Kramer vs. Kramer

I've led into a movie review before about the problems of making a movie built around transgressive ideas. Being the first movie of its kind to tackle something against the mainstream is a way to make that movie age like milk instead of wine. Yesterday's shocking concept is tomorrow's quaint part of daily life. Not all movies that tackle this age poorly, though. While I don't care for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, its gritty, unflinching realism keeps the movie in the conversation of great horror movies even though its level violence has long, long been overshadowed. Kramer vs. Kramer bridges the gap between those two states. Its exploration of a positive relationship between a father and young son coming out of the sudden abandonment by the wife/mother is ahead of its time. There is something refreshing about seeing a man realize there's more to being a father and husband than just being in the room, seeing where he's made mistakes, and fight tooth and claw to become better. Even now, it wouldn't be hard at all for a movie like this to slip into misandry and not allow Ted (played by Dustin Hoffman) any personal growth whatsoever, and for everything to wrap up with Joanna (played by Meryl Streep) to swoop in for the rescue. Conversely, it would also be easy for a movie, after Joanna has left, paint her as a lunatic and a selfish bitch for abandoning her family for her own selfish desires. It does neither; Kramer vs. Kramer plays it down the middle. Both sides made mistakes, both sides are struggling to make things better (although we don't see Joanna's side much, which would've been nice), and a little boy is caught in the middle. Unfortunately, this is where the movie becomes a relic of its time. Kramer vs. Kramer probably felt revolutionary in its day, almost sacrilegious I imagine, for having the balls to suggest a father is just as important as a mother, and to point out the family custody court system is almost insurmountably biased against fathers. But in 2025, the importance of fathers in bringing up a child has been documented and underscored, and while courts still have some bias, the burden of proof for dads is no longer "beyond all hope and reason". It is wonderful that we've progressed as a society to the point where the events of Kramer vs. Kramer feel increasingly anachronistic, but it also means that the movie's impact goes from a transgressive knockout punch to a tickle with a feather. KvK feels like an average family-breaking-apart melodrama, not a bold exploration of the family dynamic. If this didn't have the cast it does -- make it John Davidson and Stephanie Zimbalist -- then it would be the ABC TV movie of the week and forgotten without trace. It leaves the movie in an awkward purgatory. The acting is fantastic. Ted's arc -- learning how to re-prioritize his life, becoming the father that he should've been, and taking responsibility for his side of what ended the marriage -- is expertly handled. But the passage of time has rendered this movie's bite toothless. The 70's-style melodrama feels antiquated. And the aw-shucks-nevermind ending feels like a cop out to get out of the very realistic corner the story paints the movie into. KvK isn't a bad watch, but unless you're doing a Best Picture run-through like I am or love to watch good performances regardless of the movie, then there isn't much reason to check this out.