First Monday in October (1981) User Reviews

Harmless and Lighthearted Intellectual Comedy/Drama

[romanorum1 · 6/10 · 21 July 2015]

President Ronald Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Supreme Court Justice in the USA in 1981 may have inspired this movie even though the original play was several years earlier.

Jill Clayburgh stars as the unattached, conservative, and sprightly Ruth Loomis from California who remains undaunted as the new Justice. Co-star Walter Matthau (Dan Snow) is the cantankerous, veteran liberal Justice with whom she repartees on various legal issues. Obviously there are long dialog scenes. Snow is an advocate of free speech and expression. "I'll defend everybody's right to speak and every man's right to be wrong!" he exclaims. Snow also rails, "There are only eight of us left against all of her." There is one odd exchange delivered by Justice Loomis during her confirmation: "The F.B.I. is wrong in reporting to you that I have no children. Ideas are my children, and I have hundreds of them." Yikes! But, exhibiting good chemistry, both stars are at the top of their game. Clayburgh and Matthau are both quick-witted and likable.

The movie was shot on location in the District of Columbia and also in California. As the plot is rather thin, the acting carries the movie. It is not bad, but it is also no classic.

This is how it should be....!

[MisterWhispy · 6/10 · 24 November 2001]

You have to hand it to Walter Matthau, the older he gets, the more feisty his characters become!!

This is a sorely underappreciated minor gem with two brilliant performances from Matthau and Clayburgh. Their chemistry is wonderful. All in all the film is clever, funny, original, and down right fun!!!

If you happen to find this film at your local video store, check it out...its well worth discovering!

A top performance by Matthau

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 7 March 2015]

Let's see. We need to cast a justice of the United States Supreme Court. Who would be good? I can't say that Walter Matthau would come to my mind very readily. And yet, as I sat there watching this film again after 34 years, it occurred to me that perhaps, this was Matthau's best performance because it is not at all type casting. And his repartee with Jill Clayburgh when they were discussing pornography is just brilliant.

Of course, today this film seems dated. We have more than one female justice of the Supreme Court, and indeed, one was selected right about when this film came out.

There is one big problem with this film from my perspective. The ending leaves everything up in the air. So much more could have been done with the conclusion of the film.

Beyond that, it's a very nice production (and for film buffs, one of the producers was actress Martha Scott). Other than the interiors of the Supreme Court, much was shot on location.

The cast was excellent. As I already indicated, Walter Matthau was superb here in his role as a liberal curmudgeon on the Supreme Court. And, there's great chemistry with Jill Clayburgh, who played the first female member of the Supreme Court. Barnard Hughes was just right for the role of Chief Justice. Jan Sterling had a minor role as Matthau's wife. James Stephens was a young actor who sort of disappeared after a while, but I always thought he was excellent, as he is here.

While not a perfect film, it's darned good, and I rather admire it. A strong "7".

Excellent rapport between stars

[myrddyn · 8/10 · 28 May 1999]

Clayburgh did a fantastic job of balancing Matthau's usual strong performance. The two struck a rapport that I never expected, and they ran off with the movie. I gave it an 8 instead of a 10 mostly because the script and cast couldn't keep up with them. Also, they have some weak spots when they go for light-hearted comedy. For me, the real shining light of the entire show was the way the two managed to continue an understandable discussion of the hot issues in jurisprudence of that time -- at least fifteen minutes of viewing are justified by that historical perspective alone. In short, it's heart-warming, well-acted in the leads, and technically tighter than most viewers would realize.

Superb Matthau in an unusual pairing with Clayburgh

[mlionfire · 9 July 2004]

Walter Matthau will always be one of my favorites from the sleazy bar-owner in King Creole to Hopscotch(another unusual pairing with Glenda Jackson)to countless other films he has appeared in... His droll comments and quick wit are hilarious.... and Jill Clayburgh does stand up to the occasion of matching him in legal argument(although scripted).... Of all the Matthau pieces, I think this is well worth the time, though I think the title(refers to the first sitting each year of the Supreme Court Judges)could have been a little more enticing to the general public... I think as a result of the title this movie has been largely overlooked... It is a funny, believable piece, well worth catching if you can!

