by Dean Treadway
Before its tremendously successful 1982 release, the odds were against TOOTSIE working at all. For one thing, the project, spearheaded by its star Dustin Hoffman, had gone through an endless series of script reiterations over the previous four years. Based on a Don Maguire play called WOULD I LIE TO YOU?, the original screenplay, penned in 1978, was by Charles Evans (Robert Evans’ brother and the film’s eventual co-producer), director Dick Richards and screenwriter Bob Kaufman. Then Hoffman came on-board, and handed the project off to many of the era’s sharpest comedy voices, including Larry Gelbart, Elaine May, Murray Schisgal, and Barry Levinson. By the time Hoffman and the film’s director, Sydney Pollack, were putting the pieces together, the script reportedly looked like a ragtag, mismatched pile of colored scrap paper (with even a few scenes written on napkins to complete the melange). This is rarely the optimum way for a screenplay to begin its life.
On top of this, the ultra-serious Pollack was not known for his comedy stylings, and Hoffman was, on-set, a sometimes dictatorial presence–indeed, the sort of exasperating, exacting artist he plays in the film. In TOOTSIE, his Michael Dorsey is a struggling, out-of-work actor who’s told by his agent George (Pollack, in a role Hoffman urged him to take) that he’s too difficult to work with, and that directors all across New York City are refusing his services. He’s patently unemployable. So, having accompanied his harried best friend Sandy (the superbly flustered Teri Garr) to an audition for a soap opera called “Southwest General”–an audition she loses immediately–Michael decides to don hair, dress and makeup and go into the audition as “Dorothy Michaels,” a strong-willed, Southern-accented character actress (based partially on Hoffman’s friend Polly Holliday, who memorably appeared with him in ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, and partially on Hoffman‘s aunt, who used to call him “Tootsie,” thus the film‘s title).
For me, TOOTSIE is one of those endlessly watchable movies, like JAWS or THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is for other movie fans. I find that the bright, ’80s-flavored Dave Grusin score–studded with those Alan and Marilyn Bergman songs sung by Stephen Bishop–successfully captures a feathery light urban mood almost immediately, as does Owen Roizman’s slightly candy-colored NYC photography. The scripting betrays no schizophrenia from the many hands that molded it, and instead feels like a work that sprang from one mind. Pollack deftly keeps the pace very quick. For instance, the movie’s opening illustrates Michael Dorsey’s flaws and strengths, on and off stage, before Pollack’s directorial credit has faded from the screen. The film then brilliantly–through a breezily laconic birthday party scene–sets up Dorsey as a sexist manipulator whose own desperate gaming comes back to bite him on the ass when he positions himself as a “woman” in a man’s world.
Hoffman is extraordinary in TOOTSIE. His Dorothy Michaels is one of his most vivid creations, and I love how the movie keys us in to one of the bittersweet things about being an actor: If they’re lucky, they can craft a valuable character, but then, after the show is over and the costume is off, they must relinquish a hold on this newborn personality. It’s like they’re constantly sweating over sand mandalas destined to be windswept. Dorothy Michaels becomes incredibly important to “Southwest General” (her unpredictable, improvvy ways cause a ratings spike for the series), but she also becomes indispensable to the lives of her co-stars, including Dorothy’s new best friend, the soap’s femme fatale Julie (a fetching Jessica Lange, who took home the film’s only Oscar out of 11 nominations). Hoffman’s moments with Lange in this film are moving and exquisitely revealing; you can feel Julie finally letting down a expertly-built guard of cynicism when she’s basking in Dorothy’s homey charm and, while it’s easy to forget that Dorothy Michaels is actually a man, you can also feel Michael Dorsey’s naughty excitement–and, later, his shamed regret–at being let into Julie’s heart on such massively false pretenses. At another extreme, it’s also exciting to see Hoffman share the screen with Dabney Coleman as the soap’s laughably macho director; the one off-set scene they have together is cogently written, with Coleman trying to draw Dorothy Michaels out on why she dislikes him, while we know Michael had this jerk’s number firmly punched from the get-go. Of course, Dorsey’s attempts to reconcile these two extremes–these two parts of himself–constitutes the film’s complicated but never overbearing plot, its neatly-stated anti-sexism political stance, and, most importantly, its strongest laughs.
