You’ve seen the movies where the lovers run through an airport or stand in the pouring rain. Those are fine, I guess. But they aren’t real. Real life is usually much more mundane, cluttered with grocery lists, train schedules, and the crushing guilt of being a decent person who accidentally caught feelings for someone else’s spouse. That’s exactly why falling in love 1984—referring to the Ulu Grosbard film Falling in Love starring Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro—remains such a weirdly polarizing, yet deeply human, touchstone in cinema history.
It’s not a flashy movie. Honestly, it’s kind of slow. But in a world of high-concept blockbusters, there is something incredibly grounding about watching two legends of the screen act like two totally unremarkable people.
The Most "Normal" Romance Ever Filmed
When people talk about falling in love 1984, they often get it mixed up with the Orwellian nightmare 1984 which also came out that year. They couldn’t be more different. One is about Big Brother; the other is about a guy named Frank and a woman named Molly who bump into each other at a bookstore. Specifically, Rizzoli’s in New York on Christmas Eve. It’s a classic "meet-cute," but it doesn’t feel like one. It feels like a mistake. They’re both married. They have lives. They aren’t looking for an escape, yet they find one in each other on the morning commute from Westchester to Manhattan.
Meryl Streep plays Molly Gilmore, a freelance commercial artist. Robert De Niro is Frank Raftis, an architectural engineer.
Think about that for a second. This was 1984. De Niro was coming off a decade of playing Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta. People expected him to explode. Instead, he’s just... a guy. He’s nervous. He fumbles his words. He’s actually a bit dorky. It’s arguably one of the most underrated performances of his career because he’s playing against his "tough guy" type so hard that he becomes invisible in the role.
👉 See also: Don’t Forget Me Little Bessie: Why James Lee Burke’s New Novel Still Matters
Streep is equally restrained. She captures that specific kind of suburban malaise that isn’t about being "unhappy" in a dramatic sense, but just being "stilled." Her husband, played by Harvey Keitel (another actor usually known for being intense), is actually a pretty nice guy. That’s the kicker. The movie doesn’t give you an easy out by making the spouses monsters.
Why This Movie Sparked So Much Debate
It’s about infidelity. There’s no getting around that. In the mid-80s, the "adultery drama" was a specific genre, but Falling in Love handled it with a weirdly quiet dignity that made some critics uncomfortable. Some found it boring. Roger Ebert gave it two stars at the time, arguing that the characters were too thin and that we didn't know enough about them.
But I’d argue that’s the point.
When you’re falling in love 1984 style—pre-cell phone, pre-internet—your relationship exists in these tiny pockets of stolen time. You don’t know everything about the other person. You only know how they make you feel in that forty-five-minute window on the Metro-North train. The film captures the frantic energy of trying to find a payphone to make a call that you know you shouldn't be making. It’s about the silence in a kitchen when you realize you’re thinking about someone else while your spouse is talking about the weather.
✨ Don't miss: Donnalou Stevens Older Ladies: Why This Viral Anthem Still Hits Different
It’s a movie of glances. It’s a movie of small gestures.
The Realistic Logistics of an Affair
The film spends a lot of time on the logistics. How do they meet? Where do they go? They go to a greasy spoon. They walk through the city. They deal with the weather. There is a scene where Frank (De Niro) tries to find Molly's name in a phone book. Remember those? The sheer effort required to stalk someone—or just find them—back then was immense. You couldn't just look up their Instagram. You had to physically put yourself in their path.
The Fashion and the Vibe of 1984 Manhattan
If you watch it today, the aesthetic is a massive draw. It’s not the neon-and-leg-warmers version of the 80s. It’s the camel coats, the heavy wool scarves, and the gray, slushy New York City winter. It looks expensive but lived-in. The cinematography by Peter Suschitzky (who did The Empire Strikes Back) gives the mundane train stations a sort of romantic, hazy glow.
It feels like a time capsule.
🔗 Read more: Donna Summer Endless Summer Greatest Hits: What Most People Get Wrong
The score by Dave Grusin is also quintessential 80s adult contemporary. It’s melodic, a bit sentimental, and underscores the "politeness" of the characters' longing. They aren't rebels. They’re people who followed all the rules and still ended up feeling empty.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ending
A lot of people think the movie is an endorsement of cheating. It really isn't. If you pay attention to the final act, you see the wreckage. You see the pain it causes Frank’s wife and Molly’s husband. The movie doesn't shy away from the fact that these people are blowing up their lives for a feeling that might not even last.
The ending is famously ambiguous. Do they stay together? Do they just have that one last encounter on the train? Grosbard leaves it open, which frustrated audiences who wanted a clean "happily ever after" or a tragic "punishment" for their sins. But that ambiguity is exactly why the film has survived in the memory of cinephiles. It mirrors the messy reality of human emotion. You don't always get a resolution. Sometimes you just get a moment.
Actionable Insights for Fans of the Genre
If you’re looking to revisit or discover falling in love 1984, here is how to get the most out of the experience:
- Watch for the "Chemistry of Hesitation": Pay attention to the scenes where they don't talk. Streep and De Niro are masters of the "almost-touch." It’s a masterclass in screen acting where less is significantly more.
- Compare it to "Brief Encounter": This film is essentially a modern (for the 80s) remake of David Lean’s 1945 classic Brief Encounter. Watching them back-to-back is a great way to see how the "socially forbidden" romance evolved over forty years.
- Check the Supporting Cast: Beyond the leads, you’ve got Harvey Keitel and Dianne Wiest. It’s a powerhouse ensemble that brings a lot of weight to the "ignored" spouses and friends.
- Look at the Locations: If you’re a New Yorker or a fan of the city, the shots of the old Rizzoli Bookstore and Grand Central Terminal are gorgeous. They capture a version of the city that is largely gone.
The legacy of falling in love 1984 isn't that it's the greatest romance ever told. It's that it's one of the most honest. It doesn't pretend that love is easy or that it always happens at the right time. It’s messy, inconvenient, and often happens when you’re just trying to get through your commute. Sometimes, the most extraordinary thing in the world is finding someone who makes a boring train ride feel like the only place you want to be.