The Subject Was Roses

As was the case with the recently-viewed BUTTERFIELD 8 (1960), I repeatedly missed out on one this over the years – including a local TV broadcast; with this in mind, I was not especially looking forward to a three-parter talkfest – but the result was surprisingly compelling, perceptively written and very well-acted. The film was proudly listed as "Frank D. Gilroy's THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES", but Patricia Neal's sole above-the-title credit was misleading – as the role (which landed her a Best Actress Oscar nomination) is no bigger than those of Jack Albertson (who actually won in the Supporting Actor category) or Martin Sheen (who received a Golden Globe nomination instead)! Having said that, it was Oscar winner Neal's return to the screen after a series of strokes had almost killed her in 1965…so that could well have been the reason behind it; incidentally, both men were recreating their stage roles here.

The plot is quite simple: WWII veteran Sheen's return home opens up a can of worms as to how his parents view him. Albertson had thought Neal over-protective in his regards and, in fact, expresses amazement that he made it back without so much as a scratch; she, on the other hand, begins to worry that the boy has grown up too fast – especially since he is making his best (read: trying too hard) to fill his father's shoes, down to the excessive intake of alcohol and repeating a ditty the older man spouts whenever annoyed at something! The situation comes to a head when the two men go out and return with a bunch of roses for her: Sheen insists Albertson tell her he thought of the gift himself, which she takes as an attempt by her philandering husband to change his ways…but when, during an argument between mother and son, the latter informs her the flowers were his idea, she realizes she has lost the affection of both men (given that the boy was willing to deceive her as well)! This leads to her walking out for some 12 hours (just when they were expected at her convention-bound mother's house for the weekly Sunday dinner appointment) – during which Sheen decides it is high time for him to take charge of his own life...

While, as I said, the film is basically just three people interacting – eating, dancing, musing (about their achievements and regrets), or shouting in each other's faces (including the probing of religious faith) – what goes on is so universal that, at some point, one is bound to find something that can be related to…and therein lies its strength (to which the three performers give an exceptional ring of truth)! With respect to the TCM-sourced print, there was some cropping involved as the channel logo was barely visible and some picture freezing/imbalance half-way through (when the former occurred again at the very end, it emerged merely a stylistic trait which quickly led to a dissolve into the final credit-roll!). By the way, the soundtrack is peppered with a number of ear-friendly folk songs showcasing the voice of Judy Collins.

The very first film directed by Ulu Grosbard. Jack Albertson (best known for Willy Wonka... 1971) and Patricia Neal (Hud, Breakfast at Tiffanys) star in this argue-fest. Martin Sheen is the son, Timmy, who comes home from war, and enters another war zone... his own home, where his parents never stop arguing. This was one of Sheen's first film roles. He had done mostly TV series up until this time. It's a study of how things change... Timmy has come back to the same house, after only three years, but his parents are so much older, and having senior moments and a battle for control. It's pretty serious. Buckle your seat belts and get ready for a journey... kind of like "Virginia Wolfe". Pretty good. Pretty serious. Won awards.

I never watched (much) of this movie when it was on TCM. I thought it was a Viet Nam Movie. Today the channel was on and I let it go. Patricia Neal's birthday, I think. It seemed like it was a play, and for me most plays are kind of boring. I guess I'm just a '50's action kid and that's from where our current 15 second attention spans were spawned.

Well, this one was cool. For one, my mind was muddled as I have repeatedly misread the DISH synopsis's blurb as about a Viet Nam veteran's return home to "bickering parents". Today it read "WWII Veteran" and I saw the difference.

But it was made in 1968. Seeing this flick in that light, as I remember Viet Nam and the Draft I could watch it as both a relic of the time and surprisingly, as a well written study of the timeliness of the characters we are - then, as well as today. Timothy (Sheen) had returned in remarkably good shape. His parents had little to worry about, and didn't, about how he had survived the war, "I never volunteered for anything, Dad", was one singular thing his character said. I knew guys like this that were draftees from 1968. Life for a U.S.Army draftee could be mild or hot - assignments were random. One could get drafted back then or beat the game and enlist. For me, the envied "Student Deferment" was not an option. I myself had a marginally unique skill and as the Young Moderns say, "leveraged" that to enlist in the Navy. Or maybe they don't say anymore.

If a good play could be made into a good movie, the director (Ulu Grosbard according to IMDb and I've never seen any of his other movies) should get a lot of credit. And play writer Frank D. Gilroy hit one out of the park with this one.

I saw this film at 3am on Bravo and couldn't turn it off. For some reason both the play and the film adaptation never came across my radar. What a wonderful surprise to discover this gem. It is a fine example, like "The Odd Couple," of how to stage a Broadway play for the big screen. Though I haven't seen the play to make a comparison, the director is faithful to the pacing and staging of a play, while using the camera skillfully to enhance the meaning and drama. And the performances! All three actors were stellar; they owned these characters. They were exceptionally nuanced; not once did they play over the top or to the balcony, where other actors might have been tempted to chew the scenery to show the depth of the emotional drama of this play. Though filmed in 1968, it doesn't feel a bit dated, it holds up beautifully as a relevant, poignant and very meaningful drama of an American family.

Martin Sheen returns home from the war to the New York apartment of his parents Patricia Neal and Jack Albertson. The return of the soldier brings to the head unspoken hurts and slights that have flamed within this family circle for years. Neal's first role after recovering from several strokes finds her shaky yet determined as the long-suffering wife/mother, while Jack Albertson is full of spit and vinegar as the husband/father who longs to be king of his 2-bedroom castle. Sheen finds himself used as a weapon by each of the parents against each other, yet he sees that deeper than the sparring and disappointments is a deep love between Neal and Albertson. There is a truly moving section of the film, when Neal leaves the family for a day with no explanation and wanders along the beach while the soundtrack plays Judy Collins' haunting "Who Knows Where the Time Goes". I saw this film for the first time last year on TCM, and it has become one of my favorites, due primarily to the emotional performances of Neal, Albertson, and Sheen.