Classic on the big screen [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Classic on the big screen



dean_martin
08-13-2005, 10:20 PM
My wife and I went to the Saenger Theater in downtown Mobile, AL (about an hour's drive) on Saturday night to see A Streetcar Named Desire. What an experience! It's one of those fine old theaters with ornate walls and opera boxes - very cool for a classic film. We've seen Citizen Kane and the Mobile Symphony Orchestra there.

I have seen Streetcar at home, but seeing it on the big screen was like seeing a totally different movie. The tension in some scenes was spine-tingling. Some of Tennessee Williams' wittier lines were laugh-out-loud funny. But the one thing that amazed me the most was the screen presence of Marlon Brando. His best and longest scenes are in the first half of the film. I was mesmerized. I also enjoyed Karl Malden's performance. He pulls off the moma's boy character perfectly. His character Mitch in Streetcar reminds me of his character Archie Lee in Baby Doll (another Elia Kazan directed masterpiece with a brilliant performance from Eli Wallach) which is one of my all-time faves.

Vivian Leigh as Blanche DuBois was excellent. She worked her extensive monologues convincingly. But the monologues and her scenes got longer as the film went on and I really wanted to see more of Brando. That's the only complaint I have, but I guess that's because I had never seen the young Brando on the big screen before.

I've never read the play, but I'll have to now. I'm not sure whether Stanley forced himself on Blanche while Stella was in the hospital. I would like to think he didn't, but you never no with Tennessee Williams. My wife believed that Stanley didn't force himself on Blanche but that he did do something to push her over the edge and that's why Stella's attitude toward Stanley changed at the end. I trust my wife's instincts when it comes to those kinds of things, but I may check the play to make sure.

The superb acting (real acting) and impressive dialogue in this film was refreshing. The only recent comparable film driven by good dialogue that comes to mind is Glenn Gary Glenn Ross. Am I just missing today's dialogue intensive films? I know Tarrantino provides some excellent lengthy dialogue for many of his characters, but he doesn't always use it to provide insight into the character. I think some of his dialogue is included simply because it is "cool sh*t to say".

I stayed to catch the ending credits so I could see who did the film score because I didn't catch it at the beginning. Everyone in front of me was getting up to leave so I couldn't see the screen. That's something else I'll have to check, but it sounded like a Mancini score.

The Saenger's summer film series ends next week with Rebel without a Cause. I'll finally get to see James Dean on the big screen. We'll see how he compares to Brando.

Kam
08-14-2005, 06:55 PM
My wife and I went to the Saenger Theater in downtown Mobile, AL (about an hour's drive) on Saturday night to see A Streetcar Named Desire. What an experience! It's one of those fine old theaters with ornate walls and opera boxes - very cool for a classic film. We've seen Citizen Kane and the Mobile Symphony Orchestra there.

I have seen Streetcar at home, but seeing it on the big screen was like seeing a totally different movie. The tension in some scenes was spine-tingling. Some of Tennessee Williams' wittier lines were laugh-out-loud funny. But the one thing that amazed me the most was the screen presence of Marlon Brando. His best and longest scenes are in the first half of the film. I was mesmerized. I also enjoyed Karl Malden's performance. He pulls off the moma's boy character perfectly. His character Mitch in Streetcar reminds me of his character Archie Lee in Baby Doll (another Elia Kazan directed masterpiece with a brilliant performance from Eli Wallach) which is one of my all-time faves.

Vivian Leigh as Blanche DuBois was excellent. She worked her extensive monologues convincingly. But the monologues and her scenes got longer as the film went on and I really wanted to see more of Brando. That's the only complaint I have, but I guess that's because I had never seen the young Brando on the big screen before.

I've never read the play, but I'll have to now. I'm not sure whether Stanley forced himself on Blanche while Stella was in the hospital. I would like to think he didn't, but you never no with Tennessee Williams. My wife believed that Stanley didn't force himself on Blanche but that he did do something to push her over the edge and that's why Stella's attitude toward Stanley changed at the end. I trust my wife's instincts when it comes to those kinds of things, but I may check the play to make sure.

The superb acting (real acting) and impressive dialogue in this film was refreshing. The only recent comparable film driven by good dialogue that comes to mind is Glenn Gary Glenn Ross. Am I just missing today's dialogue intensive films? I know Tarrantino provides some excellent lengthy dialogue for many of his characters, but he doesn't always use it to provide insight into the character. I think some of his dialogue is included simply because it is "cool sh*t to say".

