1979 was a year that saw four of the greatest films ever emerge: “Manhattan” by Woody Allen, “Alien” by Ridley Scott, “Stalker” by Andrei Tarkovsky (a Russian genius who is among the greatest directors ever) and “Apocalypse Now” by Francis Ford Coppola. All of these films are canonized, and all are regarded as among the very finest films in their respective genres (comedy, horror, sci-fi, war). And yet, the winner of the Academy Awards for that year went to a largely forgotten film whose only right move was to address a pertinent social issue. A comparison to “The Graduate” is apt. Both films were relevant in their time but have faded in regard due to their lack of universality. They show the limitations of addressing society in specific, non-philosophical terms, because society does evolve. However, “The Graduate” remains in the conversation some thanks to interesting characters, a famous song by Simon and Garfunkel, as well as avoiding any serious problems. But in the running theme of the past three weeks, “Kramer vs Kramer” does not. The Academy could be forgiven for awarding the film best picture if it was a good, but it is not. I warn that the problem with the film spoils the plot.
Foremost, the film wants to address the imbalance in custody battles during the '70s, with the disputes heavily favoring women, regardless of the case's facts. This is setup by Joanna (Meryl Streep) leaving Ted with their son, Billy (Justin Henry) to discover herself at the beginning. The film follows a numbingly predictable arc for a while as Ted struggles to adjust from an absentee workaholic to devoted single parent. However, the devoted and superb work of Dustin Hoffman makes the 40 minutes engaging. The film becomes far more interesting when Joanna re-enters the picture and sues for custody over Billy. The audience’s attention thus far has focused on Ted—he has received all of the on-screen character arc, and Joanna comes off as a flake. Ted’s evolution places him firmly in the audience’s sympathies. But then something curious happens. As the testimony of Joanna and the character assassinations of both lawyers occur, the audience is left in a surprising place. Joanna was not an impetuous, selfish person, as it is easy to conclude from the first half, but rather one who experienced an existential crisis. Her desperation to find something she believed in appears to have occurred. Every indication is that Joanna is now emotionally stable, financially stable and happy again. Where does that leave the audience? Uncertain. The portrayal is that of a tie in viability, where both parents would do an excellent job. In the end, Joanna does get Billy, and it is made clear the reasoning is sexist: women are better parents. Ultimately, Ted wins the audience’s sympathy due to his screen time, and a sense of injustice at his snub.
Thus far, the drama has been tightly structured, well grounded, and logical. Tragically, the final scene of the film ruins its message and value. It is breathtaking how, in a single scene, everything proffered by the film. All of its ideas on justice, its theme of social inequality both for women in the workplace and men domestically, and its pretense to realism, are thrown out the window for a typical, pathetic Hollywood ending. As Billy and Ted make breakfast for the last time, Joanna calls Ted down to the lobby of their apartment building and tells Ted that she isn’t going to take Billy from him. This moment undermines the film’s themes and message. There is no point in arguing a system is broken if justice prevails by serendipitous whim, that means the system isn’t broken. Furthermore, it is a capricious action on Joanna’s part, which goes in against how her character developed throughout the film. She changes from unstable and fickle to one who has found herself, and then inexplicably devolves back into her old self. Another question the film seems to dismiss in this moment is one it made a great deal about prior: legal costs. It is made explicit that the legal fees for the lawyers hired by both Ted and Joanna are onerous. Ignoring this fact makes Joanna’s decision even more perplexing. Why would someone purportedly stable and intent on regaining custody pay tens of thousands of dollars and then suddenly change their mind? There is a disjoint in the logic. The ending of a film should act as a confluence of its ideas and themes, bringing a story to an end. “Kramer vs Kramer” throws all of its ideas out and decides that it needs a happy ending when nothing gestures towards it. The ending violates anything the film constructed before it, including the judicious portrayal of both parents as fit. Now, Ted gaining custody of Billy is portrayed as a happy ending because of the film’s screen time for Ted and Joanna. The ending makes the entire film pointless because anything it had to say is invalidated.
“Kramer vs Kramer” is a frustrating film to castigate because it does so much well. It was five minutes away from the being a strong film. The story lacks pathos as it looks at the single father learn to stop caring about his work and become an effective parent, and Joanna emerging from her emotional breakdown to become a strong figure, who evokes a startling amount of sympathy. The film is about their parallel development as people, the power of child-rearing to change someone and the sexism men and women experience in the spheres deemed outside their domain. All of these powerful, efficaciously expressed themes are dismissed to make a happy-ending, and in doing so, the film is destined for irrelevance. “Kramer vs Kramer” will be buried beneath the masterpieces released that same year that avoid tidily answering questions, and for contriving nonsense to appease someone who can’t stand the thought of justice failing.