And there are a bunch of laughs here: George and Michael heatedly debating whether a “sexy beefsteak tomato” should walk and talk; Michael showing his “Dorothy” creation to his playwright roommate Jeff, who comments on the hair “Well, it’s a little Howard Johnson’s…” (Jeff is played by an uncredited Bill Murray, and he’s the film’s acerbic ace-in-the-hole); Dorothy sharing an awkward romantic nighttime moment in a tree swing with Julie’s smitten father (a very sweet Charles Durning); George and Dorothy’s surprise meeting at the Russian Tea Room, with Dorothy confidently ordering a Dubonnet with a twist and complementing the server on his “lovely blouse”; the soap’s aptly named male lead John Van Horne (George Gaines) creepily stalking Dorothy all the way back to Michael’s apartment (which results in a surprise appearance by Murray that absolutely brought the house down when I went to see the film on opening night; I still remember the line “You slut” as a moment of comedically-driven audience pandemonium). I adore the scene where Michael finally gets to meet Julie as himself, and slyly tries to lay her own ideal come-on on her: “You know, I could lay a big line on you and we could do a lot of role-playing, but the simple truth is, is that I find you very interesting and I’d really like to make love to you.” Cue the drink being thrown in his face. And there are so many more hysterical moments: “How do you feel about Cleveland?,” “What kind of mother would I be if I didn’t give my girls tits–I mean, tips?,” “That is one nutty hospital.” I even have affection for the cliched yet well-edited scene where Michael, as Dorothy, is haplessly left alone with Julie’s baby. (I giggle when she hands the infant a mirror and scolds, in Michael’s deep voice, “There. You see what a bad girl looks like?”). Through it all, Pollack gracefully keeps the scenes firmly rooted in reality, even if the story and behavior is lovably outlandish.
As a result, the movie is always massive fun. However, ultimately, I sense a deep underlying sense of honest discovery here. I really believe, in reaching for quite specific emotions, Hoffman’s own life was changed by playing Dorothy, and this expertly sculpted movie shows this transformation occurring step by step. I think Hoffman–the man, the artist and the person–emerged from TOOTSIE a softer, more playful, more accepting soul. At the film’s end, he comforts Julie, who’s missing Dorothy, by saying “You don’t have to. She’s right here. And she misses you.” I’m certain that serves as a big comfort to Hoffman himself, and to the grateful moviegoers he and his collaborators gifted with this insightful comedy.
How Tootsie made the Top 100:
#7 Jason Marshall
#17 Pat Perry
#19 Dean Treadway
#25 Frank Gallo
#29 John Greco
#36 Jon Warner
#38 R.D. Finch
#39 Pierre de Plume
#41 Jaime Grijalba
#45 Brandie Ashe
#46 Marilyn Ferdinand
#49 Bobby Jopsson
I really believe Hoffman’s own life was changed by playing Dorothy, and I think this expertly sculpted movie shows it happening to him, step by step. I think he emerged a softer, more playful, more accepting person, man, and artist.
I agree, and I recall reading an interview where Hoffman so much as says so.
Coming as it did during the height of cross-gender exploration, this film really captured the times. I appreciate the background info on the evolution of the script. And you’re so right that this film is always watchable. I also agree about Teri Garr — in real-life circumstances true to her character arc, it was just a bad stroke of luck for her that Jessica Lange, catapulted by an off-set, jet-fueled romantic liaison with Sam Shepard, took home the Oscar.
Some say that Lange won her Oscar as a consolation for not winning for playing Frances Farmer and because she’s a knockout beauty. I disagree. While giving the film heart, she also displayed great gifts at light comedy, for example in the scene where Dorothy makes a pass at her. Lange plays that scene beautifully.
Needless to say, Murray provides the perfect voice for the modern, “normal” observer — a role that fit him like a glove.