Certainly timely in 1981, but with little entertainment value...

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 11 July 2010]

The US Supreme Court elects its first Madam Justice, an attractive, widowed judge from California; the first issue on the docket is whether a Nebraska zealot pining for family values can ban a pornographic film (it's title: "The Naked Nymphomaniac"). Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's script, based upon their play, is cognizant of the effects of a female voice on the Supreme Court, but doesn't give Jill Clayburgh's Ruth Loomis anything but obvious points to make. She is a Woman, hear her Roar! The cutesy repartee with fellow Justice Snow (an uncomfortable-seeming Walter Matthau) matches her women's-lib quips with his scratchy retorts, and no matter how truthful Loomis' arguments may be, everything in this version is underlined with whimsy. It's a poor substitute for strong political comedy, coming off more like a Hepburn-and-Tracy cast-off unearthed in a filing cabinet. *1/2 from ****

Like Old Clothes That Are Comfortable

[edwinalarren · 10/10 · 29 December 2010]

The first time I saw this movie I thought it was good, however, it was nothing spectacular! After seeing it again last night, I realized that this film "First Monday In October" had a very sensitizing identification with the American voter and movie viewer. Exploring the haunting conundrum of "What exactly is the role of government in our lives?". This motion picture elaborates on the necessary challenges which plague our Supreme Court Justices. The general role of the Supreme Court is to assume the role of Devil's advocate when dealing with an issue which requires a final decision. So, if it is up to nine individuals who determine the resonating outcome for the most important issues facing our nation, why then, shouldn't one of these people be a woman? Undoubtedly inspired by the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor by President Ronald Reagan, the first woman to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court in the history of our nation, this film delves into the redefinition of a woman's role in modern American culture.Now what exactly is the big problem with having a woman on the bench of the Supreme Court anyway? Here's my interpretation: Initially, all Americans, women and men alike, garner a delicate protectiveness towards the feminine gender. Here lies the core issue: We live in a world where rough and tumble prevails, and ultimately, left handed compliments are, emphatically, the most coveted ones. If we act gingerly around women, we ultimately conceal our real feelings towards them, hence, we have manifested a patronizing demeanor towards women that winds up being one of the most heinous insults which women can be the recipients of. What becomes the scourge while being in the company of many typical females; Emotional tip toeing, a pusillanimously yielding deference which is extremely nauseating, or, worst of all, while in front of a crowd of women, men start masquerading a ludicrously childish, sans vulgarity condescension to them. These social amenities serve as a subterfuge for men to provide a proverbial and unrealistic pedestal for women. All of these charades are wry and conciliatory actions which comply with a stilted decorum towards females. Aggregately, there arises a belittlement of women which brings on an onslaught of disconcerting mannerisms. This insincere politeness towards women is a mendacity that vitiates our candid and visceral feelings which are essential in attaining a thorough communication dynamic with each other as people. Ultimately, our societal etiquette which "reveres women" concurrently shortchanges them as human beings. The film "The First Monday In October" establishes an egalitarian criterion for all citizens, such a philosophy was a harbinger of things to come for the 1980's. I found this movie to be insightful and prescient, not to mention a well-made movie with a lot of talent!! I give it a thumbs up!! By the way, I am politically conservative, however, I did concur with Walter Mathiau's contention that our government should not be like scratchy outfits that we cannot wait to take off of our bodies the first chance we get. Our government's policies should correlate to the analogy that the rules and regulations set forth by our nation should be like old clothes that are comfortable!

