A portrait of the turbulent 60s in Britain. It is interesting how norms have changed since then. There is much drinking and smoking in the film, including a scene where little children smoke--unimaginable to be shot now. On the other hand: the mouth-to-mouth kiss between the two men must have looked extremely shocking to the audiences then while today it would not be paid attention to. Lifestyles and norms change with times. The film is rather chaotic and this is something that I did not like about it. ( Maybe it is true to its time--the 60s were VERY chaotic as we all know). There are scenes with great subtlety and sensitivity and other unnecessary scenes which are banal and uninteresting and do not have anything to do with the plot. What I miss is the tragic perception of the characters' problems. The first half of the film feels like a comedy while in the second part it changes more and more into tragedy of loneliness and loss. This is somewhat confusing. I wish the film emphasized this loneliness and loss of the main two characters more. Of all the actors I liked Glenda Jackson most. She is a very good dramatic actress and it is because of her acting that these tragic tones are introduced in the film. Also she is a very beautiful woman with a typically English appearance. Peter Finch is less plausible and sometimes he acts in a comic way which I think is inappropriate. Also I did not like his last monologue turning towards the viewers--it spoils the magic of art. Actors should never notice the audience until the film finishes--this is what I mean. Also the title of the film has not been explained at all. Why is the Sunday bloody? I could not understand. And the whole story goes through the week, not only on Sunday. So, the title is misleading. I liked, however, the themes that this film presented: America as the land of promise for the young, aging and the reduction of the expectations you have in life, sexual promiscuity in these times that inevitably was leading to jealousy even though the characters pretend that they have overcome it ( which they haven't of course). All in all, an interesting film despite its flaws but definitely not a masterpiece!

I get that this is an important film for its time. But I can't let that justify the ineptitude of filmmaking it represents.Actually, no, let's go back to that time. It presents one of cinema's few seriously-treated (and therefore politically viewed) bisexual characters as not simply compatible with a man and a woman, but inflicting painful half-relationships on both simultaneously. It's not a true love triangle, but a love vampire's V. Some people cannot commit, but it's not because they are bisexual. It's a shame that the film's then-refreshing portrayal of a gay man came at the expense of a stereotyped bisexual.But back to now. It's annoying watching two people who have no interest in each other try to share the same self-centred third person romantically, knowing full well what the end result is going to be. I just couldn't care about any of them.Then, those kids. They were straight out of a horror movie. The less said about them, the better. Except: that scene with the dog... it's both gratuitous and laughably-executed.I did feel that the filmmaker at least made an attempt to place our two doomed lovers into current and past context, but these scenes just jumped out of nowhere, for no apparent reason. They didn't really help explain the characters at all.The picture itself, the colours that ended up on film, ... just dreary.But at least we have footage of period phone technology. Where would we be without that?!What would I recommend instead? I don't think I know of any with a plot like this. But some dealing with bisexuality or love triangles are: Les chansons d'amour (2007), The Dreamers (2003), both starring Louis Garrel. Y tu mamá también (2001).

This is the story of a love triangle between Dr. Hirsh (Peter Finch), Alex Greville (Glenda Jackson), and Bob Elkin (Murray Head). Hirsh is a dignified Jewish doctor, Alex is a frustrated office worker, and Elkin is an artist specializing in kinetic sculpture. Both Hirsh and Alex are in love with Elkin and he reciprocates in turn to each of them individually. If being dated is judged by the physical environment of the early 1970s (dial land-line phones, 33 rpm records, antiquated fuse boxes, dated hair styles, and so forth), then, yes, this is dated. But the movie is not dated in terms of its themes. I think this could play out now pretty much as presented here, even in our somewhat more enlightened times. It would not be out of the ordinary for a dignified middle-aged doctor to withhold public advertisement of his sexual orientation, but none-the-less privately engage in a homosexual relationship. In fact it would not be all that unusual for such a person to remain in the closet. Consider that sodomy was a crime in fourteen U.S. states until a Supreme Court decision invalidated such laws in 2003, in a 5-4 vote no less. Homosexual acts had been decriminalized in England but a few years before this movie was made. And we have a current justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who even now, in 2012, makes such statements as, "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?"Where the movie is perhaps even ahead of its time is in presenting all three participants as accepting themselves for what they are and honestly dealing with their situation without serious guilt or dramatic jealousies. The difficulties of sustaining such a ménage à trois are realistically detailed.I thought the beautifully filmed Bar Mitzvah was crucial to the story. Until that event I was viewing Hirsh as an essentially lonely person, but seeing that he had a community of relatives and associates who respected him disabused me of that notion. And Hirsh did not view himself in an unfavorable light. The scene that had Finch talking directly to the audience at the end was a great piece of acting; when he so simply and sincerely said, "We had something," I really felt for the guy. Glenda Jackson fans will not be disappointed with her performance. She has a wonderful way of saying things without speaking a word.I rather like how the story begins in the middle of things--it takes very little imagination to see how this situation could have evolved. What did Alex and Hirsh see in the shallow and ambitious Elkin? You don't have to have lived too long before the questions about romantic relations, "What does he see in her," or, "What does she see in him," occur. In this case, I suppose the question of "What does he see in him," should be added. Questions of love and sex are not easily explained.The way we get to know each person in increments, with some limited use of flashbacks, I found to be effective.

This is a quality movie. Peter Finch a 50s Jewish doctor and Glenda Jackson a rich 30s something divorced drifting woman are in love with Murray Head a 20s androgynous looking shallow free spirit (this was right after the 60s).Yes, I saw it in 1971 the initial kiss stunned the audience--now it would not except maybe in some bible belt venue. What I really like about the movie is it shows a positive gay man (Finch)---not the typical gay character with clichéd baggage like a smothering mother etc... Also Gay characters traditionally are messed up and commit suicide or some other unpleasant denouement they are almost never stable admired members of traditional society.This movie is great it shows the nightmare of the new way of raising children--a cacophony of permissiveness--as a great contrast between the sanity of the love triangle.Murray Head is androgynous looking and it is a little hard imagine him as a romantic magnet but possible. He is sort of a an unsympathetic unemotional and shallow character perfect as a bisexual semi user. So they had that spot on.The 60s free spirit completely honest non jealous free love looking for the meaning of life type characters have fortunately disappeared from the roster of movies.RECOMMEND HIGHLY