Time was, 35 years ago, when I rated this as my third-favorite movie of all time. I'd watched it a total of three times, thought Hoffman's performance was the greatest, and much later bought a Beta copy of it. Of course, in '79 I'd seen very, very few movies then; I'd be familiarized with the historical classics in a film class several months later.I watched that Beta tape once, and never felt a need to see it again. And it's rather astonishing how far down this critically hailed film's reputation has gone. For its time, it marked the emergence of a new male image: the non-macho man of the 80s who feels free to display some normally female traits, like sensitivity and shopping and seeing his child to and from school safely. As well as trials and tribulations of single parenthood. Well, that redefinition of masculinity almost immediately went out the window with the election of a new president. Testosterone and T-bone steaks still reigned supreme, and the epithet "wimp" came back stronger than ever.I still remember my second viewing of this movie, just shortly out of the theaters and available to the 16-millimeter student cinema groups at universities everywhere. The audience was booing and hissing Streep's character when she came back to claim hers and Hoffman's child, and particularly during the climactic courtroom scene. They saw her as the heavy who just up and abandoned her family. Not that I found this especially revolting, but this viewing experience was unanticipated.I saw it again just two weeks ago with my folks; my father tuned it in about a quarter of the way into the film. It still flowed beautifully right through to the end, and it seemed an utterly magnificent three-fourth's of a movie. I'd love to watch it again, complete of course; just not right now.

Kramer vs. Kramer begins with the picking up of the ashes of an eight year marriage. We are left trying to assemble the broken pieces of the Kramer household in the period where we would be conventionally just being introduced and warming up to the characters. So it is a mystery, in a sense, working backwards - clues are laid out in front of us and we must try to decipher them and answer the question of why Joanna Kramer might want to walk out on her husband, but more importantly, her seven year old son. For a moment there is the suggestion that there may be a disability in play, but soon we realise that he is just another clumsy seven year old who wants ice cream instead of dinner. What Benton does here is use Joanna's absence as actual narrative. The wide swathes of the motherhood experience missing from the household tell us all that we need to know about her previous role. Billy is well-drilled; he knows exactly what brand of cereal and detergent is the best, has memorised where all the kitchen utensils are, and from rubbing of his mother's shoulders seems to be the better cook too. Ted knows none of this. He doesn't even know what grade his son is in. These early sequences of him struggling to reconcile his new duties as a father and handling a major account at his work are the easy, sentimental stuff that must inevitably occur when we are dealing with stories of parenthood. Yes, Billy may be a little brat at times, but he is also only seven, and Ted must re-learn this again and again. Until they are finally bonding, and must bide their time before it is ripped away from them. It is not so hard to get through this familiar material because Hoffman is such a natural at the role - the moment where he sees Billy wobbly take off on his bicycle and his face creases up the widest smile you have ever seen is so believable and such a relief because we too have been taken on this journey and we know the baggage that lies heavy in his heart. The early, chaotic french toast breakfast is later masterfully contrasted with another breakfast; again it is french toast, and this time they have mastered the routine, but there is a deafening silence because of what is to come, and they are trying to enjoy every last moment of it, but also trying to pretend like it isn't coming. Many have labelled this a court-room drama. I think this is the wrong tag. It comes with the assumptions that the dialogue comes thick and fast and there are pre-determined moments where we gasp and the lawyers strike dramatic poses and swap steely gazes. This is nothing as flashy and surface-level. The lawyers themselves are still snappy and ruthless. Joanna's in particular has completely rid himself of any heart and narrowed his sights on not only getting Billy back but also destroying all constructs that Ted's fatherhood might have erected. He repeatedly cuts off Margaret because he is not interested in the backstory but only getting his conviction soundbites that paint a much different story than what is really happening. No, the meat of the story is here, but it is not within the court system and the way it strips down everything to nothing but cold, hard facts and twists their intentions cruelly. As each side pleads their case both Joanna and Ted begin to realise that their battle is a fruitless one if Billy is to suffer for it, and start to turn back on their own arguments. The clear cuts and divides in the law are revealed to be not adequately equipped to handle such delicate and emotionally jumbled issues. If this wanted to fill seats it would have had young Billy himself take the stand and somehow magically see things clearer than the adults and repair the broken marriage. But he is only seven. Rarely can a film be so impartial. It asks nothing of its characters but complete honesty. Are their egos worth ripping apart the life of their young son? In the end, they make the right decision.

