"THE WAY WE WERE: THE MAKING OF A ROMANTIC CLASSIC" (Applause)
By Tom Santopietro
I started thinking about The Way We Were as the
subject of a possible book when I happened to hear two women quoting the entire
last scene of the film by heart, re-enacting Barbra Streisand’s Katie Morosky murmuring
“Hubbell, your girl is lovely” to the aging but still golden Robert Redford.
This behavior wasn’t just liking the film- this was quasi-obsession. When I
then happened to catch a re-run of “Sex and the City” where the four best
friends decide that the entire world is divided into “Katie girls” and others,
followed by Sarah Jessica Parker’s Carrie Bradshaw re-enacting The Way We
Were’s finale in front of the Plaza Hotel, I was intrigued. Hooked. Why
does this decidedly flawed film carry such romantic heft? After all, if the
best movies form parts of our world views and shape our dreams, what did this
hyper fandom for a fifty-year- old film say about the way we are today?
As I started to research the history of the film, my
“possibly writing” became a definite “yes”; accelerating the decision was
realizing that by writing about The Way We Were I was actually, if
unconsciously completing my trilogy of books centering on films that people
don’t just like, but actually obsess over: The Godfather Effect- drama, The
Sound of Music Story- musical, and now The Way We Were- romance.
The backstory was juicy in and of itself. Redford didn’t
want to make the film, dragging his heels until director Sidney Pollack wore
him down with promises of rewrites.Screenwriter Arthur Laurents
remained dissatisfied throughout filming, feuding with desperate producer Ray
Stark. The deeper I dug, the more intrigued I became: I spent several days at
the Library of Congress reading through Laurents’s papers, including a
scorching eight-page memo to Stark in whichhe enumerated the film’s
perceived flaws; flaws which he felt- and I’m translating politely here- were
so egregious that they made him feel sick. Eleven different screenwriters had a
hand in the script- no wonder Laurents was perpetually angry. His own life had
inspired several key incidents in the screenplay and his life was now being
re-written by eleven other people.
I liked the fact that in the early going this now iconic
film’s success was far from assured; as one studio executive only half-kiddingly
said to Sydney Pollack: “Barbra Streisand doesn’t sing and she plays a
communist—are you trying to kill me?!” The fact that no one expected a romantic
classic made its now half-century of success all the more intriguing. The film
had received decidedly mixed reviews upon its initial release, although the
stars were highly praised, and Streisand received an Academy Award nomination. (She
lost to Glenda Jackson for A Touch of Class, and when was the last time
anyone decided that they just had to watch A Touch of Class again?)
Streisand, she of the fearsome reputation, proved to be the
easiest personality for Pollack to handle. This was her chance to prove her
chops as a dramatic actress and she was happy with her part; she signed on as
soon as she read the treatment, acknowledging that the treatment more than met
David Lean’s dictum that five good scenes dictates an answer of “yes”. In her
own words: “This had more than five good scenes.” She may have worried over every
last detail during filming, but, Pollack explained, she was not being
difficult- she came from a place of deep concern. She wanted it all to meet her
own perfectionist standards.
A sneak preview proceeded swimmingly- until, that is, the
political unrest of the blacklist period, so central to Laurents’s life and his
conception of the story, shot to the foreground. As soon as the love story
receded, audiences left the theater for popcorn and a cigarette. It was the
love story people cared about, not the polemics. Which meant that after that
first preview in San Francisco, ten minutes of politics was edited out
overnight with a razor blade. Literally. It left the film in a choppy state but
the love story now remained front and center and audiences at the second
preview cheered.
Industry publications predicted a big box office opening followed
by a quick drop-off, but the drop-off never came. Viewers returned to the film
over and over, which leads to the ultimate question: Why did audiences care so
much, unfailingly starting to cry over Katie and Hubbell’s final break-up. And
the more I read, the more I watched, and the more I interviewed (Streisand,
James Woods –his first film- lyricist Alan Bergman, Lois Chiles), I
found four reasons for the film’s extraordinary 50-year hold on audiences
around the world:
nStar chemistry in spades. Redford and Streisand at their
early ‘70s peak, looking great and throwing off sparks together, proving that
opposites really do attract. Everything about them reads as a contrast- looks,
acting styles, manner of speech- and it all blends beautifully.
nIll-fated love affairs are universal. Like Katie and
Hubbell, everyone in the viewing audience has loved the wrong person at one
time. Or at several times. Everyone has loved passionately, if not wisely. As
film historian Jeanine Basinger put it: “Yes- everyone really has loved the
wrong person at one point or another. Except for maybe 10 people- and who wants
to know them?”
nThe uber romantic score by the then unknown Marvin Hamlisch,
who composed the title song on spec, in hopes of scoring the entire movie. His
reward? Two Oscars.
nThat killer ending in front of the Plaza. For the three
people over 50 in the United States who haven’t seen the film, I won’t describe
it- except to say that even critics who didn’t like the film fell for the
ending- it’s an all time keeper.
And as audiences clamored to know if Katie and Hubbell would
ever get back together, the clamor for a sequel grew in volume.Talks were held.
Screenplays were written. So what happened?
To find that out you have to read the book. Besides, I have
my own idea for a sequel.