty lousy. Yeah, George Segal is great, and Kris Kristofferson and Susan Anspach hold up well...and actually Marsha Mason is pretty impressive, but, well, that's about it. The story is flimsy, the screenplay is mediocre...there's just not too much going on.

Thematically, the film is rich and it's interesting to see that Stanley Kubrick featured it in EYES WIDE SHUT (look close - Alice is watching it on television while she talks to Bill on the phone), especially considering the slight similarities between the protagonists of the two films...but who knows if Kubrick featured it for this reason or because he knew Mazursky from way back when (Paul appears in Stanley's first film, FEAR AND DESIRE).

BLUME IN LOVE could've been great, but Mazursky...well, it's another one of his "almost-good" films...I really think the majority of his work fails from half-assed screenplays and poor pre-planning (how else can you account for the aforementioned ALEX IN WONDERLAND)? And, oh yeah, there's that little matter of his phony art film sensibility. Stop trying so hard, Paul, you really don't need to include Fellini and Jeanne Moreau in your films (ALEX...) to show us you're above the Hollywood bulls**t. Frankly, sometimes a little Hollywood bulls**t (like a story) can work wonders.

I really liked this movie but then I enjoy many of the romantic comedies from the late 1960's and early 1970's that sort of explore relationships and challenge sexual and social mores. This is one of those but very easy to watch and enjoy, until a particular scene that is. And I'm not sure I'd watch it again.

I especially enjoyed watch Kris Kristofferson play Elmo Cole, Nina's adorable love interest following her divorce from Blume. Blume attempts to triangulate himself with Elmo to gain access to his ex wife, a super gross move that is very real life and kind of scary, too.

For the viewer it's satisfying to see the triangulation because Kristofferson is just gorgeous and adorable as Cole, but it's also a bit ominous the way Cole is being used; I'm not sure viewers who haven't been through that personally would recognize it- I don't think Blume is so smitten by Cole in an innocent way; he's using him for access to Nina.

Maybe it's good that this wasn't just a "light-hearted" look at a couple post divorce; it transcends much other similar fare in that way. . .

Throughout the movie we may see Blume as lovelorn, remorseful, etc. we may see Elmo as just a cute guy who doesn't take anything too seriously, and see Nina as a woman whose independence is budding, until one scene which picks up on the ickyness of Blume's forced triangulation and reveals to the viewer, yeah; it's just not that Elmo Cole is so likable; Blume really is that controlling and predatory.

Following that scene we can see Elmo is more than just a pretty face and that he really loved and cared for Nina.

Don't want to give too much away, but I'd have preferred a different ending. I think this film successfully relays that: women's movement or not, women still don't really have power over our own lives in the way men do.

If you're a woman who has been abused or stalked by an ex lover, which really isn't "funny" at all, you may not find this to your liking- not that it focuses so much on that, but it's just a lot of the film is Blume trying to regain access to Nina through Cole and there is a point where it goes from light-hearted to something more dark.