A Delicate Balance, directed by Tony Richardson, was produced by the American Film Theater, in 1973, in an effort to preserve the great plays and performances by the top actors of the day, while spurring interest in the theater.  Somewhat similar to the Metropolitan Opera's initiative currently launched for opera at the movies, it was shown in movie theaters around the country.  I remember going down to see these "shows" on Sundays while in college.  The films were shot as if in the theater; there was no attempt to open them up, bring the bigger world in and out, as would be done today.

It's of interest dramaturgically because this was adapted by playwright, Edward Albee (pronounced ALL-bee) in 1973, fairly close to the original production of 1966.  So the work is more in tune with the dark turmoil of the time than say, the Tony Award winning 1996 Broadway revival and the more recent and quite excellent production at the Arena Stage, which by the way, Albee, one of the world's greatest living playwrights, attended during rehearsal.

A special features section to the DVD includes an interview with the longhaired and much younger playwright, who dishes on Katharine Hepburn.  It turns out Kim Stanley was cast for the original part of Claire, but as a method actor was taking a great deal of time finding her way into the role (or less politely, learning her lines).  Kate's ultimatum - either she goes or I go - was heeded as it had been in the past.  Life was approximating art behind the scenes. You can almost hear the meter running on this budgeted picture. The substitute was an accomplished Canadian actress Kate Reid who stepped right in, though she has the tough edges, especially apparent on close-ups, and misses on the play's comic elements.

Also missing on the comedy end was Paul Scofield's performance.  A great classical actor, he was a little disappointing to me: his stylized delivery did not quite capture the humor of the character, and the play's ironic concluding aria on friendship comes up short.  I was looking for less Lear and more Big Daddy.  Hepburn plays as usual in one key and the benign tremor that was creeping into her later performances (she would skip viewing the dailies because of this) is distinctly noticeable here.  Joseph Cotton however, is wonderfully cast, and shows another side of his art, as Harry, as was Betsy Blair, playing in another dimension, as Edna.  Lee Remick shows her vulnerability and immaturity to great effect as Julia, tears a stream and mascara streaking as she threatens to pump some lead into the unflinching interlopers. 

It is interesting to note that the play was dedicated to John Steinbeck, that other depicter of archetype on the American fictional scene.

************************************************************************

The play is about the ability of a man to hold his loveless world together, and the expectations of those most dependent on him, that he will.  When love is gone, duties, rights, honor, and responsibilities trump all, especially family.  Even as she claims to be the fulcrum, the one that provides the sense of balance, Agnes places the burden on Tobias.  He must act, make the decision, and she will make it happen.  As we find out Tobias has come up short (no puns intended) in the past and he will again.  A real missing child looms large over the action, unlike Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and it has set in action a dysfunctional world in which everyone has a part to play.

In the clash between responsibility, doing what one ought, and desire, doing what one wants, the weak inherit the day.  Striking is the thralldom those on the short side of the seeming power or moral equation hold over their betters. As Agnes (ironically?) notes, "The helpless are the cruelest lot of all: they shift their burdens so." Everyone's looking to their rights, but where are the responsibilities?  Enter Harry and Edna with the terror, seeking shelter, which Agnes correctly diagnoses as a disease, a plague, and the demands of friendship seem to outweigh family.  How to resolve? Tobias invites them in, begs and pleads with them finally, and it's up to the transgressors to save face and provide their own graceful exit, if not delicate balance and skedaddle.     

Looking back at the 1960s it's hard not see the big shoulders of Tobias as America and the terror as a manifestation of the Age of Anxiety, Vietnam, Communism, The Bomb, Conformity, or more immediate and threatening, A Loveless Marriage.  Now the responsibility seems more diffuse, governmental or corporate in nature, and more insidious.  And the terror, we know it too well, it is real.   

At the end everyone, but Tobias, will have gotten pretty much what they want.  He will have again played the role of Gran Seigneur, but at the cost of a friendship - one senses he will be the next to go; Agnes calling all the shots, her many protests notwithstanding, will expel the unwanted visitors, she hopes for good; Harry and Edna will have a renewed sense of their worth if not each other and perhaps gained a necessary enemy to blame rather than confront themselves; Julia will begin auditioning for husband number five, in another attempt to find her lost brother Teddy; and Claire will have seen another psychodrama played out from her front row seat at no cost to herself.   Agnes at the conclusion opens the shutters to new day, her own, very much the same as the one before.   

At 2 hours and 12 minutes, the adaptation lops off much of the big 3-act script, usually a brisk 3 hour performance on stage. So the nuances of Claire's and Julia's and even Edna's character fall by the wayside, and some of the other dialogue which the movie cannot begin to show.  These would inform some of the play's story set pieces: Tobias's killing of his cat (the retaliation over the loss of love), Claire's AA story (denial as a road to freedom), and Claire's shopping for a bikini (failure to find love and frustrated sexuality),   Still these are great actors and an adaptation of a classic play, and even without the sure hand of a director and a clear vision of where to take the picture, well worth a look.  Applause meter: 3 hands. Recommended for all film buffs and as a good entry to a stage performance as well as preparation for a close look at an outstanding text, a well-deserved Pulitzer Prize Winner.