What is it about the allur­ing wid­ow­er? What makes a man more appeal­ing if his wife has died? Is he more vul­ner­a­ble or per­haps more avail­able? He doesn’t get any bet­ter look­ing, smarter, or rich­er (unless his late wife was an heiress). But Hol­ly­wood has leaned into this sce­nario from the start: The sad wid­ow­er who every­one wants to help. It’s also com­plete­ly one-sided. I can’t think of many films where the wid­ow allures. 

I’ve won­dered about this trend since my wife passed away six years ago. I’ve come to the con­clu­sion that Hollywood’s dis­tort­ed ver­sion of the wid­ow­er makes com­plete box office sense. No one would pay mon­ey to see the real­i­ty. What nor­mal per­son would want to spend two hours watch­ing Brad Pitt or Robert Red­ford make cof­fee in the morn­ing, sit down by him­self, stare at his cup for ten min­utes in silence and then burst into tears? (Well, maybe fans of Swedish direc­tor Ing­mar Bergman’s dark films.) Great enter­tain­ment and great dia­logue don’t often include sleep­less nights and hours of loneliness. 

I have found most films on the top­ic of wid­ow­ers fair­ly awful, even embar­rass­ing. In 1963, we had the amaz­ing­ly facile, The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, which actu­al­ly went on to become a net­work com­e­dy series for three sea­sons in the 1970s. Yes, you read that cor­rect­ly – com­e­dy. The 1963 film starred Glen Ford as the recent wid­ow­er with a young son played by Ron Howard. No soon­er does Ford return to work after the funer­al than every­one – includ­ing his son– tries to help find him a new wife. It feels like Ford lost his house­keep­er, not some­one he was remote­ly attached to. He nev­er los­es his com­po­sure, doesn’t appear to be sad, and his son is the quin­tes­sen­tial 1950s Amer­i­can kid, more inter­est­ed in pret­ty much every­thing else except the fact that he’s lost his mother. 

More recent films like Sleep­less in Seat­tle are slight­ly bet­ter. There is, in par­tic­u­lar, one scene that felt hon­est to me in that film when Tom Han­ks gets exas­per­at­ed with his young son, and the boy actu­al­ly breaks down over the loss. Han­ks gets clos­er on his sec­ond try, twen­ty years lat­er, in A Man Called Otto when he plays a sad, angry old man who wants noth­ing more than to kill him­self and join his wife in death. 

Hol­ly­wood has leaned into this sce­nario from the start: The sad wid­ow­er who every­one wants to help.

In Love Actu­al­ly we saw Liam Nis­san as the wid­ow­er who looks like he is tru­ly in great pain and actu­al­ly loved the wife he lost, until he moves on with the promise of super­mod­el Clau­dia Schiffer. 

A friend sug­gest­ed I watch a series on Net­flix called After­life by the British come­di­an Ricky Ger­vais. It’s about a British reporter for a local news­pa­per in Eng­land who has lost his wife. The deceased wife appears through­out the series in video record­ings that he watch­es most nights.

It was touch­ing and so accu­rate that I felt sor­ry for Ger­vais because I assumed that his keen por­tray­al of the top­ic must have come from actu­al expe­ri­ence and under­stand­ing. I was great­ly relieved, and frankly sur­prised, to find out he is not, in real life, a wid­ow­er. I am curi­ous, though, how he got it so right. 

But the all-time Blech Award goes to the insipid, cliché-filled, and hor­ri­bly act­ed 1970 film Love Sto­ry with Ali McGraw and Ryan O’Neal. The sto­ry, which was extreme­ly pop­u­lar, uses the heroine’s can­cer as a vehi­cle for tear-jerk sym­pa­thy. Here it is again – the vul­ner­a­ble, appeal­ing widower.

I rewatched it recent­ly to make sure my mem­o­ry was cor­rect. Now, fifty years lat­er, it’s even worse than I remembered. 

It worked though, at least finan­cial­ly. Love Sto­ry was one of the first films to make one hun­dred mil­lion dol­lars in its ini­tial run. That was a lot of mon­ey, espe­cial­ly in 1970. The book by Erich Segal was on the best sell­er list for forty-one weeks. 

In all hon­esty, I found absolute­ly noth­ing roman­tic in my wife’s can­cer, the long days and nights in the hos­pi­tal, her suf­fer­ing, or her death. Zilch. 

How­ev­er, there is one brief moment where the film indus­try caught the truth of what it means to lose your spouse and, strange­ly, it seems almost by acci­dent. Per­haps that’s because wid­ow­hood isn’t the main point of To Kill a Mock­ing­bird. It is, of course, about race in the Amer­i­can South in the 1930s. 

In one stand­out scene, Gre­go­ry Peck, as wid­ow­er Atti­cus Finch, is sit­ting on the porch by him­self one sum­mer night. His two young chil­dren are in their bed­rooms about to fall asleep, and Atti­cus over­hears a con­ver­sa­tion between them con­cern­ing their dead mother. 

Scout asks her broth­er if he remem­bers her because her mem­o­ry is fad­ing. What makes this scene so incred­i­bly pow­er­ful is the fact that Gre­go­ry Peck says absolute­ly noth­ing. He has no lines. While we also eaves­drop on the children’s con­ver­sa­tion, the cam­era just focus­es on Atti­cus as he sits there, tak­ing it in. Alone. It’s all in his face. This scene is thought­ful, respect­ful, and as pow­er­ful as any I have ever seen por­tray­ing widowhood. 

So there is good news here, it is, in fact, pos­si­ble to hon­est­ly por­tray aspects of the com­plex­i­ty of wid­ow­hood and grief and actu­al­ly have a great film at the same time.

Adapt­ed from Wav­ing Good­bye: Life After Loss by War­ren Kozak

War­ren Kozak is an author and jour­nal­ist who has writ­ten for television’s most respect­ed news anchors. He was an on-air reporter for NPR, and his writ­ings have appeared in the Wall Street Jour­nal, the Wash­ing­ton Post, the New York Sun, and oth­er news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines. War­ren lived and worked in Chi­na in the mid-1980s and is the win­ner of the pres­ti­gious Ben­ton Fel­low­ship at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go. For more infor­ma­tion, vis­it his web­site at War​renKozak​.com.