Plot (or what there is of it)—Husband Blume is divorced by wife Nina after she catches him philandering. Trouble is he still loves her and spends the rest of the time trying to get her back. So how is true love distinguished from true obsession.Critic Leonard Maltin calls the movie "self-indulgent" and he's right. It's like writer-director Mazurski has gone off on his own personal tangent and made a movie of it. Segal does manage a role in low-key style that could have easily gone over the top. Too bad there's no hint of his very real comedic skills, which I somehow kept expecting. Also, he may get more close-ups than my favorite puppy. As Nina, Anspach has a different look with her long thin face and cloud of platinum hair. Hers is the more interesting character as she struggles with middle-class conventions like marriage. But what's with Shelley Winters' tacked on role as a grieving divorcée. Perhaps Mazurski was reminding casting directors what an inimitable presence she is.Arguably, the film's best parts are those reflecting political (the farm workers) and youth culture (the "swingers" meeting place) of the early 1970's. It seems Nina is groping for a life outside the conventional but is emotionally stuck halfway. Anyway, her character is the more interesting of the two. At the same time, Elmo (Kristofferson) appears more like a rootless hippie, while Nina connects with that unconventional side. Even Blume seems attracted when a kind of unconventional threesome forms. Nonetheless, such deeper themes remain conjectural, while the movie itself over-stretches into a barely entertaining two hours that a graphic rape scene doesn't help. All in all, Mazurski's screenplay may be based on a personal experience that somehow got carried away.

Blume in Love is honestly one of Paul Mazursky's best films. George Segal is fantastic as the charismatic, yet deeply pathetic protagonist Stephen Blume and Kris Kristofferson bounces off of him enjoyably in one of his early film roles. The script creates an engrossing, believable portrait of romantic relationships in the 1970s, while also having several laugh-out-loud moments. Additionally, Mazursky makes great use out of both Los Angeles and Venice, Italy as locations. Dramatically effective and boasting several memorable characters, Blume in Love is in the same league as An Unmarried Woman and is a a must-see for Mazursky fans.

I have never forgotten the scene where Susan Anspach glides gracefully across the screen towards George Segal to the accompaniment of Wagner's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde. The glorious climax of the music was timed to coincide with the exact moment of their meeting and was, for me, the highlight of the film. Three thumbs up to whomever decided on it's use!

I have enjoyed Paul Mazursky's direction on a few occasions, notably in Harry and Tonto. I like his work in Blume in Love as well, but am close to being disgusted with the repulsive ending. George Segal plays Blume, an obnoxious ex-husband of Susan Anspach. He has an overactive libido that gets him in trouble in this film in more ways than one. He spends the majority of the movie pining over the loss of his wife while comprehending why he can't perform sexually the way he wants to. The end of the story really got my goat (and yes, there is another goat in this picture I won't comment on here). Rape is no laughing matter, committed by anyone no matter what the situation. This film made light of the whole occurrence, and made Kris Kristofferson (Anspach's live-in boyfriend) look like a putz. To top it all off, the film ends happily, with the wrong people (immorally) getting back together. I would have been more content if the film stayed on its obsessive keel, maybe even if it went into a screwball comedy. Unfortunately, it traverses into absurdity and non-sensical behavior. I enjoyed the first half of this, had a bit of a titter or two, but was most displeased in Blume in Love's finish. Rating: Two stars.