I stayed to catch the ending credits so I could see who did the film score because I didn't catch it at the beginning. Everyone in front of me was getting up to leave so I couldn't see the screen. That's something else I'll have to check, but it sounded like a Mancini score.

The Saenger's summer film series ends next week with Rebel without a Cause. I'll finally get to see James Dean on the big screen. We'll see how he compares to Brando.

hey deano!
the music was by ALex North who also did the music to Good morning vietnam, spartacus, death of a salesman, and prizzi's honor to name a few.

the kazan/williams/miller/brando cadre of work really changed everything in film and theater. you can look at things pre-them and post-them and see a highly visible difference in directing, acting, and writing. the rawness of emotion that brando exhibited just wasnt seen by any leading man prior to him. look at any performance of valentino, grant, gable, or welles and contrast that to brando in streetcar, or On the Waterfront, or hell, even Sayanara. brando was truly a force. Look at scripts and direction pre and post williams/miller/kazan. The things and characters they wrote about. Stanley is truly a despicable character, yet he's the 'hero' of the play, and Malden's Mitch comes across as the loser, when between the two... he's prolly the 'better' man. there's alcoholism, abuse, incest, insanity, mccarthy-ism, betrayal - very bitter, base, disgusting human elements brought out and examined under a microscope. If you like williams, pick up 27 Wagons Full of Cotton and Other Short One Act Plays. Each play is a quick read, and incredibly moving.

i've studied Streetcar pretty extensively, so let me know what you think about the Stanley/Blache confrontation scene, will be curious what your interpretation of it is. they had to cut part of the scene out because of the censors and didn't show certain things. but that's also kind of how the play is as well. that scene is incredible, and there are some 'gimmes' that williams plants to let you know exactly what happenned between those two. it's incredible writing.

have you seen the Glass Menagerie? (both the Karen Allen and the Kate Hepburn version) another good version of miller's The Crucible was the one with daniel day lewis and winona ryder. that play is incredibly intense as well. good stuff that's sorely missing in nearly every movie today.

peace
k2

dean_martin
08-15-2005, 09:09 AM
hey deano!
the music was by ALex North who also did the music to Good morning vietnam, spartacus, death of a salesman, and prizzi's honor to name a few.

the kazan/williams/miller/brando cadre of work really changed everything in film and theater. you can look at things pre-them and post-them and see a highly visible difference in directing, acting, and writing. the rawness of emotion that brando exhibited just wasnt seen by any leading man prior to him. look at any performance of valentino, grant, gable, or welles and contrast that to brando in streetcar, or On the Waterfront, or hell, even Sayanara. brando was truly a force. Look at scripts and direction pre and post williams/miller/kazan. The things and characters they wrote about. Stanley is truly a despicable character, yet he's the 'hero' of the play, and Malden's Mitch comes across as the loser, when between the two... he's prolly the 'better' man. there's alcoholism, abuse, incest, insanity, mccarthy-ism, betrayal - very bitter, base, disgusting human elements brought out and examined under a microscope. If you like williams, pick up 27 Wagons Full of Cotton and Other Short One Act Plays. Each play is a quick read, and incredibly moving.

i've studied Streetcar pretty extensively, so let me know what you think about the Stanley/Blache confrontation scene, will be curious what your interpretation of it is. they had to cut part of the scene out because of the censors and didn't show certain things. but that's also kind of how the play is as well. that scene is incredible, and there are some 'gimmes' that williams plants to let you know exactly what happenned between those two. it's incredible writing.

have you seen the Glass Menagerie? (both the Karen Allen and the Kate Hepburn version) another good version of miller's The Crucible was the one with daniel day lewis and winona ryder. that play is incredibly intense as well. good stuff that's sorely missing in nearly every movie today.

peace
k2

Hey Kam - thanks for the insight and the suggestions. I'll have to revisit Glass Menagerie and Miller's works. The collection of Williams' plays sounds like something I would like.

I haven't put my hands on a copy of the Streetcar play yet but I did do a little internet research and it looks like scene 10 of the play has Stanley carrying Blanche to the bed whereas the movie ends the scene with Stanley holding her. That lends more credibility to Blanche's story of what happened. Of course in the movie the story of what happened between them was not recounted by Blanche, but by Eunice (the upstairs neighbor) and Stella. In the movie there is enough doubt to accept that Blanche made up the story as one of her delusions, but in hindsight I think she was too far gone to have made it up to hurt Stanley. In fact, after thinking about it, I don't think she was capable of "deliberate cruelty" as she stated. The only reason she would have made up the story was if it was one of her "fantansies", but her fantasies were more genteel.