I expected more than just a serious film with almost no laughs

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 5/10 · 13 February 2011]

There's one scene where Walter Matthau's character is having a heart-attack and when Jill Clayburgh asks him if he's OK, he replies with a smile on the face that he likes all that. I can say that "First Monday In October" is just like this situation, I can say that I liked some things of the film but I'm gonna say with a painful expression on my face.

Matthau and Clayburgh are wonderful but the movie doesn't fly high in imagination and in space simply because it's a filmed play, with long dialogs that neither were interesting or too funny to be put on the screen to be classified as a comedy on serious matters like the election of a female judge to occupy a seat in the Supreme Court. The subject is too serious to be taken fun of, in fact, I've never seen a movie with this theme being hilariously funny without being a goofy comedy (except the last minutes of "The Bonfire of the Vanities" which is brilliant).

Ronald Neame directs a boring plot, with some sparkles between the main characters who exchange great lines about court ethics on trials, and specially about Matthau's conduct in not watching a obscene film called "The Nymphomaniac Naked" which was the case whether that film was pornography or an art film; the "fake" trial where Matthau plays the director of such film is the most memorable moment of the film; and the funniest being the scene where all the judges are taking a photograph which seems to be an impossible mission to the photographer since all the characters can't stop arguing and laughing at each other over their different points of view.

"First Monday In October" is 80% drama and 20% comedy, as you see there's no balance between the two genres and that's why it was difficult to swallow and digest the film as being a good film; it almost got there, but I was expecting something like "House Calls", a previous work starring Matthau and Glenda Jackson, that had a rivalry that later becomes a romance between the two, and with some dramatic moments, without killing the humor away. Instead, all I've got was an almost dated subject with few humor, vast quantity of drama, touching performances. It goes into many ways to end up being humorless. Made to be as substitute for sleeping pills. 5/10

Better than it's been rated.

[rhoughton · 8/10 · 12 October 2000]

Walter Mathau left many wonderful performances for us to enjoy, and here is another one of them. In what could be a rehearsal for GRUMPY OLD MEN, it's great to see how he and Jill Clayburgh bounce off each other. Their characters are so different and opposite, yet they're like two pillars holding up the roof of the system. I find it difficult to fault this movie, It's enjoyable from start to finish.

First-Rate, Top Drawer, I Give it an 8!

[Bud-K · 29 June 1999]

The dialogue is priceless, and the physical comedy is great too, i.e., Barnard Hughes never says a word as he approaches Matthau's office where Matthau and Clayburgh are in a heated debate; it's a long shot from the office doorway as he approaches, and as soon as he is within earshot, he does a perfect "to the rear, march" without missing a beat!

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of bato-2 except for the "comedy isn't much" remark. Why such a low rating?

This movie is among the many that I have taped, and I return to it often for "pure enjoyment".

A failure

[JerryWeaver · 3/10 · 4 March 2002]

This is filmed theater and does not cut it as a movie. It just does not come across with any realism or vibrancy.

The point is not that a film must have action. Indeed, one of my all-time favorite movies is "My Dinner with Andre", which consists entirely of a dinner conversation between two old friends. But "First Monday in October" just doesn't have any spark.

3/10

What a great time capsule!

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 10 September 2017]

This is a film about the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, released about the same time that Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court - Sandra Day O'Connor - with the female justice, Justice Ruth Loomis played by Jill Clayburgh, and Walter Matthau as her fellow justice and ideological nemesis, Justice Dan Snow. The chief justice is played by Barnard Hughes who seems to just want to keep the peace and keep a low profile, not really what you would expect from a chief justice. Weirdly nobody calls him by name, they just call him C.J.

This thing is really a time capsule, and that was surprising since I was 23 when it was released and thought of 1981 as modern times. At Loomis' confirmation hearings she is asked if being a woman will influence her decisions and why she doesn't have any children! Even the justices make sexist remarks like saying "the perfume will make the place smell better" and wondering if she will put up curtains! The really interesting thing for me was that I had a hard time telling whether Loomis and Matthau were just disagreeing on individual cases or if one was right and the other left or if one or the other was supposed to be a moderate! Not until the end does the film clearly tell you which is which with a funny line about cab fare and liberals never having money.