Personally, I think the film’s music dates it a bit, but with a gang of actors at the top of their game and working with such a novel script — who really cares when the overall result is such a free-wheeling romp? Each character is so well drawn and complementary to one another, this film really does have it all. And the final solution to Michael Dorsey’s unattractiveness — his inner Dorothy — really wraps the whole thing up as he and Lange amble down the street in the final shot.
Even though this film’s popularity was helped along by it’s showing up at the right moment in time, it still holds up as great comedy.
A wonderful piece on a film that needed prodding for me. I find the material dated and a bit over-bearing. However, there are enough high moments of hilarit yto keep it from submerging into the “forgettable” tank for me. Yes, Murray is used perfectly to ground the absurdism into a kind of logical comic understanding and he’s always there at the right moment to put a period at the end of every observation the film tries so hard to make. The sequence in the Russian Tea-Room is a slapstick tour-de-force of prat falls and reminds me of the kind of comedy that Laurel and Hardy did effortlessly.
However, I bemoan this film for a BIG reason. While it’s a good film it’s bouyed, completely, by a take-no-prisoners, swinging-for-the-stands, knockout performance by Dustin Hoffmann. His Micheal/Dorothy turn is so perfect in its understanding, timing and realistic execution that he makes you forget how ridiculous the entire situation is and, at the same time, make both Micheal AND Dorothy completely real. The moaning comes, though, for me any way, because this was, in my estimation, Hoffmanns swan song. From the conclusion of TOOTSIE, Hoffmann seemed to almost complately sell out as an actor and the kind of detail and devotion that he brought to his performance in this film and every film he’d made before it seemed to drain out of him from this point on. THE GRADUATE, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, PAPILLON, LENNY, KRAMER VS KRAMER, ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, MARATHON MAN…
Hoffmann was like a man on fire singing as much as he could before the flames engulfed him. TOOTSIE, for my eyes anyway, was his last truly great turn and, since 1982, we’ve seen nothing but slap-n-dash creations that either started off good and flailed by the time the credits roll, or just plain terrible from word go. I think of the praise vollied on him for his work in films like RAIN MAN, WAG THE DOG, SLEEPERS, FAMILY BUSINESS and MEET THE FUCKERS and it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who made one of the most auspicious debuts in all of American film history. Gone was the intensity and dedication that created the likes of Bejamin Braddock and Ratso Rizzo. Like Pacino and DeNiro before him, he reduced his sights to the big pay check rather than the challenging role and has become one of the forgotten casualties of a decade that saw him shine as bright as the best of the bunch that still shine to this day (most notably Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson and Robert Duvall)..
To me, TOOTSIE is not only a reminder about how great Hoffmann once was, but the grave stone that marked the end of a wonderful, albeit short, career of excellence.
Dennis,
This is a strange argument for not liking a film, that of feeling that it is the last good performance from someone. I want to understand more of how you would evaluate something poorly because of something great that is within, yet was the last of its kind. Why wouldn’t you celebrate it for that for instance? I mean this could go on and on…..what about when actors die and a film is their last or close to last? How about Carole Lombard in To Be or Not To Be? How about James Dean in Giant? We could talk about Heath Ledger in Batman, or River Phoenix in My Own Private Idaho….there are literally dozens of examples.
If every time we had a last great performance from someone and we bemoaned the film, there would be a lot of great films we’d be bemoaning.
Yes, I find this strange, too. I don’t think Hoffman feel completely from grace after this (he deservedly won praise on Broadway and later on film for playing Willy Loman in Volker Schlondorff’s 1985 version of DEATH OF A SALESMAN). I’d say your real complaint is that the industry itself changed and it no longer had any room for a 50-year-guy like Hoffman, except in quirky character roles which may not be to everyone’s liking (I, personally, preferred him in supporting roles like in DICK TRACY and I HEART HUCKABEES, and I didn’t really mind him in RAIN MAN–it’s the MOVIE I didn’t care for; I also don’t recall anyone at all heaping praise on FAMILY BUSINESS or SLEEPERS). At any rate, blaming TOOTSIE for his graduation down a notch on the superstar ladder is a mystifying move; it’s like blaming Brando’s latter-day weirdnesses on LAST TANGO IN PARIS.