Although Stanley was a brute in the movie, the only act that really made me question his devotion and loyalty to Stella was his hitting her before the famous STELLLLLLLLLAAAA scene. There were some looks between Stanley and Blanche early on that suggested that Blanche might try to seduce Stanley. I guess overall though Stanley's general disdain for Blanche and his overzealous investigating to find the truth about Blanche does say something about his devotion to Stella. He certainly didn't try to help his wife's sister. I was really pulling for Stanley to be the common man's hero.

I've read and studied some of the Southern Gothic writers such as William Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor, Eudora Welty and Erskine Caldwell. Most of my exposure to Tennessee Wms. has been through films like Streetcar, Baby Doll and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Another gem of a movie from this genre is God's Little Acre based on Caldwell's book. Even Russ Myer (of Faster Pussycat and Beneath the Valley of the Dolls fame) took a stab at the southern gothic with Mud Honey.

As you've pointed out, Williams' plays crossed genre lines in lit. and in film and fits in nicely with other great Kazan films like East of Eden with James Dean. I'm looking forward to seeing Dean in Rebel without a Cause this weekend. I'm vaguely familiar with the comparisons between Dean and the young Brando. There may have been a rivalry there even though Brando was older when Dean came along. Seeing Brando on the big screen gave me a better perspective on his abilities and presence as a young actor. (Geez, now I think I might need a bigger tv.)

Kam
08-15-2005, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE=dean_martin]Hey Kam - thanks for the insight and the suggestions. I'll have to revisit Glass Menagerie and Miller's works. The collection of Williams' plays sounds like something I would like.

I haven't put my hands on a copy of the Streetcar play yet but I did do a little internet research and it looks like scene 10 of the play has Stanley carrying Blanche to the bed whereas the movie ends the scene with Stanley holding her. That lends more credibility to Blanche's story of what happened. Of course in the movie the story of what happened between them was not recounted by Blanche, but by Eunice (the upstairs neighbor) and Stella. In the movie there is enough doubt to accept that Blanche made up the story as one of her delusions, but in hindsight I think she was too far gone to have made it up to hurt Stanley. In fact, after thinking about it, I don't think she was capable of "deliberate cruelty" as she stated. The only reason she would have made up the story was if it was one of her "fantansies", but her fantasies were more genteel.

Although Stanley was a brute in the movie, the only act that really made me question his devotion and loyalty to Stella was his hitting her before the famous STELLLLLLLLLAAAA scene. There were some looks between Stanley and Blanche early on that suggested that Blanche might try to seduce Stanley. I guess overall though Stanley's general disdain for Blanche and his overzealous investigating to find the truth about Blanche does say something about his devotion to Stella. He certainly didn't try to help his wife's sister. I was really pulling for Stanley to be the common man's hero.
QUOTE]

One of the key lines comes from eunice (i think, dont have my copy of streetcar with me at work here) where she says Stella couldn't believe her and go on living with stanley. meaning stella couldn't believe that stanley raped blanche but had to construct her own fantasy about what happenned and that stanley is a 'decent guy' in stella's fantasy. the themes of fantasy and blanche's madness run pretty heavy in the play and are really emphasised with the music in the film version. but they continue on with stella as well, as she has to live in her own fantasies, just as blanche does. stanley also has a line before he descends on blanche, and tells her to drop the bottle. then she tells him not to interfere with her and he says something like, 'you wouldn't be too bad to interfere with' grabs her, the bottle breaks and they move off screen. next shot (in the film) is of the gutter outside as the camera pans up the next morning vs. stanley carrying blanche to bed in the play. Williams was definitely filled with symbolism and i think the broken bottle, the lines ("you had it coming" etc), the build up, the gutter, all show stanley pulling down blanche's reality around her with the finality being his rape of her to 'show' her she is just a prostitute from new orleans. stanley destroys illusion while blanche stands for it, that was the essential battle that stanley (some argue) win, and some say blanche wins, because in the end, she still has her illusions, still not believing its a 'doctor' with her 'whoever you are, i've always relied on the kindness of strangers' lines, even as she descends further into insanity.
I think that william's writing stanley the way he did, and with blanche constantly degrading him and calling him 'common' and 'pollack' and other names, set up stanley to be a common man's hero, but williams wasn't going to let stanley (or the viewer) off that easy. stanley beats his wife and rapes his sister while the wife is having his baby in the hospital. i thought (?) at the end of the movie stella runs upstairs to eunice with the baby, while in the play, they all stand together and watch blance being carted off by the doctor. the ending of the movie leaves a little more to interpretation then as far as will stanley get stella back or has she left him? the play at least sets up stanley (reality) as the winner over blanche (illusion).

