Making Love (1982)

8/10

arturus24 August 2005

I saw this in its first limited release, in New York City with a group of gay friends, in February of 1982, on a Saturday night. The picture had been out for about a week, and everyone, I thought, knew what it was about. We saw it in a major East Side theater, the only one where it was being shown as I remember.

Well, I was mistaken about the "informed" audience! This mixed, supposedly knowledgeable New York audience nearly rioted at the first on-screen kiss, discreetly photographed, in a darkened, shadowy corner of a room, in a long shot! The gays (including my group) were cheering and applauding, the older, presumably straight folks were screaming things like "How revolting!" and "Oh, my God!" as they bolted from the theater. This only increased at the second kiss, in close-up, a few moments later. I was never more astonished in my life!

I just saw this again, after a long time. Dated though it is, I still felt the message was clear: be true to yourself. The final ironic shot says it all.

17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

An Enjoyable Romantic Drama

harry-7613 March 1999

"Making Love" is an engrossing and well acted romantic drama on a mature subject. Its characters and situations are easily understood, and one feels for their marital problems and their steps toward solutions. An unusually good looking cast has been assembled, and all play their parts convincingly. The musical score and photography give the film a somewhat slick and glossy look, but the production is a very good one, thanks to a quite mature script and subject matter. For all its slickness, "Making Love" is a film one tends to remember.

21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Underrated Landmark Film

glennh6917 October 2005

When released 24 years ago, critics dismissed this as a "mawkish soaper" and it was shunned at the box office due to its "controversial" subject matter. In reality, it is a well scripted, well acted, and more than competently directed film. Quite the opposite of a melodrama, Jackson, Ontkean, and Hamlin turn in subtle and richly textured performances. The screenplay is equally satisfying: tugging at your heartstrings without being overly sentimental or maudlin.

Ontkean is "Zack" Elliott, a handsome young physician who has spent his life thus far as a compassionate and dedicated doctor, husband, and son. In all of his commitment to "do the right thing" he has been suppressing the fact that he is indeed gay. Because of his stalwart ethics, he comes to the realization that he can no longer deceive his devoted wife. Ontkean shines as a man who is overcome with internal turmoil, yet through the love for his wife, is determined to do what is best for her (more so than even himself).

The precepts of self-sacrifice, honesty, and integrity in the Ontkean and Jackson characters is much of the appeal of the story. Jackson is convincing as Claire Elliott, the wife who, despite her initial feelings of anger and betrayal, experiences acceptance, understanding, and ultimately, unconditional love. An especially touching moment comes in the final scene when, despite her best efforts to be super human, she subtly reveals her sense of loss after a brief reunion with Zack.

Hamlin is Bart, the openly gay, randy, self-involved West Hollywood habitué and Zack's first same-sex encounter. Through narration and in his intimate dialog with Zack, he, too, exposes his humanity, need for acceptance, and sense of loss at the foregone opportunity of a serious relationship with Zack. This is a surprisingly underrated landmark film in that it serves as a rare bridge between the pre-80's depiction of gay men as mincing, self-loathing social misfits and the heavy-handed political correctness of the marginalized "queer cinema" to follow. In contrast to today's movies, there is a near absence of trendy fashions, catch-phrases, soundtrack, and banal preachy social conceits of the moment. That's what sets this apart as an enduring film.

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A totally under-rated ground-breaking film

bradley-matchett11 April 2004

I remember hearing about this film long before it came out. Living in a small eastern Ontario town in Canada in 1982 (a town with an army base no less) I thought that as much as I wanted to, my chances of seeing this film were pretty slim unless I could somehow make it to a big city. Finally, I lucked out and the film did come to our town as part of a double-bill along with Neil Simon's "I Ought To Be In Pictures". I remember watching as this movie (the second feature) started, and silence descended upon the entire theatre. You could have heard a pin drop. As the movie progressed and we got to the scene where Zack and Bart lovingly kiss for the first time there was pandemonium in the theatre. It seemed like half the audience got up. People were yelling abusive epithets at the screen and storming out of the theatre in droves. As a young man on the brink of committing suicide because of feelings I didn't understand and had no relation to -- this movie saved my life. For the first time in my life, after watching this film, I could identify with someone else, and I knew there were other people like me in this world. I thought then, and I think now, twenty-two years later, that all the people involved with this film took tremendous chances and showed great courage in seeing to it this movie was made.