I liked him with Emma Thompson in ‘Last Chance Harvey’, where he did take a lead role for a change – the bit where he has to try to get through to someone on the phone to find out he has been sacked is a scene that sticks in my mind.
To make my position clear on this…
I LIKE TOOTSIE, I don’t love it. The film itself is a good comedy. However, I cannot hold it up with the true greats that will, obviously, dot the count as we move forward. I like much of it, some of the witty dialolgue and a few sequences (like the Russian Tea Room scene), but I feel that the pastel colored cinematography, the overly annoying song score and the more than “obvious” messages of the film (on things like getting in touch with your feminine side, equality, never judge a book by its cover etc.) are a little too obvious and precocious. There is, many times in this movie, a feeling like the messages are being forced down your throat.
Where I give the film praise is on some of things I already listed above in my original comment and Hoffmanns final great performance. I have to agree with Allan on what he said below in that Hoffmanns work after KRAMER/TOOTSIE is really nothing and most of it borders on quick impersonation and nothing more. He doesn’t quite resort to the SCREAMING that Pacino does for the rest of HIS career or the almost mentally deranged LEERING that DeNiro makes his M.O. with in his films since GOODFELLAS but, for the most part, its nothing more than lackluster turns with very little enthusiasm behind them. The electricity that was evident in almost every film up to, and including, TOOTSIE was gone from 1982 on and its a really sad thing to think that the man basically gave up for the quick pay-offs.
Say what you want about the three that I listed, but you almost never see Nicholson, Hackman and Duvall sleep-walk through a performance. They may have made a few bombs here and there but you can almost always count on them to give it their all whenever they stand in front of a camera and go the moment the word ACTION is called.
Still, DEAN wrote and delivered a wonderfully entertaining, informative and well written piece on TOOTSIE and I enjoyed it very much.
Both De Niro and Pacino give great performances in Heat. Pacino does momentarily go into a few screaming fits, but it’s mostly held in check overall. Nicholson isn’t exactly lighting it up lately either. He basically just plays a caricature of himself since The Shining. Obviously in that Kubrick film the part called for his special kind of crazy, but it’s not like he changes it up much otherwise. And as for Hackman…. he’s been retired now for awhile, so he’s not giving any performances for us to judge.
MAURIZIO-I totally disagree. If you wanna cite HEAT go right ahead (a trobuled and disjointed film that “promises” the fireworks of putting DeNiro and Pacino in the same room and all we get is a moment where they share coffee-for me, a completely underwhelming film). Since HEAT, neither have offered up anything on the big screen to even warrant a stick shaking.
Nicholson, on the other hand has the completely hysterical turn in AS GOOD AS IT GETS, one of his late career best in Alexander Payne’s ABOUT SCHMIDT and his “eye in the sky” turn as the vicious Frank Costello in Martin Scorsese’s THE DEPARTED (I’m sure Leo, Mark and Matt were jerking themselves off over the fortune of getting to work with BOTH Scorsese and Nicholson for the same film).
I’ll give Pacino high marks on his performance as Roy Cohn in the television adaptation of Tony Kushner’s ANGELS IN AMERICA, but DeNiro? Let’s just say that if his career is on life-support (which I think it is), you better not let my hands get too close to the plug.
Hackman, though he may be in retirement, never let his guard down for a second when considering his performances. Yes, he has been in a few bad movies over the years, but his turns are never anything less than inspired and you can always tell he’s giving it his all (even in lackluster films like THE QUICK AND THE DEAD and ENEMY OF THE STATE). However, he goes out on a high note (his Academy Award winning turn in Eastwoods UNFORGIVEN) and I cannot fault the man an iota on the bulk of his career.
Duvall might be best of all. Again, some bad films dot his resume, but the level of excellence he brings to every PER-FORM-ANCE is always astounding. WRESTLING ERNEST HEMINGWAY, while not a great flick gave him one of his meatiest turns in a long time and his work on THE APOSTLE even bested the highly lauded Jack the same year of release
Nicholson and Duvall are not afraid to play older as they are growing older. But, guys like DeNiro and Pacino fully expect to be on the top of the marquee every time out and refuse to take billing in anything unless they can have leading man status. Delusional, if you ask me.
