Diary of a Mad Housewife

source: Diary of a Mad Housewife

This remarkable film seems to be unavailable, and I can't imagine why. Frank Perry was a fine director who never seemed to strike out, and gave us several memorable films in the 'seventies. The three leads have never been better, the direction and portrayal of the period are spot-on, and the viewer is drawn into the action immediately. Richard Benjamin is a revelation; never before and never afterward did he nail his character to the wall so splendidly. Frank Langella matches Benjamin in loathsomeness and yet one can see the lead female's fascination with him. Carrie Snodgress was a terrific find. why did the movies not do more with her? And more to the point, WHY ISN'T THIS MOVIE ON DVD?!?! Supposedly it was once on VHS, and a few copies seem to be circulating, but DVDs are now the way most of us see movies now.

If one were to make a list of the All-time Most Annoying Movie Characters, it would properly include only those whom we can enjoy as they annoy. They're the ones who cause you to smile as you squirm, not those who make you reach for the remote. Right alongside DeNiro's Rupert Pupkin, and Honey, as played by Sandy Dennis (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf), ranks Richard Benjamin as Jonathan Balser. His unctuous whine is the best reason to watch this period piece. Carrie Snodgress, as the brunt of his annoying personality, also does a fine job. Frank Langella, playing her lover, is a bit too unlikeable, but it only serves to heighten our empathy for the unfortunate heroine.

With the feminist movement on the rise, they obviously had to make a movie about a woman in an abusive relationship, and "Diary of a Mad Housewife" does a good job with it. Tina Balser's (Carrie Snodgress, RIP) husband Jonathan (Richard Benjamin) is the biggest jerk in the world. Any bad qualities that a person could have, you can bet money that Jonathan has them. So, Tina starts having an affair with George Prager (Frank Langella), only to find out his secret. As it is, I've actually known a man who is almost exactly like Jonathan. To avoid any lawsuits, I won't say his name, but he is one creepy person. This movie could almost be based on him (but obviously it's not). A really good movie, even if it is a little dated.

Many great films of the early 1970s have survived well, but this one is terribly dated and sexist. Instead of wasting your time on this, watch "Patton", "MASH", "Five Easy Pieces", "Catch-22" - all released in 1970.

Sorry. Maybe this film was really something back in the 1970's (with Tina's constant topless scenes), but it's just stupid now. Poor Tina with the boorish husband begins an affair with a stranger who turns out to be a loser too. I agree with the ending. She has an eight room apartment in Manhattan; what's she got to be upset about? Her only mistake was not divorcing her abusive husband before he squandered all of their money on a vineyard in an attempt to join the cool crowd. Even her two children are obnoxious. This is a very bleak film. No great sets, or scenery, and all of the characters are awful. Absolutely nothing happens in this film. I thought the hubby might come around and be human once he got the wind knocked out of him, but if she's in therapy, then I guess not.

Frank & Eleanor Perry's masterpiece of middle class angst stars Carrie Snodgress as a well-healed housewife dealing with the trials and tribulations of a horrendous life. Married to an idiotic, social climbing culture vulture and saddled with two impossibly bratty children, Snodgress seeks solace in an empty affair with a insanely callous writer. The acting is absolutely brilliant, not only by Snodgress but by Frank Langella as the writer and by Richard Benjamin as the nitwit husband. Benjamin does his best work here -- perfect in every way blaming his wife for all of his many flaws. Snodgress, who was Oscar nominated and became a star with this role, gives what has become a legendary performance. The unforgiving script is by Eleanor Perry & it's never made clear if what we're seeing (and hearing) is in Snodgress's mind, which may very well be warping things considering just how brutally she's treated by these two men. The tightly wound direction is by Frank Perry. Gerald Hirschfeld did the cinematography and the astounding production design is by Peter Dohanos. With Peter Boyle (briefly), Katherine Meskill and Lorraine Cullen as Sylvie, one of Snodgress's very bitchy daughters. One of the best and least appreciated films of the 1970s.

Carrie Snodgress (a very unattractive name for, at least in THIS film, an attractive woman) gives one of the great, edgy film performances of the early 70's. The early 70's seems to be when some of the best films in recent years were made. This story of a bored housewife in New York who has an affair with a young Frank Langella is rarely seen on TV but you should rent it as soon as possible and witness some great movie entertainment. Frank also gives one of his best performances in this. As a matter of fact, Frank, Carrie and Richard Benji haven't really made a film anywhere near as good as this since. Its been all downhill for the three of them since. Hopefully their careers will have good third acts, ya dig?

This movie had something to say, certainly. But what is going on does not merit 95 minutes, but more like 20. Granted, Carrie Snodgrass, as Tina, and Richard Benjamin, as Jonathan, put on fine performances. But we are bombarded with the same thing, over and over. Also, is it realistic to think even a "not liberated" woman would put up with Jonathan's endless do everything, egotism, and petulance, for anything resembling that length of time? Tina's facial expressions and body english in reaction are good, but again, how many times do we need it? Moreover, if a character is very distasteful, such as Jonathan was, the same type of distastefulness becomes exponentially annoying to the viewer--have him do some other bad things. The lack of depth in the spoiled kids adds to the tedium. The affair with George puts a dent, and a little excitement, into the monotony. He also turns out to be extremely selfish, but that is more dramatically meaningful, adding to the movie's bite, than would be a Prince Charming coming in and sweeping her off her feet. However, without revealing the detail, let me state that the group psychotherapy coda doesn't work well as an anticlimax. Something more interesting could easily have been thought up -- it is just blah. What was needed was variation on a theme, and a little variation, period. Archie Bunker had some of the same characteristics for his endless years on TV, but after two or three years he evolves, changes, under different circumstances, with different characters. Would people have continued to like it if the intense stuff of those early years just continued, on and on? For "Diary of a Mad Housewife", a few more subplots, and angles, would have served very well. Lacking this, we are subjected to quite boring fare.

This highly entertaining and memorable film provides a glimpse into a New York of not so long ago that now exists only in memory. But Diary of a Mad Housewife ultimately succeeds on the strength of its actors, particularly Snodgress, who plays a Smith graduate-turned prisoner of a Central Park West apartment inhabited by her overbearing, pitifully ambitious husband and spoiled daughters. Her performance is somehow flat and anemic but compelling at the same time--a combination that seems to have been consciously emulated by Chloe Sevigny in The Last Days of Disco. Bejamin is perfectly cast as the insufferable husband, adenoidally petulant and demanding. When Snodgress's patience is finally exhausted, she takes up with Langella, a glowering animal presence as a bad-boy writer whose selfishness, it turns out, rivals and even exceeds Benjamin's. The husband and wife represent two people whose lack of use for their education has led them astray: Snodgress finds herself in a state of frustration with the humiliations of her housewifely duties, and Benjamin, unappreciated in his office, comes up with ill-fated schemes for self-expression and social advancement. All in all, the film brings The Feminine Mystique to life in unexpectedly original and diverting ways.