Say what you will about the soap opera type plot, and making the movie more palatable for mainstream tastes, the fact remains that this was in its time a ground-breaking film. I know many other people who have been profoundly touched by this film. Several years ago I ran a group for gay men in various stages of coming out. One night I showed them my own personal copy of this film. Nearly all who were viewing it for the first time were still totally mesmerized and awed by the courage shown by all involved with this film, particularly Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean. Both of these actors were already popular established actors at the time this film was made, and both of them took tremendous risks with their careers by taking these parts. For a movie to actually show two men in a loving relationship, and to actually show two men kiss each other on the lips was amazingly brave. As was pointed out elsewhere on this board Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas would not even kiss in the 'critically acclaimed' "Philadelphia", and that was many years later. Kate Jackson was fresh off "Charlie's Angels" when she took the part of Claire. Kate did a wonderful job in this film, and held her own against two powerful actors. Her powerful speech to her husband after he comes out to her gave many women the words to say to their husbands.

All of these years later I don't think there is a finer 'coming out' film than "Making Love"!

101 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Way ahead of its time

scottsteaux4 March 2002

MAKING LOVE was dismissed as a rather routine melodrama despite its "controversial" subject. This is a pity, for this film is years ahead of its time in the frank and non-judgmental approach it takes to same-sex love. The on-screen kiss between Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin was in some ways the "shot heard round the world;" although not sexually explicit, this movie has clear and frank lovemaking scenes between the two men. This has yet to be duplicated in a mainstream Hollywood film; eleven years after MAKING LOVE, Hollywood gave us PHILADELPHIA, a "groundbreaking" film in which the lovers don't even kiss! This is progress?

Unappreciated in its time, MAKING LOVE has held up surprisingly well. Yes, it is a rather routine romance; except for the gender-switch, there isn't much here that is new or unusual. Yet, oddly, this is exactly what makes this film so appealing. Homosexuality is not seen as a problem except where it coincidentally creates one; the love triangle is handled in almost exactly the same way it would be if the husband had an affair with a woman. The stars are attractive and sympathetic and all give extremely appealing and deeply felt performances. If you saw it in 1982, it's worth a second (even third) look. If you've never seen it, it's a treat.

49 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

History will be kinder to this film, I think

Figaro1415 May 2006

From a purely sociological viewpoint, this is a very important motion picture and should not be so lightly dismissed.

I remember vividly when this film first came out. Audiences were either thoroughly disgusted by the subject matter or simply ambivalent. I sat in a movie theater during this film, and when the part where the two men kiss came on the screen, people stormed out of the theater demanding their money back.

One of the most laughable (and saddest) aspects of the release was that Paramount had to put a HUGE RED WARNING MESSAGE on the screen before the film started to caution audiences about the subject matter.

I re-watched the film the other night and its interesting to see that this film was 25 years ahead of Brokeback Mountain and in many respects has far fewer gay stereotypes in it than Brokeback does. (No one dies or wishes they were dead and no one kills anyone because they are gay.) It's a deeply satisfying love drama much the same as The Way We Were.

I have a tremendous respect for Barry Sandler who wrote the screenplay. In another time and place, this film would have succeeded. The film is an important part of film history for several reasons. It was the very first mainstream Hollywood film to deal openly with Gay subject matter in a positive way. It proved that male actors in Hollywood could play gay roles. (However neither of the male leads careers were ever the same again because of the film. Harry Hamlin couldn't get work for five years and Michael Ontkean career as a leading man came to a screeching halt. ) In the new DVD release of the print, Paramount has removed the original warning message since the film is quite tame by today's standards. However I think it should have stayed there as a reminder to us all of how narrow minded and prejudice our American society can really be.

Watch this back to back with Brokeback Mountain and you'll see how groundbreaking this film really was. In 1982 critics and audiences jeered at this film and now in 2006 critics and audiences are praising Brokeback Mountain.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A gay classic

preppy-321 December 2004

A happily married doctor (Michael Ontkean) realizes he has sexual feelings about men. One day he meets openly gay Bart (Harry Hamlin) and falls in love. Meanwhile his wife Claire (Kate Jackson) can't understand why her husband is suddenly so cold and distant.