dean_martin
08-15-2005, 11:15 AM
One of the key lines comes from eunice (i think, dont have my copy of streetcar with me at work here) where she says Stella couldn't believe her and go on living with stanley. meaning stella couldn't believe that stanley raped blanche but had to construct her own fantasy about what happenned and that stanley is a 'decent guy' in stella's fantasy. the themes of fantasy and blanche's madness run pretty heavy in the play and are really emphasised with the music in the film version. but they continue on with stella as well, as she has to live in her own fantasies, just as blanche does. stanley also has a line before he descends on blanche, and tells her to drop the bottle. then she tells him not to interfere with her and he says something like, 'you wouldn't be too bad to interfere with' grabs her, the bottle breaks and they move off screen. next shot (in the film) is of the gutter outside as the camera pans up the next morning vs. stanley carrying blanche to bed in the play. Williams was definitely filled with symbolism and i think the broken bottle, the lines ("you had it coming" etc), the build up, the gutter, all show stanley pulling down blanche's reality around her with the finality being his rape of her to 'show' her she is just a prostitute from new orleans. stanley destroys illusion while blanche stands for it, that was the essential battle that stanley (some argue) win, and some say blanche wins, because in the end, she still has her illusions, still not believing its a 'doctor' with her 'whoever you are, i've always relied on the kindness of strangers' lines, even as she descends further into insanity.
I think that william's writing stanley the way he did, and with blanche constantly degrading him and calling him 'common' and 'pollack' and other names, set up stanley to be a common man's hero, but williams wasn't going to let stanley (or the viewer) off that easy. stanley beats his wife and rapes his sister while the wife is having his baby in the hospital. i thought (?) at the end of the movie stella runs upstairs to eunice with the baby, while in the play, they all stand together and watch blance being carted off by the doctor. the ending of the movie leaves a little more to interpretation then as far as will stanley get stella back or has she left him? the play at least sets up stanley (reality) as the winner over blanche (illusion).

It's interesting that you mention Stanley's line "You wouldn't be too bad to intefere with." When I heard this in the theater it sounded like "You wouldn't be too bad to have an affair with."

Your mentioning Blanche's constant degrading of Stanley made me rethink my earlier suggestion that she wasn't capable of being deliberately cruel - but then again, if she's exposing Stanley's reality is she really being cruel?

If we're talking winners and losers, it's beginning to dawn on me that Stanley was the bigger loser. Blanche had lost everything before she arrived in New Orleans - the family home, family members who died, her job, her reputation and her youth. Stanley longed for his fantasy/illusion too. Just before they go to the hospital, he tells Stella that when Blanche leaves and the baby comes things will be like they used to be when they had fun together. The movie ending suggested that that wasn't going to happen.

Kam
08-15-2005, 11:24 AM
It's interesting that you mention Stanley's line "You wouldn't be too bad to intefere with." When I heard this in the theater it sounded like "You wouldn't be too bad to have an affair with."

Your mentioning Blanche's constant degrading of Stanley made me rethink my earlier suggestion that she wasn't capable of being deliberately cruel - but then again, if she's exposing Stanley's reality is she really being cruel?

If we're talking winners and losers, it's beginning to dawn on me that Stanley was the bigger loser. Blanche had lost everything before she arrived in New Orleans - the family home, family members who died, her job, her reputation and her youth. Stanley longed for his fantasy/illusion too. Just before they go to the hospital, he tells Stella that when Blanche leaves and the baby comes things will be like they used to be when they had fun together. The movie ending suggested that that wasn't going to happen.

yeah that's a really good point. i hadnt thought of that. really shows the difference there between the play and the movie right at the end. the way the movie ends, it definitely feels different from the play. with stella running upstairs with the baby to eunices place, making you feel that stella will protect the child more so than she protected herself and that things won't be the same and that stanley's reality/fantasy is in jeapardy. the play ends with them together, with stanely holding his kid as a very patriarchal figure, which kind of lends itself more towards stanley's 'reality' of things being back to the way they were.

