Whatever the people behind the creation of Murphy’s Romance did, they somehow managed to make one of the most exhilarating screen romances in the history of cinema, and yet made it seem so effortlessly easy. Perhaps its the presence of Martin Ritt, the legendary director who presided over the adaptation of the novella by Max Schott, which tells the story of two lonely souls – one a penniless divorcee from California, the other a well-regarded widower living in a small Arizona town – who come to know one another by mere coincidence, and prove to have a profound impact on one another. Ritt assembles a great cast and crew, many of whom were responsible for some of his greatest successes as a filmmaker – Harriet Frank Jr. and Irving Ravetch were hired to handle the adaptation, having previously written the screenplay for Hud, arguably the director’s greatest work, while Sally Field reunites with the director who helped consolidate her as one of the most interesting and versatile actresses of her generation with her groundbreaking work in Norma Rae a few years earlier, which cemented her legacy and made her a truly reliable performer. Yet, Murphy’s Romance still feels like something of an outlier, a daring and provocative romantic comedy that may play by the rules, but never falls victim to conventions, taking a few well-calculated risks when they were necessary, but mostly acknowledging that the components that make these films so successful are a combination of heart and humour, which is provided in an abundance by a group of creative people united under the guise of simply telling a charming story.

There’s a very narrow boundary between making something that depends on well-received patterns, and being a victim to conventions, especially when it is with a genre as popular as the romantic comedy. For as long as films have been produced, we’ve seen great romances represented on screen, many of them adhering to a strict set of guidelines. Whether its the narrative structure (which anyone can eventually predict if they’ve seen a handful of films from the genre) or the emotional content, it’s rare to find a traditional romantic comedy that does anything different, especially since the ones most likely to deviate from these patterns are those that are marketed around how they abandon traditions and instead embrace something entirely different. Murphy’s Romance is not a film that proves this wrong, since there aren’t any moments where we feel as if Ritt or his cohorts were trying something entirely different. On the contrary – this film is proof that one can make a film out of nothing but conventional material and still have it be successful, because it isn’t always the originality of the premise that makes for a wonderful story, but rather the emotional content and how certain components are executed. There’s a level of detail that propels this absolutely sensational film, with each scene harbouring deeper meanings that may not have a clear purpose at first, but eventually find their way back into the narrative that is both surprising and satisfying. We can predict where the film is heading, but it never feels as if it is merely going through the motions, instead actively engaging with many of these elements in its pursuit of some deeper meaning, which makes for a truly enthralling and captivating comedy that is filled to the brim with the kind of heartwarming warmth that makes it such an unequivocally comforting film.

Importantly, Murphy’s Romance film never promises to be anything other than what it appears to be on the surface – a heartfelt story of two individuals slowly falling in love. Interestingly, this is one of the more deviant qualities of the film, since most romantic comedies will tend to make use of the tried and tested “love at first sight” trope, whereas Murphy’s Romance does it quite differently. The main characters don’t encounter each other by means of the dreadfully overused “meet-cute”, nor do they actually shown any real signs of love until towards the end. One could argue that this film is less one about romance, and more about friendship, a different kind of love that is often far more heartening than the carnal cravings we often see fuelling other entries into the genre. It’s a film built squarely on human interactions, and even beyond the central dynamic, we see touching moments occurring between the main duo and the characters in the periphery, the screenwriters and Ritt doing a lot of work to establish a vivid portrait of this quaint Arizonian hamlet that is home to a small, close-knit community of people, and the challenges that come when an outsider enters into the world and tries to become a part of it. It’s a delicate, insightful and very funny approach to exploring the human condition that carries a lot of weight where it matters, and manages to avoid heavy-handed emotional ramblings, which we’d certainly expect from a film like this. Despite it not being his most challenging work, there was very little reason to doubt that Ritt would make something special out of this material, and Murphy’s Romance is certainly a vastly more enjoyable film based on its very specific perspective than we may have expected at first.

Ritt may not have been the strongest when it came to visual stylings, but he was certainly a remarkable director when it came to working with actors. Sally Field had already given several memorable performances, winning numerous awards and establishing herself as an actress coveted by many directors, which in turn allowed her to consistently turn in great, challenging work. Murphy’s Romance may not be the most complex role of her career, but it’s one of the many performances where she is able to showcase her impeccable comedic timing, as well as the charm that has sustained her career and made her one of the few genuine treasures of the industry. The production of this film was challenging in terms of finding the right partner for Field, with the titular role of Murphy being one that was fiercely contested, many different names being touted for the role. Ultimately, Ritt and his collaborators got their way, and James Garner was cast in what is quite possibly his most charismatic, genuinely compelling performance. Playing the laid-back, genial older country gentleman to Field’s more erratic and neurotic city girl, Garner is astonishing – his imposing presence conceals a deep warmth, and his ability to bring out the best in his fellow actors was evident in every frame of the film. He was clearly an actor who cared about his craft, and even when working with something as mainstream as Murphy’s Romance, he manages to find the internal complexities of a challenging character. The two performances at the heart of this film seem to be the product beautiful, carefully-constructed work that feels like it is coming from a place of mutual respect, and authentic chemistry between the two leads, who carry the film almost entirely on their own shoulders, and find intricate details in these otherwise very conventional characters.

As a whole, this film is a triumph – an easygoing, lovable romantic comedy with good performances and a genuine sense of emotion. It neither breaks new ground, nor does it do anything we haven’t seen many times before or since, but yet still manages to be so endearing and fascinating in its own small way. It doesn’t necessarily venture too far out of the realm of reality, instead choosing to keep its intentions and clear concise, even if it meant sometimes relying too heavily on elements we’ve seen many times before – but it doesn’t waste any time in making it clear that it wants us to experience something joyful rather than realistic, which is evident throughout the entire film. Instead of being wholly original, Murphy’s Romance manages to flourish into one of the most comforting films of its era, a well-crafted comedy with heart and humour to spare, constantly working its way upwards from being a very simple comedy, into a daring and heartwarming romance, a voyage into the lives of these characters, who are far more well-composed than we’d expect from a genre that sometimes becomes too invested in cheap sentimentality rather than earnest appreciation for its fundamental themes. It’s not revolutionary, but it doesn’t need to be, since the final product is a compelling, deeply unique film about how love can sometimes be found in the most unexpected places.