I saw this twice in a theatre back in 1982. I was a 20 year old closeted gay man seriously considering suicide. Basically this film saved my life. It portrayed gay men as sympathetic people--not victims or psychopaths or comic relief as other films did before this.

This was a groundbreaker for Hollywood and, at first, did very well at the box office. And, unlike other posters, I never had any audience walk-outs when I saw it. I saw it at a theatre in Boston and there was dead silence throughout--and applause at the end. Then business fell off when word got out that this was boring. In some way it is--they go out of their way to please everybody--gays and straights. The film lacks an edge that could have made it stronger BUT (in 1982) Hollywood was very timid about this subject--this probably went as far as studio executives would allow it.

Credit goes to Hamlin and Ontkean for playing gay characters (very rare in those days) and sharing a long passionate kiss together. Also they both gave good performances--especially Hamlin. The real surprise was Kate Jackson--she was INCREDIBLE in her role. When her husband comes out to her, her reaction is utterly believable and actually had me crying (the first time I saw it).

It's kind of sad that people still think this is gay propaganda (as one poster here does). It's just a compelling drama about a man coming to grips with his sexual orientation.

Seen today the movie may seem dated and WAY too timid, but this was the first major Hollywood film to deal realistically with gay men. That makes it a gay classic. I give it a 10.

79 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

AN INNOVATIVE LGBT MOVIE. HARRY HAMLIN (GREAT CASTING)

raymarsh-5108410 May 2019

I like this movie a lot. Not only is it well scripted, directed, and cast, but it is also a milestone in LGBT cinematic history. I remember when I was a teen and it was on television one Friday night. My mother sped to the TV set and turned it off. "You are not watching that," she stated angrily to me and my siblings. Since then I have watched it twice. If I had a gay son I would actually sit him down and ask him to watch it. Recommended.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Ahead of it's time

ML3681 January 1999

This is a beautiful story that was years ahead of its time. It deals with a young doctor who realizes that he is gay and the consequences it has on his marriage and his life. As the lead character begins to explore his new sexual identity, he gets involved with a commitment phobic writer and the movie explores issues of commitment, love, infidelity, rejection. But most importantly the movie shows the importance of being true to oneself. It is an extremely gay positive film and the filmmakers are not afraid to explore the depths of the characters struggle. All characters are portrayed honestly and realistically and the viewer is never given the feeling that the filmmakers are trying so hard to get the approval of the straight audience as in "Philadelphia". It is simply an honest and accurate portrayal of one man coming to terms with being gay. All performances are top notch and the ending so bittersweet that one cannot help but shed tears. A wonderful coming out story that i know had a profound impact on many gay men.

54 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Lots of dramatic revelations, but no insight, and no spirit...

moonspinner5528 August 2005

Good actors try hard getting this one out of the closet: conflicted doctor, apparently happy in his career and marriage, finds he's attracted to other men. Everyone going to the theater to see this in 1982 knew what the picture was about--so why when the two men kissed on-screen did people gasp and murmur to each other in shock? Just one of the many mind-stumpers in the subject of cinema! Too bad the screenwriter and director pussyfoot around so much, there's little time left for love-making. There are the standard introductions, the revelations, and then the aftermath (prettied-up); there's practically no real sense of discovery in the closeted doctor's new lifestyle (we even meet one of his tricks via the wife's visit without EVER SEEING the two men out together). It's much too prim and cautious, a coffee table movie about homosexuality. Director Arthur Hiller must have been afraid of offending someone--there's very little carnal desire here, and that's primarily what the movie is about. It may as well have been written by Barbara Cartland. **1/2 from ****

6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Kate's Moment Of Glory

robertconnor17 January 2006

On the surface Zack and Claire seem to have it all - good marriage, great friendship, successful careers, mutual ambitions... yet unknown to Claire, Zack has long been repressing his homosexuality, and a chance encounter with Bart leads to an unravelling of lives.