Oh, and I almost forgot the wonderful turn that Hackman gave to buoy Wes Andersons THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS.
Wait so Pacino and De Niro only want leading man status but Nicholson plays bit parts these days… huh??? You can create separation if you want, but these three guys are all in the same boat paddling out to the sunset. Nicholson’s performance in The Departed was so ho-hum and cliched “Crazy Jack” I can’t believe you’d cite it as an example of his awesomeness. I love the past work of all three (though De Niro made the most great films career-wise) but trying to establish one guy over the others in this late stage is the very definition of subjective personal opinion being stated as some kind of fact. Nicholson is coasting as much as anyone at this point… unless we admit the truth that after The Shining he’s basically played the same character over and over and over.
Absolutely not. His performance in THE DEPARTED was the glue that held the film together and lead the way to inspire some good work by the three relative newbies compared to him. His performance in THE DEPARTED walked a tightrope betwen insane psychotic and befuddled criminal business man.
Nicholson will also take second billing in films where DeNiro and Pacino almost certainly won’t and while they have all been visible since they entered their twilight years only Nicholson has produced work of substance more times than not. I’m not saying that Nicholson is impervious to a dud film, but I am saying he is making more of his t6wilight years than both DeNiro and Pacino combined.
Considering the films that they have appeared in since they all burst on to the screen I’d say the amount of good films that they have all been in is heavy for DeNiro and Nicholson and slighly less for Pacino (who always had a problem recognising great scripts-the Godfsther films don’t count as he was pulled into it by Francis who wanted him desperately). Nicholson tended towards smaller more intimate films in the beginning whereas DeNiro and Pacino were always doing bigger work and honing into working with the biggest upcoming directors at the time. Does this make Nicholsons canon any less than that of Pacino and DeNiro? No. It’s as simple as Jack being more comfortable with smaller, more character driven works than the grand epics that DeNiro and Pacino gravatated towards at the start of their careers.
I find it interesting though, that the moment Francis begins to worry about Brando not making it for APOCALYPSE NOW the first choice to replace him as Kurtz was Nicholson. I also find it fascinating that the greatest American director post 1960, noneother than Stanley himself (a director that HATED using BIG stars in his films)was gravitating towards Nicholson for both his NAPOLEON project and, finally, landing him for THE SHINING.
Now, I’m not gonna get into a pissiong match over who the better actor is, I love them all and admire their work ever since I was a kid, but it’s evident that Jack is still playing in the game when the other two would rather work in dreck and just collect a small fortune for doing what amounts to nothing these days.
Well Kubrick also used Tom Cruise late in his career lol.
Hey your entitled to your opinion Dennis but I don’t see it in this case. All three have seen better days and arguing who has the better roles lately seems trivial at best. As for who’s the best actor of the three… I would say they are basically equals. Overall though De Niro has been involved in more masterpieces IMO.
8- De Niro (The Godfather 2,Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, The King Of Comedy, Once Upon A Time In America, Goodfellas, Heat).
5- Pacino (The Godfather, Serpico, The Godfather 2, Dog Day Afternoon, Heat).
5- Nicholson (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, The Passenger, The Shining).
P.S: I’m probably being kind with Easy Rider.
