Two for the Seesaw

This is a film of a play, and it looks it. With a couple of exceptions, all of the dialogue is between the two characters played by Robert Mitchum and Shirley MacLaine. To be honest, Mitchum seems badly miscast here. I don't think he was the best choice for a lonely, insecure and lost bachelor in New York City; Mitchum begging for help from a woman who appears to be half his age? To me, it doesn't work. MacLaine surprised me, however, with some very fine acting, much better than I have ever seen her before; she was quite stunning when she was young. And she even does a bit of dancing in this movie.

I am a big Robert Mitchum fan, but he is too old, and the physical mismatch with MacLaine is too distracting.

The sets are static; the action, such as it is, rarely leaves the two protagonists' apartments. There is an interesting application of split screen; M & M are speaking on the phone to each other from their separate apartments. The left half of the shot is MacLaine's home, the right Mitchum's. The two apartments are very distinct in furnishing and style. Suddenly, the camera pans right, to focus on Mitchum, and you realize that it is one set, cleverly made up to look like a standard split screen; that is, it is arranged exactly as if it were on a stage, the left side one apartment, the right the other. Very clever! Another interesting note: during the opening credits, Mitchum is seen to be walking around various parts of Manhattan, apparently all in one day; he states shortly thereafter that he spends his days and nights tramping the streets endlessly. In order, he first appears in the Bowery, feeding pigeons in front of St. Mark's Church, then downtown in front of the landmark Woolworth Building, then in midtown, on what may be 42nd Stret, and finally in front and in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He sure got around in one day!

I am not a big fan of movies made to look like plays, but this is beautifully and cleverly photographed. It may be worth a look.

Recently got a chance to see this movie and thought the performances by Robert Mitchum and Shirley MacLaine were great. Especially like the part that Shirley MacLaine played. I am not to used to seeing Robert Mitchum in roles like this but thought he did well. He plays a man going through a divorce who meets a younger woman played by Shirley Maclaine. Having both different life experiences they somehow try to make their new relationship work. I gave this film an 8 out 10 and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was this good. Read in another post that at the time of this films release critics didn't think that Mitchum's role was believable enough because of perhaps the age difference. I had no problem with buying into this story and the actors that portrayed the characters. Good Movie!

Shirley MacLaine (with an unconvincing New York accent that wavers constantly) plays a free-spirited beatnik who falls for a soon-to-be divorced attorney who's just moved to the big city to find himself. The film feels about a half hour too long and the pacing slugs along like molasses pouring out of a jar. MacLaine's character also suffers from terrible ulcers which leads to some seriously overdone melodrama towards the end of the film where she's acting like she's about to die of consumption. It makes everything cheesy. At least the ending is fairly realistic and not what one would expect from a film from the 60s.

Maybe the play was better?

Two for the Seesaw is very heavy. It's one of those movies you watch once, appreciate the acting, and never want to see again.

Robert Mitchum is getting a divorce, and in 1962, that's not a common occurrence. He picks up a loose dancer at a party, and in their mutual loneliness, they become really close really fast. Behind the scenes, Robert Mitchum and his leading lady Shirley MacLaine had an affair, and you can see the hurt and romance smoldering off the screen. Both actors do a fantastic job and handle a depressing script with realism rather than melodrama. Maybe it's because I knew they'd had an affair, but when they argued in the film, I almost felt embarrassed watching it, like I was intruding on a private argument. It's very powerful.

However, it's a downer. It was based off a play, which is usually a clue that it's going to be depressing, and it absolutely is. Back in 1962, it wasn't common to make a movie about the highs and lows of one couple's relationship, as it is now. So, if you watch it, try not to compare it to its contemporaries and appreciate it on its own. Also, make sure you're in the right mood; if you're just coming out of a breakup, wait a while before renting it.

The frustrating loop-de-loops of an uncertain love relationship between a Greenwich Village kook-dancer and a Midwestern suit-and-tie lawyer on the verge of divorcing his wife of 12 years. Though highly entertaining, this light-drama obviously derives from a play, as the lines of dialogue have not been reworked for the screen. It gets awfully pedantic at times; for instance, we know the characters' names, they know their names, so why do they keep saying to each other, "Jerry?", "Yes, Gittel?" "I'm sorry, Jerry." "I know, Gittel." The performances by Shirley MacLaine and Robert Mitchum are excellent (we like them even before their self-doubting, insecure characters take shape), but this stage-vehicle hasn't been turned into a star-vehicle. The leads banter back and forth in a curiously under-populated vacuum, however their increasingly tense conversations contain the startling ring of truth. Ted McCord's black-and-white cinematography provides a terrific compensation for the film's minor weaknesses; André Previn's "Apartment"-like score is rapturous as well. *** from ****