The US was not ready for a mainstream film about homosexuality in 1982, and despite being helmed by Love Story's Arthur Hiller, the movie was universally slated. In 2006 we have Brokeback Mountain taking the international movie scene by storm, so is Making Love ripe for reappraisal? First the casting choices... rumours abound about then A-list stars turning the film down fearing negative impact on their careers (Goldie Hawn? Michael Douglas? Harrison Ford?). Certainly this may have lead to the casting of Jackson, Ontkean and Hamlin, all familiar faces but not exactly big stars in 1982. As Zack Ontkean appears to struggle with his role, and as a result loses sympathy. Hamlin's Bart fares better, but it is Jackson who is the revelation here. As Claire she convinces as a woman confronted with a situation she can hardly believe and is powerless to alter - her reaction to Zack's confession is top-notch. Hiller's direction is a little lacking in imagination, although having Claire and Bart talk direct to camera, as if to a therapist, is unusual and gives Hamlin and Jackson further opportunities to shine. Despite the fact that Making Love caused such a fuss in 1982, when examined in 2006 it comes across as anodyne, even bland. However, although many critics bemoaned the cosy 'happy' ending, they actually missed the real point. Yes it looks like Zack and Claire have found happiness with new partners, but keep on eye on Jackson's face as Ontkean drives away. Fox is releasing this on DVD in the US in 2006. Fingers crossed it'll follow up as a Region 2 release!

5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

It Broke the Mold

twanurit12 June 2001

The picture frequently gets a bad rap for being soap-opera-ish, timid, too white, too pat, etc. It remains a groundbreaker, for up to that time (1982), gays were either comedic relief, self-pitying ("Boys In the Band" - 1970), psycho-killers, or victims (includes "Philadelphia" - 1993). Released by a major studio (Fox), the film features characters who have some inner turmoil (the married doctor yearns for male affection in a carefree writer), but are NOT any of the above, which is refreshing and unheard of in 1982. Director Arthur Hiller (the supporting cast includes Arthur HILL and Wendy HILLER), elicits superb performances from Michael Ontkean, Kate Jackson, and Harry Hamlin, backed by Leonard Rosenman's pretty score, including the title track, this is a captivating, touching drama with no violent, tragic, degrading ending. How many times has one see that depicted in a gay-themed motion picture?

39 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

smart dramatization of gay issues

jim-31415 May 2008

The critical drubbing this movie received on its release is justified only in part. True, this is a blatant soap opera; and in places the dialogue goes from hokey to ham-fisted. But this movie also does many things better than some more prestigious projects. For one thing, instead of just declaring its characters "in love" it shows them finding love in a shared focus: sharing books, making music together. Because they enjoy so much in common, it's easy to see how the confused doctor and his wife could have a successful marriage of several years. The gay guys don't just have sex; they play together. They race each other in the swimming pool, they play arcade games. The movie addresses a number of issues related to being gay in the 70s which are still issues today, and addresses them in ways that are smarter than the movie generally gets credit for. These include the doctor's conflict between his sexual attraction to men, and his genuine love for his wife, in a world without models for navigating these conflicts. This is the rare movie that acknowledges the existence of gay men married (often successfully) to women. It shows the struggle of a respected professional man discovering and admitting his homosexuality in a time when the costs of doing so were very high. Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin deserve credit for "playing gay" when that was riskier for an actor than now (especially as Hamlin was being marketed as a piece of macho beefcake). Their suggestions of intimacy are more convincing than the pictures of gay intimacy in other Hollywood products (e.g., the stilted interactions of "Phildelphia"). And the gay guys get to live on about as happily as their straight counterparts; they don't die, they're not punished, they're not revealed as psychopaths. Ontkean is charming, but Hamlin and Kate Jackson turn in subtle, affecting performances. There's a remarkable cameo by a fellow named Asher Brauner, who plays one of the doctor's one-night-stands. Finally, the script isn't entirely as bad as some have made out. Hamlin has a beautiful monologue about the ways in which his childhood experience of being rejected as a little league player made him understand the loneliness he would face as a gay man. There's much in this movie that a gay man of a certain age can relate to, and much to enjoy despite the script's soap opera shortcomings.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

NOT ahead of its time

miriamwebster16 November 2008

While this movie evidently struck an important chord with many viewers who apparently saw it an impressionable point in their lives, in no way is it the ground-breaking achievement a lot of people now perceive it to be.

More than ten years earlier, in 1971, the same sort of material was tackled in Sunday Bloody Sunday (starring Glenda Jackson and Peter Finch, both nominated for Oscars) with a far more realistic treatment of a gay-themed love triangle.