THE GREAT PERFORMANCES (and I’m not talking about the films always being great, but the individual performances by the actor being a highlite)
Nicholson (11):
Easy Rider-1969, Five Easy Pieces-1970, Carnal Knowledge-1971, The Last Detail-1973, Chinatown-1974, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest-1975, The Passage-1975, The Shining-1980, Reds-1981, The Pledge-2001 (could be his very BEST turn), As Good As It Gets-1997
DeNiro (7):
The Godfather Part 2-1974, Taxi Driver-1976 (his BEST turn), The Deer Hunter-1978, Raging Bull-1980, The King Of Comedy-1981, Once Upon A Time In America-1984, Good Fellas-1990
Hackman (9):
Bonnie And Clyde-1967, I Never Sang For My Father-1970, The French Connection1971, Scarecrow-1973, The Conversation-1974 (his BEST performance), Twice In A Lifetime-1985, Mississippi Burning-1988, Unforgiven-1992, The Royal Tennenbaums-2001
Pacino (6):
The Godfather-1972, Serpico-1973, The Godfather Part 2-1974 (still his BEST work), Dog Day Afternoon-1975, Angels In America-2003
Hoffmann (6):
The Graduate-1967, Midnight Cowboy-1969 (tough call, either this one or THE GRADUATE, I give the edge to the slimy Ratso Rizzo), Straw Dogs-1971, Papillon-1973, Lenny-1974, Kramer Vs. Kramer-1979, Tootsie-1982
Duvall (9):
THX-1138-1971, The Godfather-1972, The Godfather part 2-1974, Network-1976, Apocalypse Now-1979, The Great Santini-1980 (his BEST performance), Tender Mercies-1983, Lonesome Dove-1989, The Apostle-1997
Fine Dennis so you don’t really like the film….it’s not so much based on the fact that you are lamenting Hoffman’s career. Got it. However,..yes the film is a bit cheesy at times and yes the music is really lame IMO, but it’s just a really fun film to watching. I’m sorry Hoffman makes this a memorable film. I’m of the belief that films can be great because of how it highlights the talent of those in the film. To complain if you take away Hoffman’s performance what do you have left….the bottom line is without Hoffman there is really no film. His performance and role are THE reason for being. That’s the point.
I mean you can do that with any film….let’s take away Carey Grant and Katherine Hepburn from Bringing Up Baby. What do you have left? A great Hawks script but it’s certainly not the same film without them and films aren’t great based on scripts alone.
Take Bill Murray out of Groundhog Day…take WC Fields out of It’s a Gift. These actors allow these films to have a reason for being. Same with Hoffman in Tootsie.
No, JON, it’s not that I dislike the film, it’s just that I don’t love it.
Some of the so-called “attributes” of the film come off as forced (the pastel colored cinematography, Pollacks stagnant direction-there’s no visual creativity at all-I’d have applauded if he tilted the camera once during Micheals fevered predicament when Terri Garr walks into the apartment unexpectedly-the musical montages that show Dorothy’s ascent in the world of TV soap opera was stomach churning and all too predictable). However, what is left is a very satisfying take on the cheuvanism in the work place, the struggles men have when fully assessing female equality and the hard lessons of love when truth is the main focus.
The film seems some-what dated and I have often thought that, in the hands of a better director, the film could have become a timeless comedy that transcended it’s 80’s trappings and continued to speak to generations after the fact. What is left is fine, boasts one of Dustin Hoffmans best turns and still allows us to chuckle at some of the slapstick machinations that were rare at that time in comedy. For me, I prefer the timeless gender comedies VICTOR/VICTORIA and THE BIRDCAGE. Those films don’t get bogged down in the dated hodge-podge that is indicative of a film like TOOTSIE and can be viewed as relevant even in the second decade of the 2000’s.
Sorry Dennis…I guess when you use words like “Bemoan”, it makes me think you don’t like the film at all. I understand now…you like it but don’t love it.
I think Hoffman started sinking with Kramer vs Kramer, while he made Tootsie better than it really was. But since Tootsie, it has largely been bilge. Take out the two Mamet films in the mid late nineties, which were minor but he was excellent in, it’s been pretty dire. Don’t even mention Rain Man.
I am no fan of RAIN MAN either (the Oscar that year of the nominated films should have gone to THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST) but TOOTSIE was at the time of it’s release a rather irresistible film that as Pierre contends (and Dean of course in a splendid review) made a resonating impact on Hoffmann as a person and his ensuing career. I didn’t cast a ballot for this film, but I do like it reasonably enough, and know well it has maintained it’s popularity over teh years.
I think what Tootsie and Hoffman have in common is that, if you take the time to think about the film – and about Hoffman the person as inadvertently implied through the Dorsey character – each loses a bit of luster. I’d even go so far to suggest the same with respect to 9 to 5 and Jane Fonda. But let’s face it, comedy doesn’t do well when it undergoes analysis, and actors are just people.