There are two cases the justices spar over - one is about a pornographic film that the maker says is actually an educational documentary, and the other is a large corporation's possible attempt to squash the development of an idea that would have competed with their established products.

Loomis naively talks about the virtues of big corporations and how they only want to build up America and their stockholders. Matthau does a monologue about defending everybody's right to free speech no matter how offensive. Today nobody believes big corporations are inherently good, and both libs and conservatives would like to squish the other side's free speech rights if they could.

The dialogue could have been better for the material, but there is a mini-mystery towards the end that gives the film an interesting twist. Matthau is basically just playing a more erudite version of Oscar the slob from The Odd Couple. Matthau's character's wife (Jan Sterling) leaves him in the middle of the movie because - I'm not sure - the reason she gave was that her husband did not know what kind of wallpaper they had, but she made sure to take that fur coat with her! Probably she left so that there could be a possibility of sexual tension between Matthau's and Clayburgh's characters. I'll let you watch and find out if that actually happens.

I loved it if for no other reason than to take a look back at how politics used to be. I'd give it an 8/10 but YMMV. Especially when you see the credits and find that Robert E. Lee co-wrote the play and the screenplay! It probably could not get screened today because of that! Oh how times have changed!

Good script but bad acting and dated sexual politics hurt

[preppy-3 · 5/10 · 22 July 2011]

This was made before Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court--the first woman ever to achieve that. Conservative Ruth Loomis (Jill Clayburgh) is appointed to the court when another justice passes away. She butts heads with liberal Dan Snow (Walter Matthau) over a pornography case.

This was (I heard) based on a play and it shows. There are LONG sequences with people talking and cracking one-liners with each other. It doesn't hurt the film because the script is good with plenty of funny lines and interesting (it dated) observations. Also Barnard Hughes is excellent as another Chief Justice. But the film ultimately doesn't work. The main problem is Clayburgh and Matthau. They were both wonderful actors but they're at their worst here. They basically recite their lines with blank faces and no emotion. Also the two have no chemistry with each other and it comes through loud and clear. The film is flatly directed too. The R rating is kind of not needed. There's no violence or swearing but there are a few scenes from a porno film. While they are fairly graphic they're also pretty brief. All in all this is a mediocre comedy/drama. Fans of the two stars might want to check it out. I give it a 5.

I can't believe there are people who don't like this film.

[Rabbi1941 · 10/10 · 4 September 2003]

This film is classic Mathau. The plot is a little thin, and not the most thought provoking, but it's the portrayal in the key roles that make this film great. Mathau is very believable as Justice Dan Snow. The scene with his wife and the wallpaper has got to be familiar to intellectual men everywhere. His one liners in this movie are some of my favorites...

C.J. - "Are you going to get that?"

D.S. - "The telephone has no constitutional right to be answered. Leave it alone, it'll go away."

______________________________________________________________________

R.L. - "The Dr. says you might have had a heart attack..."

D.S. - "My heart wouldn't dare attack me!"

Over all a really well done film.

Really great movie

[isensee-2 · 28 April 2000]

When I first saw this movie, I had a discussion with a friend of mine over many of the things shown in this movie. After several years I again had another discussion with the same friend and it again was very interesting although very different. I can say this about two handful of movies. I give it a 10...

Terribly Dated

[Lechuguilla · 5/10 · 19 October 2009]

Lighthearted and fluffy, "First Monday In October" tackles the issue of the first woman appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. The film was topical when released in 1981, but now seems terribly dated. Grumpy but witty Justice Dan Snow (Walter Matthau), a liberal, spars with the new justice: Ruth Loomis (Jill Clayburgh), a conservative.

