Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

The Subject Was Roses

 
Movies:

The Subject Was Roses

  • Director: Ulu Grosbard
  • AMG Rating: starstarstarstar
  • Genre: Drama
  • Movie Type: Family Drama
  • Themes: Alcoholism, Fathers and Sons, Generation Gap
  • Main Cast: Patricia Neal, Jack Albertson, Martin Sheen, Don Saxon, Elaine Williams
  • Release Year: 1968
  • Country: US
  • Run Time: 107 minutes

Plot

Frank D. Gilroy's Pulitzer-winning "kitchen sink" theatrical piece The Subject Was Roses was given a no-frills film transference in 1968. Martin Sheen and Jack Albertson re-create their stage roles as a returning serviceman and his alcoholic father. Patricia Neal takes over from the play's Irene Dailey as Nettie Cleary, Timmy's (Sheen) overly protective mother, long at odds with husband John (Albertson) over his drinking. Mother and Father try to put on a facade of happiness for the benefit of their son, but soon the three of them are squabbling again, just as if the boy had never been away. With the exception of adding a few extraneous characters, the film version of The Subject Was Roses is essentially the same as its 1964 Broadway counterpart. The film helped establish the career of Martin Sheen, launched a whole new dramatic career for Jack Albertson, and represented a triumphant comeback for Patricia Neal, who'd recently recovered from a debilitating stroke. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide

Cast

Grant Gordon - Man in Restaurant

Credit

George Jenkins - Art Director, Anna Hill Johnstone - Costume Designer, Ulu Grosbard - Director, Jerry Greenberg - Editor, Lee Pockriss - Composer (Music Score), Lee Pockriss - Musical Direction/Supervision, Judy Collins - Songwriter, Sandy Denny - Songwriter, Mike Maggi - Makeup, Jack Priestley - Cinematographer, Edgar Lansbury - Producer, John Godfrey - Set Designer, Jack C. Jacobsen - Sound/Sound Designer, Frank D. Gilroy - Screenwriter

Similar Movies

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; Days of Wine and Roses; Playhouse 90: Days of Wine and Roses; Death of a Salesman; The Great Santini; Harry and Son; I Never Sang for My Father; Long Day's Journey into Night; Ordinary People; Death of a Salesman
Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: The Subject Was Roses (film)
Top
The Subject Was Roses

Original poster
Directed by Ulu Grosbard
Produced by Edgar Lansbury
Written by Frank D. Gilroy
Starring Patricia Neal
Jack Albertson
Martin Sheen
Music by Lee Pockriss
Cinematography Jack Priestley
Editing by Gerald B. Greenberg
Distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Release date(s) October 13, 1968
Running time 107 minutes
Country United States
Language English

The Subject Was Roses is a 1968 American drama film directed by Ulu Grosbard. The screenplay by Frank D. Gilroy is based on his 1964 Pulitzer Prize-winning play of the same title.

Contents

Plot

Returning to his Bronx home following World War II, Timmy Cleary discovers his middle class parents have drifted apart and constantly quarrel at the least provocation. Once closer to his mother Nettie, the young veteran finds himself bonding with his salesman father John, but he tries to remain neutral when intervening in their disputes.

En route home after a day trip to the family's summer cottage with his father, Timmy purchases a bouquet of roses and suggests John present them to his wife. Nettie is thrilled by his apparent thoughtfulness, and the three spend the evening nightclubbing in Manhattan. When an inebriated John (whose infidelities have by now been referenced in the film) attempts to make love to his wife later that night, Nettie rejects his advances, suggesting he go to "one of his whores", and breaks the vase of flowers, prompting her husband to reveal it really was Timmy who bought them.

The following morning, while John is at Sunday Mass, Timmy accuses his mother of trying to make him choose between his parents, and she goes out to allow both of them time to calm down. When she returns, she finds John arguing with their half-drunk son. Realizing the domestic situation is not likely to improve, Timmy announces he is leaving home, a decision his parents grudgingly accept. When he changes his mind, his father insists he stick to his plan, and the three eat breakfast together before he departs.

Production

This was the first film directed by Ulu Grosbard, who had been nominated for the Tony Award for his direction of the 1964 Broadway production of Frank D. Gilroy's play. [1] Joining him were original cast members Jack Albertson and Martin Sheen as John and Timmy Cleary; Patricia Neal replaced Irene Dailey in the role of Nettie. The film was a significant comeback for Neal, who was recovering from a debilitating stroke she had suffered three years earlier and hadn't appeared on screen since In Harm's Way in 1965. During filming, the actress was beset with memory problems and physical limitations she struggled to overcome, and in her autobiography Just As I Am, she described the experience as a career milestone that convinced her she still was a good actress. She also discussed her effort to memorize a five-page monologue she was required to do in one take and her pride at doing so successfully. [2]

The film was shot on location in New York City and Spring Lake, New Jersey.

The soundtrack includes "Who Knows Where the Time Goes?" and "Albatross," both performed by Judy Collins.

Cast

Critical reception

Vincent Canby of the New York Times called the film "one of those . . . middle-class domestic dramas that — for various reasons — time has passed by, as it has the Philco Playhouse . . . The play has been brought to the screen with flat, fatal fidelity by Mr. Gilroy . . . Quite awkwardly (since it makes you aware of everything else you are not seeing), the one-set play has been opened up with several excursions outside the Bronx apartment. What's worse, Mr. Grosbard has retained the Broadway pace, which is particularly evident in the performances of Mr. Albertson and Mr. Sheen . . . The tempo of the acting often seems to be outrunning the movie itself . . . Miss Neal's presence . . . gives the movie an emotional impact it wouldn't otherwise have . . . She has, in fact, simply too much style and wit for this kind of monosyllabic nonsense." [3]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times thought Gilroy's "extraordinary play . . . has been filmed with the greatest care, but it fails as a movie. It is hard to say exactly why. There's nothing obviously wrong, but when you walk out you don't feel as if you've been there. Something was missing." He added, "Part of the problem is with the actors, I think . . . Albertson and Sheen . . . talk loudly, their movements are too obvious, they are trying to project . . . Miss Neal, who knows the movies, is better suited to the medium. She holds back, she suggests more than she reveals, and when all three actors are on camera her performance makes the other two look embarrassingly theatrical. And there is where the movie fails." [4]

Variety said, "The terrific writing, which top-notch performances make more magnificent, displays a wide range of human emotions, without recourse to cheap sensationalism or dialog. Grosbard's perceptive direction keeps the bickering and banter from becoming shrill histrionics." [5]

TV Guide rated the film four stars, citing "the terrific acting, sharp writing, and outstanding direction from Grosbard" and adding, "Never does the emotion explode into oratory, so almost every scene has an underlying tension that continues to bubble." [6]

Awards and nominations

Jack Albertson won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Patricia Neal was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress but lost to Katharine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter and Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl. Martin Sheen was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor - Motion Picture but lost to Daniel Massey in Star!.

References

External links


 
 

 

Copyrights:

Movies. Copyright © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC. Content provided by All Movie Guide ®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "The Subject Was Roses (film)" Read more