In fact, two similar made-for-TV movies (yes, TV!) hit the small screen years before with stories of husbands and wives who realized they were gay--1972's movie That Certain Summer (w/ Hal Holbrook and Martin Sheen) and 1978's A Question of Love (w/ Gena Rowlands and Jane Alexander). Again, both of these acclaimed TV films were far more convincing than Making Love, which was widely dismissed by most reviewers as a glossy soap opera--and whose cast primarily was comprised of TV show recruits with not much to lose.

Whatever else you think of this movie, hard to claim this day- late/dollar-short soaper was ahead of its time when an Oscar-nominated movie and two Emmy-nominated TV movies beat it to the punch by years.

7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

groundbreaking - ahead of its time

gzaglin24 April 2001

Saw this movie in 1982, and remember the gasps of the audience before half the theater left.

Saw it again 4/24/2001 on Fox Movie, and was amazed at how relevent this movie still is, and how it anticpated the sensitivity which we now take for granted in the portrayal of homoerotic themes.

My hats off to Barry Sandler and Arthur Hill for doing this way before it's time, and to Michael Otkean and Harry Hamlin for a willingness to take on the roles of two gay men way before the American public was ready to see it.

42 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

OF its time

RoseAndTheDoctor31 August 2003

I don't understand the number of reviews that refer to this movie as being "ahead of its time." The time was clearly right for this movie. By 1980 the gay and lesbian community had finally become fed up with movies portrayal of homosexuals as either the predatory lesbian or the flamboyant faggot who best case ended up alone and bitter at the end of the movie or worst case ended up dead. When scripts for "Cruising" and "Windows" were leaked to the gay and lesbian community (with their depiction of gay men and lesbians as the underbelly of society, stalkers, and murders) there were attempts to disrupt location shoots and when the movies opened there were protests and boycotts (with posters saying "Stop Cruising" and "Close Windows"). I have to believe that this sent some sort of message to the studios, because two years later, 1982, "Making Love" was released (along with "Personal Best").

Though I don't believe this movie was ahead of its time, I do believe it to be groundbreaking. Prior to 1982 positive depictions of gay men and lesbians in film were either rare, covert, or nonexistent. 1980's "Happy Birthday, Gemini" was a positive (though not really well done) coming out comedy, but completely devoid of any even remotely sexual physical contact. What made "Making Love" (and "Personal Best") unique was not just that that they dealt with gay/lesbian subject matter in a more positive way, but that the characters actually had sex. After decades of heterosexual sex being portrayed as everything from curtains blowing in the wind to anal sex with butter in "Last Tango in Paris," this was the first time homosexuality in mainstream film was anything more than theoretical (though sex between Ontkean and Hamlin was portrayed more as a rolling around wrestling match than as the title "making love").

This film is flawed, it is soap opera like and melodramatic, and the documentary style talking to the camera scenes don't really work. But, there is no denying that it is a big step forward from the films of just two years before. It is a step that got us to the point where there now are characters in film who just happen to be gay and lesbian, because in society there are people who happen to be gay and lesbian. Even though it might not be a great film, it is an important film.

A few final comments about the actors. First, I never understood the common wisdom that "playing gay" would kill a career. If "Clash of the Titans" didn't kill Harry Hamlin's career nothing could. Second, I've always been disappointed in Kate Jackson's career. She became a TV star in an era where the crossover from TV to movies was difficult. Then she was unable to do "Kramer" because of "Charlie's Angles" obligations. Then she did this movie and her performance was ignored because it's not the sort of film that the Academy is going to recognize (and ironically she would have been up against Streep had she been nominated). I wish her better things than another "Satan's School for Girls" sequel.

37 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Take into account the time of origin

Waedliman12 July 2022

It is hard to imagine today what a scandal this film caused 40 years ago. And when you look at some of the efforts, especially in religious and conservative regions of the U. S., it's like turning back the clocks. In many parts of the world, people are now further along and can show this film to children and discuss with them that there is absolutely nothing wrong if Dad suddenly discovers that he does love someone else, in this case a man. But in the motherland of Hollywood, on the other hand, this is probably far from being the case. Contrary to many films with similar themes, everything turns out well here. Although Making Love sometimes seems like a filmed play, is very dialogue-heavy and not always of outstanding linguistic quality, but ultimately this film is still a positive example of how unagitatedly you can stage something that occupies more people than some would like.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Loved this Movie