The plot is slow and a bit cloistered, no doubt the result of the film's origin as a play. The plot does advance, but not until near the end. Most of the "action", especially in the middle Act, consists of witty dialogue among the various justices, especially between Snow and Loomis. The dialogue is so witty that it seems unnatural. Each character immediately responds with some clever come-back line. The script could easily have been converted to an episodic TV sitcom of the early eighties. Mercifully, it wasn't.

The story has no real substance, apart from the rather obvious theme that any argument requires opposing points of view. And so, Justice Snow makes his point about a dinner menu. And Justice Loomis makes a counterpoint, showing how a reasoned debate can be applied even to life's most trivial moments.

The film does have very good production values. And the performances of Matthau and Clayburgh are certainly credible. Viewers who like these two actors will no doubt like this film.

My reasoned judgment of "First Monday In October" is that it is not a bad film. It's just very dated, and a tad fatuous.

The Nine Old Men get a woman

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 3 November 2012]

Though First Monday In October didn't last too long on Broadway, the Jerome Lawrence-Robert E. Lee play made one fine sparkling movie for Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh taking over the roles that Henry Fonda and Jill Alexander did on the stage.

In 1978 when this was on stage, the iconoclastic William O. Douglas had been gone three years from the Supreme Court and the idea of a woman justice was yet untried. So imagine the serendipitous joy with the producers when Ronald Reagan added Sandra Day O'Connor to the court. You couldn't buy better publicity.

Matthau is clearly based on William O. Douglas who was a far seeing advocate for social justice and change on the bench. Matthau if you can believe is a kinder, gentler version of Douglas. In real life Douglas was not a nice guy, in fact personally he was a swine. The banter with which you see him engage his law clerk James Stephens would never happen, he went through law clerks like he did wives. Ditto with Jan Sterling playing Mrs. Matthau. The first Mrs. Douglas had taken a hike years earlier and Douglas was on wife number 4 in her twenties at this time. He died in 1980.

O'Connor replaced Potter Stewart in 1981 on the bench so in real life these two never served. Still First Monday In October you'd like to think would be how they got along with even a little romance thrown in once the two got to know each other. Douglas never got along with colleagues, especially those who had a different point of view.

Still Matthau is one of his patented curmudgeons and Clayburgh do have a good cinema chemistry which makes First Monday In October a pleasant piece of viewing.

quaint

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 25 December 2017]

Dan Snow (Walter Matthau) is a liberal Supreme Court Judge. He is sadden by his friend's death, his conservative opposite on the bench. He is horrified when the President picks Orange County conservative judge Ruth Loomis (Jill Clayburgh) to be the new replacement despite her being the first female Supreme Court Judge.

The issues being fought over almost seem quaint at times. It kinda goes back and forth without finding a direction. Their arguing is not any fun and gets tiresome rather quickly. There is humor in Matthau's grumpiness and some banter. At least, they don't get together which partially saves this.

The first film of 2021

[jromanbaker · 8/10 · 1 January 2021]

Thanks to the UK and its multiple channels I discovered a film with both Jan Sterling and one of my favourite late actors Jill Clayburgh. Is Clayburgh forgotten or have I lost both sight and sound ? As for the title it is a quiet one and that is in some ways a pity. I am not going to bore reviewers with the workings of American politics, but both Clayburgh and the excellent Walter Matthau are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. She plays a Conservative and he is shall we say more Liberal. The film begins well with a dispute about pornography which is hilarious showing snippets from a soft core film which we as viewers have glimpses of. Before mentioning my big gripe which has nothing to do with the film, I noticed how wooden Clayburgh was in her role. Tight corseted in Conservative mannerisms the infectious laughter and that offbeat delivery of lines was diminished and I longed for them to surface. The political content skates over pornography quite quickly and so does the advantages and very serious disadvantages of large corporations, and the ending is far too abrupt and too neat. I will not say how that spans out and fizzles out at the same time. There is also the bonus of seeing Jan Sterling again in a too brief and under-developed role as Matthau's wife. I am not concerned if these people are based on real people. It is what is on the screen that counts, and even greats like Van Gogh are often distorted into fiction. As with art so with political figures. I give it an 8 for its approaching subjects of sensitivity but I abhor the fact that in the US it got an R certificate ( Restricted ) and that in the UK sensible for once gave it an AA which meant no one under 14, only to find on the channel I saw it on gave it an 18 ? Are we going retrograde in censorship at this dawn of 2021 ? I sincerely hope not. The confusion of these certificates just goes to show that we still have confused minds about both sex, politics and a few swear words. A film that should be seen, and wear old fashioned clothes to chime with us going backwards.