True what you say there about the long term regard for comedy performances in recent decades. I have argued for years that Peter Sellers’ performance as Chauncy Gardener in BEING THERE is every bit as superlative as other celebrated turns in dramatic films.
I will add that Dorothy Michaels did provide Hoffman with one of his best roles, and that Dean is also right in with the effectiveness of David Grusin’s score.
PRECISELY… Hoffmann lifts TOOTSIE from the otherwise mediocre film it would have been without his amazing performance. This is the kind of thing that does happen from time to time and we often through bouquets at a film for being much better than it really is because a single element raises it above the norm. If we really think of TOOTSIE WITHOUT Hoffmanns performance what is left? A few witty lines of dialoque and some pretty lackluster direction and production values. Pollack was never the “supreme” film maker that so many made him out to be. He is a product of his time, always giving the audiences what they wanted and very rarely taking the risk at something daring. Pollack was standard, by-the-book film-making.
No offense to those that defend it as one of the better elements of the film, but I absolutely despise the music and songs in this TOOTSIE.
As for RAIN MAN… No, no, no, no, NO. The film is so severly uneven and disjointed, a dramatic journey that really sees no growth in the characters as they learn from each other, suffers dead direction and one of the very worst and most predictable screenplays in modern American cinema. I agree wholeheartledly with SCHMULEE that THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST was the film of the five nominated for the BEST PICTURE Oscar that should have emmerged victorious.
I’m also on the band-wagon with Sam on Peter Sellers and BEING THERE. But, like where TOOTSIE tries to hit you over the head with its hidden meanings and message, Hal Ashby and BEING THERE takes it’s natural time to allow the themes and messages to slowly dawn on the viewer as you laugh yourself silly in the meantime.
The film of Death of a Salesman is still powerful stuff but something had definitely changed for the worse by the time Hoffman gathered up the awards for Rain Man. I dare say the exact moment he sold out was at the Oscars (or was it the Golden Globes) when he said of Tom Cruise, “You are my brother.” But Tootsie is more a send-up than a sell-out, and an ingenious one at that, with an outlandish climax that is also just what one expected to see on soap operas.
If we really think of TOOTSIE WITHOUT Hoffmanns performance what is left?
To quote Bette Davis: “But ya ARE, Blanche! Ya ARE in that chair!
But I do agree that Pollack’s directorial talent was good but significantly shy of great.
This film is really funny and well written, containing some great performances as you mention and a wonderful “cameo” of sorts from Bill Murray who is really hilarious and wonderfully understated here. Of course the early 1980’s were a different time in the workplace and although I was but a wee babe at the time, certainly I understand that sexism was more rampant and widespread. It’s not as bad now as we have more laws in place in workplaces that do not allow for harassment etc. However women still to this day make less money than men for the same job, which is ridiculous. Perhaps we haven’t come quite as far as we think we have since the 80’s.
Nice work Dean.
Dean, it is a long time since I’ve seen this and I remember thinking of it as a sort of remake of ‘Some Like It Hot’, but you have me thinking I should revisit it and think about it more in its own right! You’ve written a great appreciation of this film.
Thanks, Judy! That’s the highest compliment I could hope for!
Yes, “You slut!” is my favorite line too. Well-written review of one of the best American comedies of the past 30 years.
Yes, but the competition isn’t exactly luminous, is it?
“For me, TOOTSIE is one of those endlessly watchable movies…”
Me too, Dean! And you’ve very nicely summed up why. I love that you referenced memories from an opening night screening. I saw this on it’s opening weekend back in 1982 myself, and I remember that warm, raucous audiecne reception. From what I’ve read and heard, Elaine May’s uncredited script doctoring went a long way towards pulling the film into its coherenly and consistently funny state (I believe it was who created the Bill Murray character.)
As for Hofffman’s honest self-discovery in the role, I am a bit cynical about that, and got very weary of watching Hoffman tear up in interviews when he talked about what he learned about women and how he realized that Dorothy wasn’t really happy. I don’t think that falling in love with Jessica Lange – her sweet, non-threatening, very beauftiful character – represents any great leap forward in conciousness for Michael. Now if he’d fallen in love with the soap’s middle-aged producer…..
