Two for the Seesaw

1962 "A square from Nebraska? An off-beatnik from Greenwich Village? It just didn't figure ... that they would ... that they could ... that they did!"
Two for the Seesaw
6.6| 1h59m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 21 November 1962 Released
Producted By: United Artists
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

After leaving his wife, lawyer Jerry Ryan moves from Omaha, Nebraska to New York City to start a new life. While studying for the New York Bar Examination and working to finalize his divorce, Ryan meets dancer Gittel Mosca, and the two begin a cautious courtship. However, Ryan feels that he must come to terms with his failed marriage and overcome his lingering attachment to his ex-wife before he can redefine himself and embrace his budding romance.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

United Artists

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Ollyda Many good reviews of this film here already. I'm just going to focus on the similarities to my personal favourite film The Apartment and make one other observation. Clearly since Two For The Seesaw was made by the same company, the Mirisch Corporation just two years after Wilder's film this was an attempt to follow up (cash in?) on the success of that one. Shirley Maclaine stars in both but now playing a rather less idealised character. I wonder if Jack Lemmon turned down the chance to play the male lead because Robert Mitchum is not conventional enough to be really convincing. The soundtracks of both films are very similar and that can't be a coincidence even allowing for the tastes of the period. Even some of the sets look almost identical. Would they still exist from The Apartment? I'm not sure.Someone obviously saw possibilities in the original stage play to transfer it to film as The Apartment 2. In my view however because the tone of Two For The Seesaw is different from The Apartment it might have benefited from being handled differently rather than accentuating the similarities. And my other observation is this: At one point Mitchum whacks Maclaine across the face, knocking her to the floor and she hardly objects. It was probably shocking at the time but is beyond disgusting today. It means the film and no doubt the play will likely remain period pieces for ever more. Contrast that to the sunnier tone of The Apartment when Lemmon gets clobbered. It's funny and touching because we know he didn't deserve it, although in the context of the film he has it coming to him.
MieMar Very unexpected gem... but you gotta like them talky to love this one.Based on a play and that really shows. But LOVE the way it examines the nooks and crannies of a relationship.Its about two people who have something to learn from each other, and not in an obvious way either. Who is hanging their hope and dreams on who here...? And completely disagree with those who find Mitchum too deadpan for this... he is completely his character, a old school guy of another generation (compared to Gittel, or MacLaine for that matter)... but enough of an off-beat to head to New York to live with some bed bugs once his marriage goes south. The phone calls between him and his wife are painful, Mitchum who himself had a long suffering wife who he had married young and ultimately stuck by (despite, apparently being super unfaithful), I think gives a very brave performance, possibly inspired by the cheer chutzpah of MacLaine's talent. He really shows the complex emotional ties that come with a very long marriage....for the generations who really, without a second thought, thought they married for life.The emotional tables are turned on them both several times, and you always think its completely true.There are a couple of clunky moments, and you must honestly also just take it on the chin (pun) that this was made in an era when a "slutty" woman could expect to be slapped for flaunting her "lack of morality". Here its all part of her problem though, the way she accepts how others treat her, much too readily.Great, very little known film that seems to fit no genre what so ever.Maybe its closest relatives are some french new wave relationship dramas. And those it beats, hands down. Because, unlike the Le French, its not about Women and Men but about people...
MartinHafer Robert Mitchum lays a lawyer whose marriage back in Nebraska has just dissolved. Now, he's moved to New York and is very lonely. So lonely that he calls a woman (Shirley MacLaine) he barely knows. They go out and have a few laughs, then they go to her apartment. There, things move very quickly for a 1962 movie--surprisingly quickly, as he tries to get her to let him stay. At first, she's a bit put off--then she decides to sleep with him. At this point, however, he decides to leave--it's just moving too fast. Throughout the film the two are very open about sex and the dialog is quite gritty and realistic as well. Later, they even cohabitate--something you NEVER would have seen in the 1950s.Now these two people seem very, very different. Mitchum is well-spoken and a professional man from the Midwest. MacLaine is more a head-in-the-clouds Bohemian who is a Jewish New Yorker. Can two people THIS different fall in love and have it last? As you watch this film, you naturally assume the answer is no, as they just seem so unlike each other, argue an awful lot and what brings them together is difficult to put into words. In many ways, this odd relationship that defies the odds seems very reminiscent of THE WAY WE WERE (and you probably know how that film ended).Unfortunately, because the chemistry seems so odd in this film and the film is quite talky and stagy (it was originally a very successful Broadway play--and it shows), it's not a great film. Most of the problem is that although the dialog seems realistic, the combination of the two characters isn't. Why were they together in the first place other than they were lonely? And why did the movie seem to go on so long? So overall is it worth seeing? Perhaps, though this sure isn't a glowing recommendation.By the way, in a very disturbing scene, eventually Mitchum slaps MacLaine pretty hard. And, the way the film is made, it seems as if SHE drove him to it. Not exactly an enlightened scene and something that just seems wrong. And, not to be outdone, late in the film, she hits him as well!
erynnsmama There are no special effects, no graphic sex........just GREAT ACTING. I could watch movies like this all day and night. Shirley McLaine is at her best.......Robert Mitchum is........well...Robert Mitchum............did you know he smoked pot quite a bit? Anyway, give me two excellent actors and a great script over blowing up buses and the latest and greatest computer graphics any day. (ie; SHREK) I was home sick and forced to watch this, which is how i see many of my movies. two thumbs up. I think she(Shirley McLaine) was nominated for an Oscar for this or did she win an Oscar? I love good black and white movies. It engaged me from the beginning to the end.