Light humor and a look inside the Supreme Court

[SimonJack · 5/10 · 11 October 2015]

The proximity of the film, "First Monday in October," to the actual first female justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court is uncanny. Others have surmised how President's Reagan's announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor for the high bench (July 7, 1981) may have helped draw interest and attendance at this movie. The film debut was Aug. 21. Two days earlier, Reagan had submitted his formal nomination of O'Connor. No doubt, the film was still playing in theaters when the Senate confirmed her by a 99-0 vote on Sept. 21.

This movie was based on a stage play that had a short run some time earlier. This might have been an interesting peek at the court and its first woman (fictional here, of course), but the script is so wishy- washy. The bones of contention in the film are weakly scripted. They seem so lame and might lead one to wonder why we have a Supreme Court at all. Now, had there been some issues with real substance, the plot might have been saved.

Well, the writers and movie makers tried to drum up some interest with dialog that argued freedom of speech and differing views between members of the court. This and related confrontations were the "meat" of the story carried mostly by the two leads, Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh. The few humorous lines injected a little life into the film, but they were too mile and too few. The leads were fair with the material they had. But they might have put more energy into their roles as justices Dan Snow and Ruth Loomis.

The best one can expect from this film is some light humor and an inside look at the Supreme Court building In Washington, D.C.

Really underrated!!!

[bato-2 · 10/10 · 15 March 1999]

I don´t know why this movie had such a low rating!!!

In fact, I would give it at least an 8. The plot is good, the acting is better, but comedy ain´t the best. Anyway this is a really good romantic movie, perhaps a little off reality, but it is still well developed. We should really raise this rating. And I mean it!!

Walter Matthau in top form here.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 9/10 · 23 January 2007]

This film is probably not many people's first choice for a subject to be covered, but when writers Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee wrote it they proved once again why they were one of America's top Play Writing teams: The choice of cast for this production, set against the hallowed halls of justice and in and around Washington, could not have been better. Matthau, at the very top of his game plays a William O Douglas like curmudgeonly liberal justice Daniel Snow, who has a low opinion of a certain woman circuit court judge Ruth Loomis, played by Jill Clayburgh. When a justice of the Supreme Court, Stanley Morehead dies the President names Judge Loomis to replace him. And with that the social conservative Loomis and Liberal Snow line up to do battle, with a surprising twist in this intellectual comedy. This film is rated R for some language and certain scenes not appropriate for children.

Made before O'Connor made SCOTUS, it's pretty good

[Solnichka · 8/10 · 11 March 2016]

Ever get the feeling Walter Matthau plays the same character in every movie? Oscar Madison? Buttermaker? Dan Snow? Yup, it's no mirage. But give him credit - no one does the grumpy routine better than Matthau. This film - conceived, written, produced and prepared before Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court - deals with the relationship between Matthau (his character is based loosely on William O. Douglas, I suspect) and Clayburgh and their differing legal perspectives. It's actually a charming look at a serious subject, the basic dilemma between morality and legality. Unfortunately, there is some gratuitous gender humor and nudity, which really has no place in this film. Clayburgh is likable enough, but her role is ridiculous, assuming the character really is a prominent woman - if you can overlook the tasteless gender jokes, the film is worth viewing.