Yes, I love this movie, and I agree with the piece saying that is one of those movies that are insanely rewatchable, a film with a center performance that made me love everything that Dustin Hoffman has done to date. This is a film to treasure, one of those that are quotable and that you must remember beat by beat. One of my favorite gags is how he manages to avoid conversations with his fiancee by showering and putting soap in his eyes to make him delay his entrance or presentation, specially when he was dressed and in makeup.
I also like Sidney Pollack’s role and direction in this film, completely related in their roughness towards its protagonist and overall calm approach and overall surprise to the course of action that Dustin has taken for his life,
A great movie, a masterpiece to these eyes, one that requires repeated viewings, at least once a year, for it to be called one of the films that stay fresh in your memory no matter how and at the same time are personal landmarks in my film education and film history.
oh and I like “Rain-Man”, another one of those movies that are important in a personal way and in the relationship with my own brother,
Thanks, Jaime. I totally agree with your assessment!
I think we can cut Hoffman some slack. To paraphrase Norma Desmond, it’s the movies that got smaller.
Dennis is right. Tootsie is a mediocre film that has dated badly. It was too earnest for exactly the reason Dennis gives: we are supposed to take Dorothy seriously. This was not Hoffman’s fault.
Mrs Doubfire was a hell of a lot funnier, has not dated, and the dynamic plays off Doubtfire being a woman with balls 😉 The restuarant, pool, and bag-snatch scenes are knockouts.
Death of a Salesman was great television and Hoffman’s performance is as strong as you could ask for.
MRS. DOUBTFIRE??? Man, please, don’t make me have to hurt you. You’re probably too much of a GUY to like TOOTSIE. Guy’s can’t be likin’ no movie called TOOTSIE (said in a ridiculous gruff voice, while adjusting your testicles).
Hurt me? Just who is playing the macho here?
This is true. I apologize.
I don’t think Tootsie is mediocre overall – although some here have pointed out some weaknesses that are valid. I do agree about it being too earnest, but that has as much to do with how the film was perceived as how it was intended. Along these lines, Network was taken a lot more literally when it was released and mistaken by many as a rather heavyweight drama.
Tootsie’s cultural role, at the time, as a serious statement on gender politics was helped along by all the interviews Hoffman did where he talked about all that stuff. I also think there were those in Hollywood and in the media who simply took advantage of the then-rare opportunity – a film with gender politics at its core – to shine a light on sexism.
The problem is, when you begin to deconstruct comedy it stops being funny.
I really like Mrs. Doubtfire, too, but I think it’s only funnier in the sense that it’s more slapsticky than Tootsie — and that the romantic co-lead, Sally Field, supports the light mayhem by delivering a wonderfully comedic performance that didn’t have the more serious undertones of the Lange character. And let’s not forget all those kids kids kids…..
If this one had been directed by the brilliant Kubrick and not raised one laugh or even a smile – I suspect it would have been lionised to upper stratosphere.
Whatever Pollacks strengths or weakness’ as a director – this one is just one of those very rare films in which everything clicks (including music, photography, ect) to make an instant classic. Full stop.
Excellent review Dean. Love all the background detail on the making of the film.
Dean, great post. You said so many things about the movie that echo my own feelings: its rewatchability, its laugh-out-loud humor (but with some issues of real substance behind it), Hoffman’s great performance (I especially like the part where you discuss how he shows Michael’s/Dorothy’s/his own process of self-discovery and transformation), all the other wonderful performances (including one that at the time was a real eye-opener for me–Bill Murray’s). I was aware of some of the circumstances behind the making of the movie, but your description makes it seem a miracle it was ever made, much less that everything came together and worked so well. I don’t think Hoffman is as good an actor as he thinks he is–the behind-the-scenes footage from “Death of a Salesman” suggests that he’s a finicky perfectionist that everyone else has to tolerate–but this, “The Graduate,” “Little Big Man,” and “Kramer vs Kramer” are mighty impressive performances.
You’re right. Hoffman is extraordinary in this film.
i love the line “i find you very intresting and i’d really like to make love with you” except when he says it he only gets a drink splashed in his face aww poor guy oh well atleast he gave it a try