Kramer vs. Kramer is one of these films, though I would argue that it's not aptly named, since they're not really at each other's throats the whole time, and when they are (which isn't ever as vicious as some of today's court cases), it's only during the third act of the film.The film starts off by introducing all of the principal characters. The mother, Joanna (Meryl Streep) is putting her child (Justin Henry) to bed, and Ted (Dustin Hoffman) is having a late-night talk with a co-worker. By the time he gets home, Joanna says she's leaving him and the plot is set up. What follows is a long series of scenes which show how Ted has to adjust to being a single parent, and culminates in a courtroom battle as Joanna, after a long period, fights for custody of her son. What I feel like the film does well is not paint everything as black or white. Ted isn't portrayed as a wholly perfect father, yet Joanna isn't portrayed as a villain. I will say, however, that not as much screen time is allotted to Meryl Streep so that her character's motivations come off as a bit selfish at first. Still, the meat of the story is in how her decision to leave affects her husband and child, and there was certainly a lot to process. This is a touching film that broke ground in its day and is still poignant today, the unrealistic portions not with standing.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

"Mommy stayed here longer than she wanted because she loves you so much. And the reason why Mommy couldn't stay anymore... was because she couldn't stand me. She didn't leave because of you. She left because of me."Robert Benton's third feature film, Kramer vs. Kramer, still stands out as his best. This 1979 family drama which explores interpersonal relationships and the effect divorce has on the family, remains very relevant in today's society. It is one of those rare classics that has managed to age very well due to its universal theme. In order for an authentic drama like this to work you need a strong script and believable actors. Kramer vs. Kramer has both, Robert Benson did an amazing job with the screenplay adaptation of Avery Corman's novel and the dialogue in the film feels authentic while avoiding any false notes. And of course you couldn't have had anyone better than Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep to play the divorced couple. Hoffman was already at the height of his career, while Streep was just getting started proving she's always been an out of this world actress. Both actors won their first Academy Awards for this film, and it wouldn't be their last. But in a film like this no matter how good the adult characters are, you need to have a child who can win over the sympathy of the audience and engage them emotionally. Benton made a huge gamble when he hired inexperienced Justin Henry for the role, but it payed off marvelously. At only 8 years old Henry was nominated for his supporting role. The scenes he shares with Hoffman are endearing and the relationship between the two is the center of the film. It was the subtle moments that the two shared together that stuck with me the most, like the scene where the kid challenges his father's authority by eating the ice cream. These were improvised scenes, but they added to the authenticity of the film. That relationship between both of them is key, as we witness the transition and evolution of Hoffman's character.The film opens with a shot of Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) packing her clothes in a suitcase while she waits for her husband, Ted (Dustin Hoffman) to return home from work so that she can break the news to him that she is leaving him. Apparently she has been unhappy for quite some time now and she wants to discover who she is. Despite being heartbroken about having to abandon her young son, Billy (Justin Henry), she is convinced she has to go. Ted, who hasn't the slightest clue about housekeeping, must now learn to manage his work while taking care of his son. During the early scenes we see what an inexperienced father he is, he can't prepare breakfast for Billy without burning everything. But as the movie progresses we begin to see the transformation that Ted goes through and what a caring father he becomes. His career does begin to suffer and he begins struggling to keep his job, but he has learned to put his son's life before his own. With the help of his friendly neighbor, Margaret (Jane Alexander), he becomes an expert at parenting, but that is around the time that Joanna returns back to the city and tells Ted she wants to take her son with him. A court battle for their son's custody ensues as neither parent refuses to live without their son. The film builds a great father and son dynamic during most of its runtime and that is what makes the courtroom drama so compelling near the end because the stakes have been settled. I don't think this film would've won the Oscar for Best Picture if it weren't for those intense scenes during the trial. The testimony each parent gives is compelling and the performances in those scenes were superb, but I actually enjoyed the quieter and more subtle moments in this film. The scenes were Hoffman is sharing some time at the park with his son or simply reading a story to him. Those were the moments that made this film ring true and authentic. I think that the film could've ended on a stronger note if it decided to have ended some five minutes before it actually did because it ties things up too neatly at the end. The final kitchen scene would've been the perfect moment to end it, but I won't complain too much because the film is compelling and the performances had me engaged from the very opening scene. Kramer vs. Kramer still resonates with audiences today and it is a great example of how to make a compelling family drama about the effect that divorce has on the family. I enjoyed every minute of it. http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/