cmitchell6731 August 2006

This was the most impressive movie I had ever seen in my lifetime. As a young teenager, I fell in love with a gay man. I did not know he was gay until later (4yrs) into our 'fun' relationship. After all was said and done, I will still love him till I die. I eventually married a straight man. When I was divorced, we still hung around together all the time. He would tell me time and time again that he loved me and that I will always be his best friend, but it wouldn't be fair to marry me. Of course, still being naive' I couldn't really understand. When I was in my twenties, this movie came out. He called and said, "get your pants on, we're going to the movies!" I agreed. We got into the theater and he said, "You need to really pay attention to this movie. This is why I did not, will never and can not every marry you. I love you way too much to hurt you in this way. It wouldn't be fair to either of us. Well, I swallowed every word and every action in that movie and when it was over, I cried. I cried like a baby. I now knew all of it. I knew what he was struggling with in front of me (and his parents, siblings and classmates) all the time. I figured out he wasn't teasing me when he'd tell me that some guy had a nice backside. He was for real. I am so happy he took me to see Making Love. Well, he has since passed away and there is not a day that goes by that I don't think of him. I still love him for who he was and I always will. Excellent movie!

10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Making Progress

hughman552 June 2010

The one good thing you can say about this film is that it has a good heart. It's honest and well intentioned. It was groundbreaking in 1981 in that it was released from a major movie studio, 20th Century Fox, and portrayed gay characters and homosexuality in a positive light, something that had not been done up to that point. I don't believe it did very well at the box office then, and off the top of my head I can't recall if another major movie studio backed another film with a gay central character in a positive light.

Michael Ontkean gives a sincere and effective performance as a young doctor coming to terms with his conflicting reality. He loves his wife deeply but is no longer able to deny that he is gay. He is believable and sympathetic even as he navigates his way through what is unfortunately a horrible script. Harry Hamlin and Kate Jackson meet with considerably less success. Hamlin seemed to be calculating every dramatic point with a wink to the 1980's audience that telegraphed, "I don't really like playing this part but I need some career visibility". There was a lot of speculation at the time about how doing these roles might affect the leading men's careers. I took this as hedging, by Hamlin, against jeopardizing future roles because playing gay was not the crown jewel then that it is today. So it was a little frustrating to see Michael Ontkean giving his heart and soul to his character when his co-star was essentially a piece of wood. I think Ontkean's career did suffer from doing this role. He is an excellent actor and it's a shame we didn't see his career launched from this role. Instead it was sort of stunted.

The script is very bad and some of the dialog is wince worthy. The score was lifted straight from an elevator. It really is sappy. But somehow, because of it's genuinely good heart, and a fine performance from Michael Ontkean, by the close of the movie your eyes are misty. As the movie ends there is a tinge of sadness, but also a sense that all is OK. Roberta Flak singing "Making Love" over the credits is the perfect final touch. In spite it's many flaws "Making Love" is worth seeing. I can revisit this movie and not be at all sorry because the story (not the script), and Michael Ontkean, pull me through with their honesty and sincerity.

12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Not really a good movie, but "groundbreaking" nonetheless

bilahn25 January 2006

With all the current hoopla about Brokeback Mountain, most people forget about this film that came out almost 25 years ago. While a pretty mediocre movie full of clichés and maudlin sentimentality, you have to give it credit for trying to make an important statement,and having its heart in the right place.

The romance between the two leads is far more explicit than in Brokeback: (romance, as opposed to any sex). The kissing is hot! I remember seeing it and people screamed at the first kiss. I hear there were near-riots in some cities. Hmm - is it that much better today, would they even make such a movie outside of the "art house" circuit. Apparently, it severely damaged Harry Hamlin's career. After this movie, Hollywood treaded much more lightly, and Brokeback is the first movie to come close to being this daring, although, as I comment in my review of that far superior movie, it is still somewhat watered down for acceptability.

