Flashback: Kramer vs Kramer

Kramer vs Kramer is one of those dozens upon dozens of films I sought out because of the Oscar attached to their name. I’m always looking to get edified on the tenets of good cinema, even though I can now admit that Oscar does not always equal good cinema. Kramer vs Kramer is as simple as family dramas. Joanna Kramer is unhappy in her marriage and rashly leaves her husband and six year old son. Over time Ted forges a strong relationship when Joana returns looking for custody of the child. When I reviewed the small town duo of Rebel Without a Cause and Picnic I noted that both films were deeply rooted in the zeitgeist. I figure that with the changing parental norms of the seventies Kramer vs Kramer was just as zeitgeist in its way, and in theory I suppose Ted's accomplishment is important for the time. The thing is it’s mostly all lost on me, and the rest of the time I don't really care.

I have a minor resentment of the generic family dramas after years of being forced to endure Lifetime with my mother and though Kramer vs Kramer is not overly generic it’s a film whose blandness leaves me slightly bored. The fact that it essentially swept the Oscars always fascinates me because its appeal often eludes me. The first half of the film tries to tread that line of vague poignancy. I know that Dustin Hoffman’s failed attempts at French toast have become an important moment in cinematic history and his bonding with Justin Henry (the youngest competitive Oscar nominee) is sweet in its way. The thing is one hour of mundane existence between a father and son leading into a courtroom battle that seems excessively contrived isn’t particularly riveting. I’ll put forth that Kramer vs Kramer’s principal issue is that in trying to be a film about the mundane it becomes mundane because it approaches its subject not like a Merchant Ivory production on life in the period era or a Woody Allen quasi-comedy, Kramer vs Kramer wants to be methodical and in becoming methodical it loses the spontaneity of real life and becomes bland – including the ending that seems intent on surprising us with its sincerity.It doesn't strike a resonating chord with me.

It’s unfortunate that Dustin Hoffman won two Oscars for less than interesting performances (though this is nowhere as abhorrent as Rain Man). It’s not so much that’s he subpar here, he’s just uninteresting. Streep is hit with a thankless, borderline ridiculous at times, role and she makes the best of it. Truthfully, though, it’s Jane Alexander’s well intended neighbour who comes off the best of the main cast. She’s the only character who seems to exist as a real person and not as pawns in whatever social commentary Benton (and Avery) are trying to make. Am I being unduly harsh on Kramer vs Kramer? Perhaps, it’s easy to forgive it its faults because it’s so unassuming – but that’s a double standard. Sometimes I wonder if an awful film with soul is better than a fair film with no imagination. Kramer vs Kramer falls in the latter grouping, naturally.

             
Was Kramer vs Kramer worthy of giving Meryl and Dustin their first Oscars?