i thought blanche had a line where she said a womans charm is always half illusion, or something like that. which i think for her, then exposing a reality isn't cruel at all, but the destruction of someone else's illusion is what she would consider cruel as much as that is a double edged sword which she herself is caught up in. stanley retorts against her with the polack comment too, saying he's an american, but he also seems to relish in his 'common-ness' as well. but i didnt think she was being cruel towards stanley with her constant comments as much as she wanted Stella to leave him for someone/something better. the only problem being the 'better' would be an illusion like the plantation owner coming to save her. ah that's why i love williams, such great stuff.

dean_martin
08-15-2005, 12:22 PM
yeah that's a really good point. i hadnt thought of that. really shows the difference there between the play and the movie right at the end. the way the movie ends, it definitely feels different from the play. with stella running upstairs with the baby to eunices place, making you feel that stella will protect the child more so than she protected herself and that things won't be the same and that stanley's reality/fantasy is in jeapardy. the play ends with them together, with stanely holding his kid as a very patriarchal figure, which kind of lends itself more towards stanley's 'reality' of things being back to the way they were.

i thought blanche had a line where she said a womans charm is always half illusion, or something like that. which i think for her, then exposing a reality isn't cruel at all, but the destruction of someone else's illusion is what she would consider cruel as much as that is a double edged sword which she herself is caught up in. stanley retorts against her with the polack comment too, saying he's an american, but he also seems to relish in his 'common-ness' as well. but i didnt think she was being cruel towards stanley with her constant comments as much as she wanted Stella to leave him for someone/something better. the only problem being the 'better' would be an illusion like the plantation owner coming to save her. ah that's why i love williams, such great stuff.

Blanche did say that line (woman's charm is half illusion). At first, I thought Blanche's degrading comments to Stella about Stanley were motivated by jealousy (because Stella was with someone she loved) and were in part superficially based on Stanley's appearance in the first half of the film. In the first half, Stanley was generally dirty and rough looking having just come in from work. Stanley eaves drops on one of these conversations, but comes in as though he hasn't heard anything. He stands there drinking a beer with a big cheesey grin on his face. Stella's just heard Blanche say what a dirty commoner he is and he definitely looks like it. Stella hesitates but then runs and jumps into Stanley's arms (point goes to Stanley). But as the film goes on and Blanche takes her numerous baths, Stanley suddenly begins dressing nicer and looking cleaner suggesting that he's losing some of his self-confidence. Of course this culminates with those fine silk pajamas that he wore on his wedding night. Couldn't agree more - GREAT STUFF!

Kam
08-15-2005, 01:05 PM
Blanche did say that line (woman's charm is half illusion). At first, I thought Blanche's degrading comments to Stella about Stanley were motivated by jealousy (because Stella was with someone she loved) and were in part superficially based on Stanley's appearance in the first half of the film. In the first half, Stanley was generally dirty and rough looking having just come in from work. Stanley eaves drops on one of these conversations, but comes in as though he hasn't heard anything. He stands there drinking a beer with a big cheesey grin on his face. Stella's just heard Blanche say what a dirty commoner he is and he definitely looks like it. Stella hesitates but then runs and jumps into Stanley's arms (point goes to Stanley). But as the film goes on and Blanche takes her numerous baths, Stanley suddenly begins dressing nicer and looking cleaner suggesting that he's losing some of his self-confidence. Of course this culminates with those fine silk pajamas that he wore on his wedding night. Couldn't agree more - GREAT STUFF!

That reminds me! Look at the outfits they were wearing in that confrontation scene too...stanley had on the silk pajamas from his wedding night, and blanche was dressed in all in white gown/mardi gras dress. VERY symbolic of their horrible encounter.

and that scene where stanley comes in after hearing everything blanche said about him, and he casually drinks his beer and says 'oh... hey blance, didn't know you were still here' as pleasant as can be, but just seething with malice underneath. i loved how at any moment, it looked like brando would just jump out of his skin and rage against blanche, but always kept it just under the surface, and let it bubble until that confrontation scene. "queen of the nile, i say HA! i say HA! HA!" definitely post your review after seeing james dean on the big screen and how he compares to brando. i always thought no one matched that inner rage that seemed to (and i guess unfortunately did) consume brando and how he could unleash it on screen (check him out in the 'i coulda been somebody' monologue from On The Waterfront), but james dean had his own demons as well, they just manifested themselves into the 'brooding' look that everyone knows him for now. i have to go back and watch some old dean classics, i havent seen any in years.