Peter22060

I find the performances of Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin terrific. I think the criticism of the acting is a misunderstanding of possible real life circumstances. Sam Waterston's character is probably what you might expect from someone married thirty five years, and in the same relationship for twenty years... my dull life continues. Martin Sheen seems to make his character more "Birdcage" and is not quite as enthusiastic as I would expect in view of "the odd couples'" engagement.

I loved Lily Tomlin's beach scene. It reminded me of a scene from the movie CONNIE AND CARLA. The two women will carry this show. Their performances in NINE TO FIVE have given them the cooperative experience to make this show work.

For an audience which contain millennial, their heads and sexuality views are expecting too much from characters that are in their seventies.

I don't know any senior same sex marrieds, but I would assume they have the same lives as many bored "traditional" couples.

I will admit that if the men cast were Spencer Tracy and Cary Grant, and the women cast were Kathryn Hepburn and Lucille Ball, everyone would be screaming, Bravo, Encore (and not the television networks).

A truly delightful and enlightening experience. Fran Lebowitz guides the viewer through her experience with a multitude of famous, and now deceased, great artists. Although Fran is 14 years my junior, she has grasped the essence of America. A scene with Pack Paar and Oscar Levant is gracefully mixed with sound bites from William Buckley, Jr and the fine playwrights of the last century. I felt a great deal of empathy for her when she discussed what turned out to be a big guffaw at an outdoor rally organized by Joe Papp. Arts oriented persons should feel perfectly at home listening to her monologue. Whether I watch the History Channel, PBS or HBO, seldom is there as entertaining a story as this. This is a solid recommendation for anyone who wants an in depth personal account of the arts.

SHAWFAN has the issue correct. The problem is that he does not have a full sense of history. This movie was made in 1951, and there was constant pressure on the motion picture industry to tone down hints of "radicalism".

Joan Crawford's attack on the right wing trustee for forsaking the education of these college age students with "entertaining" motion pictures; prevents the message of the film she has brought to campus.

Simply, without images, the result of letting the National Socialists destroy education in Germany from 1933-1945, resulted in hanging and executions of the teachers.

The trustee in question expressed that buildings were more important than a good education.

Yes, there are those gooey moments. They are not there because the film story has a need for it, but rather that the various "approval" boards would have forced the filmmakers to put it in to water down the content.

Robert Young's role proves that he is just a weak person. Not the person to stand up for what is right. Even his mealy mouth response to the film being shown AND THE STUDENT'S APPROVAL over everyone's objections prove that.

BUT, run this film with two others, THIS LAND IS MINE (1943) and PEOPLE WILL TALK (1951). Then the message of what the film is about comes through like a bell.

IN OUR DEMOCRACY EDUCATORS MUST BE BACKED. When cities, states and even your congress-persons yell, CUT EDUCATION SPENDING, these are just three films with which you can relate.

peter22060 PS Truth through learning, and a focus on history, should make these three movies text material.