A very interesting oddity from the past worth seeing, even if not a top notch movie.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Out on DVD

brunodutch8 March 2006

Warning: Spoilers

I saw this movie for the first time last night and have been reading the comments here with some interest. Having read in the past that it was nothing more than a soap opera, to my great surprise I found the movie to be subtle and very stylish with fine performances and production values. It seems to me that the recent movie it is most like is Far From Heaven in that the writer and director of Making Love uses the same narrative strategy - recreating the Hollywood romance - but adds twists that illuminate what was not spoken of in the genre before. In Making Love (the title speaking to the difference between sex and love) we see the characters watch An Affair to Remember and there are other movie quotes of that genre. Claire and Zack share a somewhat improbable passion for Gilbert and Sullivan and have been befriended by an elderly woman (the great Wendy Hiller) who had loved a poet killed in WW1 who was a friend of Rupert Brooks, another poet killed in that war. So the theme of physical love being separate from emotional love and devotion is set up. This is the life that Zack refuses to accept either for Claire or himself in the scene in which he renounces their marriage, declaring that she must have a marriage in all senses of the word just as he must. Although they break up, in the final scene we see that Claire has settled for a good marriage, but one which lacks the heady excitement of her time with Zack. By naming her child 'Rupert' she, in effect, makes him be Zack's, the child they always wanted together. And Zack, too, has to settle for a good man, although not the man he first loved.

So it's an elegant and nuanced structure, given the sleek gloss that declares it to be quite frankly 'a movie'. It's an intelligent strategy in that it shields what might be a less than sympathetic audience from having to deal with anything too threatening. We've all read comments by those self-consciously straight posters who must insist on sharing how 'grossed out' they were. Stories of soldiers all but rioting at screenings of the movie. Such babyish acting out is still sadly very much with us. Indeed, it almost seems to be a sport for straight men - competing to see who can be most grossed out.

Other points of interest seeing this movie now: The gay bar. The men are quite ordinary looking. Compare this to the relentless 'hotness' of all the men seen in movie representations of gay bars now.

Of course the big difference is that AIDS is nowhere in sight. Though the epidemic may have been under way it's nowhere visible in the movie.

Michael Ontkean is very believable and his dilemma is treated seriously. And more sympathetically than the same dilemma in Far From Heaven.

Of course, having straight men play the parts distances the actors from the sex but again, the director deals with this by abstracting the sex into movie terms. It's no more or less real than watching Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr.

How grown-up it seems. In some respects it is a more adult take than the current movie romance, Brokeback Mountain. It may be less frank about the mechanics of sex but it allows the characters to grow and achieve a realistic, adult life. Not perhaps having it all (though they do get have great apartments and clothes. but that's part of the style) but having something worthwhile and treating their regrets as an inevitable part of life. The final shot - very Douglas Sirk - of Claire returning to her domestic life while Zack takes a different fork in the road, sums up the movie's point of view with great elegance and wit.

So watch it. It's fascinating to see how far we've come and how much we've retreated. Compared to the dishonest posturings of Philadelphia this movie really has something to say and says it very well. Directed with enormous skill the performances are first-rate and Kate Jackson is more than that. It's a performance that should have led to a big movie career.

10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

A rather bland affair

limau1 April 2006

So it's inevitable that comparison with Brokeback Mountain will be made, how this is a groundbreaking film that preceded Brokeback by more than 20 years. But really, this ain't no Brokeback Mountain and there is simply no comparison. For one thing, the film is badly acted, if people ever thought that Harry Hamlin's career was damaged by playing gay in this film, they'd be mistaken. His career was more probably damaged because this film showed how limited an actor he was. Performances by Michael Ontkean and Kate Jackson weren't really any better - the anguish that they must have felt simply weren't conveyed effectively apart form one single moment at their breakup scene.

Despite the subject matter, the film is for the most part quite insipid and really rather dull. It never really raises itself above the level of an average TV movie and has the feel of one too. The direction and execution of the film are somewhat lack lustre, and the script is pedestrian apart from a few scenes. There are a few light touches that work reasonably well, but they can't rescue the film from being a rather second-rate effort. I have no doubt that this film was ground-breaking in its days and that the actors were brave to become involved in this film, I just wish that the result had been much better.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Somethings need to be said.

wtcouncil1 May 2004

I believe that given this film was made in 1982, in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, it IS groundbreaking.

For me, it was the film that helped a struggling 10 grader come to terms with his sexuality. Therefore, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to know what it is like to admit to yourself that you are in denial and being self-deceiving. It follows a man's journey through self-discovery and the unfortunate damage that this type of discovery can bring to a family, friends, and other loved ones, when the reality is finally admitted. Anyone who cannot see this for what it is may need to do some self-discovery work of his or her own to ascertain what is living just below the surface that is presented to the public.