FIRST MONDAY OF TAKTANJI

[dasilentpardner-65037 · 10/10 · 3 October 2022]

Today, on the first day of work of female Supreme Court Justice Taktaji Brown Jackson, I decided to revisit 'The First Monday in October,' a film I hadn't seen in 40-odd years.

Amazing, really, how prescient it still is! The film was rushed into release only a month after our first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Conner, took the bench.

There's alot going on here: a fight between Liberalism vs. Conservatism when actual facts and intelligent discourse was the norm; a meditation on chauvinism and women's rights and how far women had come, especially in the workplace; and an aside about the legal rights of obscenity and free speech and the cultural responsiblities of Larry Flint-like smut peddlers. In between are a number of laughs and some great lines. True, it's not a laugh riot, but it induces a number of well-earned chuckles and the acting is first rate. The leads are Walter Mathau as a liberal judge and Jill Clayburgh as the sparring conservative first female appointee to the bench of the highest court in the land. Both lead performances earned Golden Globe nods and would have earned Oscar nods in just about any other year. Both performances earn our attention and are just terrific.

Among the drawbacks are these: I side with critic Judith Christ who claimed the casting of James Stephens in the role of a law clerk similar to his role in T. V.'s 'The Paper Chase' is disconcerting. Any up-and-coming young actor in the role (Tim Matheson? Gregory Harrison? Cliff DeYoung?) would've done a great job and been a better standout. There are two nice supporting performances from stalwarts Barnard Hughes and previous Oscar-nominee Jan Sterling, but neither role yields enough yuks or pathos to make much of a mark. And, late in the film, there's the aforementioned drawn out side story about pornography that is mishandled to the point it seems smarmy and off-putting and undoubtedly helped to garner the film an otherwise unwarranted R rating.

Fun to see Ruth Loomis (the Jill Clayburgh character) is from what was then ultra-conservitive Orange County, CA. It's now ultra Liberal! I live here now, only blocks from John Wayne Airport, featured in the film. Hilarious!

Sometimes the mentor becomes the student.

[mark.waltz · 9/10 · 15 January 2021]

And in this case, he doesn't even know he's mentoring let alone changing. He's Walter Matthau, a rather chauvinistic supreme court justice, none too happy to discover that they have chosen a woman, the troublemaking Jill Clayburgh, as the next supreme court justice and the very first woman after the death of one of the elder members. Ironically made the same year that Ronald Reagan chose Sandra Day O'Connor, the first real life female supreme court justice, this is quite interesting for its view of the old boys club facing changes, both in fiction and in real life at the same time.

While their relationship at first is very antagonistic, it quickly becomes close because they playact several cases, with one questioning a witness, then vice versa. They begin to confide in each other and in spite of differing political views, they begin to become very good friends. But with Matthau facing health issues and Clayburgh discovering the truth about her late husband's business practices, both of their futures on the supreme Court are tested and they must rally to support each other a nice view of how the federal law should work.

It would be nice for those of us outside the political realm to think that this is how our supreme Court actually works with people of different political viewpoints coming together and looking at all of the sides involved in individual cases. This touches on several different issues including censorship and illegal business practices, and while thecharacters that Matthau and Clayburgh do not see eye to eye on all the issues, it's obvious that a respect is being built in spite of that.

This adaption of the Broadway play could probably not be revived but it is an interesting look back at the Reagan era and how the court has changed. Matthau and Clayburgh play very well off of each other and it's nice to see a film with this where the leading players do not need to become romantically involved. Barnard Hughes as the head of the supreme court provides some like humor and veteran actress Jen Sterling in her last film is a nice surprise as math house wife who decides to leave him when she realizes that he doesn't consider their marriage as important as his career. Under the direction of Ronald Neame, this is a very nice adaption of a hit Broadway play really opens it up with real Washington DC locations.