Table for Five (1983) Warner Bros./Drama RT: 122 minutes Rated PG (language, mature themes) Director: Robert Lieberman Screenplay: David Seltzer Music: Miles Goodman and John Morris Cinematography: Vilmos Zsigmond Release date: February 18, 1983 (US) Cast: Jon Voight, Richard Crenna, Marie-Christine Barrault, Millie Perkins, Robby Kiger, Roxana Zal, Son Hoang Bui, Maria O’Brien, Nelson Welch, Kevin Costner. Box Office: $2.4M (US)
Rating: * ½
Audiences will certainly find plenty to cry about in the 1983 tearjerker Table for Five, but not for the reasons that the makers intended. This is easily one of the most cloying, annoying and insincere family dramas I have ever seen. Very seldom do I want to scream during a movie, but I came close many times while watching Table for Five. It tries to tug at the heartstrings with the story of an absentee father trying to reconnect with his children on a luxury cruise, but only succeeds in triggering the gag reflex.
I was spared the agony of seeing this at the movies at the time of its release, but I did see it on cable TV many, MANY times after it premiered the following December. Even at the tender age of 15, I knew there was something horribly wrong with it. Simply put, it doesn’t have a believable premise. Ask yourself this question, what mother in her right mind would allow her three young children to go on a foreign cruise with a father who has consistently shown that he’s immature, irresponsible and unreliable, especially when it comes to his children? That’s just the first of many missteps that Table for Five makes over the course of two excruciating hours. That being said, it isn’t worst movie I’ve ever seen. It’s not even in the top 25. It has a couple of good points, but this is one of those times when the bad definitely outweighs the good.
Former professional golfer J.P. Tannen (Voight, Coming Home) travels from California to New York in order to spend an extended period of time with his three children, something he hasn’t done in about four years. He wants to be a part of their lives again and decides to accomplish this by way of a luxury Mediterranean cruise that will take them to Rome, Athens, Cairo, Tunis and Genoa. He’s also trying to win back ex-wife Kathleen (Perkins, At Close Range) who’s now married to successful attorney Mitch (Crenna, First Blood), a more stable parental figure.
He springs the idea of the cruise on her at the airport, a gesture that certainly doesn’t win him any favor with her. For reasons known only to God, she allows him to take the kids away of this cruise despite the fact he doesn’t know them at all. He has no idea that youngest child Truman-Paul (Kiger, Children of the Corn) has a learning disability and suffers from terrible nightmares. His 12YO daughter Tilde (Zal, River’s Edge) is a sensible sort who assumes the role of mother to her two brothers. Oldest boy Trung (Bui), a Vietnamese orphan that J.P. and Kathleen adopted, is something of a troublemaker. He picks on his little brother and gets into all sorts of trouble around the ship.
J.P. has no idea what he’s doing and stinks as a father. He’s more interested in picking up women than spending time with his kids. He grows impatient with their needs and demands, often yelling at them out of frustration. Finally, he comes up with the idea of the kids thinking of him as their friend J.P. instead of Dad. Things get a little better and they start having fun. J.P. even meets somebody, a French archeologist named Marie (Cousin Cousine) who joins them in Rome. Then something happens. Something bad. Something really bad. A total game-changer that puts the children’s future in question. I won’t say exactly what happens, but it comes down to a battle of wills and determination between J.P. and Mitch.
In and of itself, Table for Five isn’t a bad movie in terms of storyline. If you can get past the far-fetched and unbelievable premise, there’s an okay drama about an estranged father trying to reconnect with his children. What kills that part of it is that J.P. isn’t a very likable character. He’s selfish, irresponsible and utterly clueless about being a father. He acts like he has it all under control even promising he will teach Truman-Paul to read by the end of the cruise. He gives up after the first attempt because the kid can’t spell a simple word like “policeman”. Why not start with something easy like “cat”? Wouldn’t that make more sense?
J.P. needs to grow up. A devastating tragedy forces him to start taking steps in that direction. He has so much to learn and won’t be able to pick it all up in the few weeks they’re on the cruise. That leads right up to the main dramatic conflict in the second half of Table for Five. Are the children better off with their irresponsible biological father or the stepfather who’s more capable of providing emotional and financial stability for them? What I didn’t mention is that Mitch is an arrogant and pompous jerk who makes no effort to hide his contempt for J.P. Both men love the children and no matter how things end up, it will have a long-lasting effect on the poor children. It’s really a no-win situation. Who are we, the viewers, supposed to root for when both parties are jerks?
What did director Robert Lieberman (Fire in the Sky) and writer David Seltzer (The Omen) have in mind? Voight is a good actor and makes a game effort here, but his character transition just comes off as insincere and unbelievable. The only kid that didn’t get on my nerves is Zal; she’s a very good young actress. I believed her character.
The other good thing about Table for Five is the cinematography. The foreign locations used for the movie are quite beautiful, especially the Egyptian pyramids, the backdrop used when J.P. breaks tragic news to the children. The rest of the movie just got on my nerves. It’s not completely unwatchable; in fact, it’s a bit of a guilty pleasure on some level. It’s mildly interesting to see such a well-intentioned movie go so horribly wrong. It utterly fails on a dramatic level, but succeeds as a travelogue for the aforementioned Mediterranean countries. Maybe the makers should keep the scenery and lose the rest of the movie.