Although the plot and story are a bit simplistic by today's standards, in its day it was revolutionary: a former TV star (Kate Jackson), up-and-coming hunkies star (Harry Hamlin), and the gorgeous guy next door type (Michael Ontkean). Even the sex scene between the men was too much for many in that time.

Al in all, I would say that it is not as bad as many have commented and it is not a tour-de-force of acting either. Just good, old-fashioned melodrama, American-style.

28 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Excellent Movie For The Time

rwduke30 July 2003

This movie was the first "gay themed" movie I had ever seen back in the 80's. I couldn't quit watching it. Being raised in a small conservative town, I was relieved to see a movie that struck a chord with me.

In response to another reviewer, just because a movie has a gay theme that makes it propaganda? So does that mean every other movie I had seen up to that point was hetero propaganda? Jeez, right-wingers never cease to amaze me.

Anyway, it was a very good movie. The fact that the main character was married and announced that he was "gay" seems to have confused the straight community that watched this. It does not mean that he had a bad relationship with a woman so he "turned gay" as a result. That is ludicrous. He had buried his true feelings to fit into a prejudiced and discriminating society. He could just no longer deny who he really was and decided that hiding was not worth it to be accepted by society. That is the message of this movie.

I love this movie and return to it often. I hope it will be released on DVD sometime in the future.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

"If It Feels Good, Do It"

bkoganbing20 November 2008

Before Ennis and Jack discovered their true sexual selves on Brokeback Mountain, Making Love opened up a lot of eyes in presenting the gay male culture right before the beginning of the AIDs plague. We learned that gay males indeed come in all shapes and sizes and libidos.

I have to say I really identified with Michael Ontkean's character here, more than with the two in Brokeback Mountain. Stripped of the cowboy mythology, Ennis and Jack are a pair of blue collar working stiffs who live in that part of society. It's just that a film about a pair of gay plumbers wouldn't have really done all that well.

Ontkean's character had my middle class upbringing. He's a doctor, happily married to the beautiful Kate Jackson and they are happy. But Mike's got those feelings that society has told him are wrong. If you're suppressing them, I'm here to tell you that just like in the film, sooner or later they surface and explode under any kind of stress.

He strikes up an acquaintance with one of his new patients, writer Harry Hamlin, after making a few false starts into the gay world. That was roughly paralleling my experience, I wanted the first to be special, especially since my best youthful years were behind me. It was as special to me as Harry Hamlin was to Michael Ontkean.

One of the things I liked best about Making Love is that it made no judgments about either of these guys. Ontkean wants a relationship and I'm betting if he were alive today, he'd be breaking down the doors of his legislature in California and working real hard to overturn Proposition 8.

That's not what Hamlin wants and he had a good chance of ending up with AIDs. But even as the plague was on the horizon and not a factor in gay life yet, Making Love makes no condemnation of Hamlin at all. It's just the randy way he is, like so many straight men looking to score with all kinds of women.

Kate Jackson is the tragic figure here as well. But tragic in the sense that she's a victim of Ontkean's internalized homophobia which caused him to marry and seek society's approval rather than follow his own nature. So many marriages went south because of that, but Making Love affixes the blame on our attitudes, not on either of the men. It is fortunate that no kids were yet involved.

Making Love was a reunion film of sorts as both Ontkean and Jackson were regulars on the Seventies police drama, The Rookies. They weren't paired together however, Ontkean was one of the three rookie cops the series concentrated on and Jackson was married to Sam Melville who was another one. Ontkean left the series midway in its run to pursue a film career.

Director Arthur Hiller includes a stylish cast to support Ontkean, Hamlin, and Jackson. Arthur Hiller and Nancy Olson are Ontkean's parents and Dame Wendy Hiller plays Ontkean and Jackson's lovable, but slightly dotty neighbor. Look fast and you'll see Eighties action star Michael Dudikoff as one of the delightful items to be found in the cruising bar.

In its time Making Love was as groundbreaking a drama as Brokeback Mountain is in the new century. And this review is dedicated to my personal Harry Hamlin, USMC private Donald Buchecker of Consohocken, Pennsylvania. I hope you made it through the plague.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed