NOTE IMDb
7,0/10
1,9 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA young man returning home from World War II finds himself caught up in his parents' turbulent relationship.A young man returning home from World War II finds himself caught up in his parents' turbulent relationship.A young man returning home from World War II finds himself caught up in his parents' turbulent relationship.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompensé par 1 Oscar
- 2 victoires et 3 nominations au total
Avis à la une
A very young MARTIN SHEEN plays a soldier returning from the war and the small apartment he shares with his parents (PATRICIA NEAL and JACK ALBERTSON). Neal is excellent as the drab housewife, somewhat embittered over her strained relationship with a husband who has never recovered from the Depression blues. Sheen finds himself caught again in the tension between his bickering parents and the film is essentially a coming of age tale for the young man who has to cope with what seems an overwhelming domestic problem.
Nothing is really resolved in the course of the story, but it's a realistic slice of life and is played earnestly and skillfully by its three main characters.
It was Patricia Neal's first film after overcoming a long illness associated with her stroke. She looks the picture of a weary housewife burdened by the sorrows of a crumbling marriage and deserved her Oscar nomination.
Nothing is really resolved in the course of the story, but it's a realistic slice of life and is played earnestly and skillfully by its three main characters.
It was Patricia Neal's first film after overcoming a long illness associated with her stroke. She looks the picture of a weary housewife burdened by the sorrows of a crumbling marriage and deserved her Oscar nomination.
I'm supposing that when you deal with a three character play, expanded to five for the screen, everyone is a lead. It's strange to me that Jack Albertson was not considered for Best Actor as he has as much if not more screen time than Patricia Neal. And certainly Martin Sheen as their son equals their time in The Subject Was Roses.
The Subject Was Roses was a Pulitzer Prize winning play that ran for 832 performances on Broadway starting in 1965. Albertson and Sheen recreate the roles they did on stage and Patricia Neal replaces Irene Dailey from the Broadway cast. Albertson won a Tony Award for Best Actor yet he only one for Best Supporting Actor for the film. Go figure.
Albertson and Neal are Mr.&Mrs. Cleary who have a red letter day in their lives in 1945. Their son Tim played by Martin Sheen has come home from World War II. He's been gone for several years, probably the duration of the American involvement in World War II.
Absence has made Sheen see his parents in a whole new light. As it turns out they're not the happiest of people. Albertson's totally consumed with business and making a success for himself. He's so self absorbed that he treats Neal like a doormat. And in his cultural background the woman merely acquiesces to the men.
I remember years ago a woman I knew was of Irish background and was involved politically as the female Republican State Committeewoman of her district. She was nice and popular and knew her place. When her male counterpart was getting together with some cronies to pull a power play in the party in her county of Kings, she wasn't crazy about it. When asked about whether she approved or not she wasn't sure, but since THE MEN are in favor of it, she would acquiesce.
Patricia Neal stopped acquiescing after a few ugly arguments with Albertson and Sheen. Her big act of defiance was to take $50.00 worth of accumulated change, get on a bus and have a big fling just getting out and about for several hours. For her that was tantamount to a declaration of independence.
The Subject Was Roses set in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx which is still an Irish enclave there, though not anything like it was in 1946 is author Frank D. Gilroy's bittersweet memories of the place. I'd love to know who the models for his characters were, hopefully not him and his own parents.
The only other nomination was Patricia Neal for Best Actress which makes Albertson in the Supporting Category equally strange. 1968 was the year of the tie between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion In Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl.
Maybe Albertson was right to be considered in the Supporting Category purely in terms of winning. Still he and Neal are a matched team of marrieds facing a most uncertain future when Sheen leaves the nest. The Subject Was Roses was a nice slice of Bronx life circa 1946 and holds up well today.
The Subject Was Roses was a Pulitzer Prize winning play that ran for 832 performances on Broadway starting in 1965. Albertson and Sheen recreate the roles they did on stage and Patricia Neal replaces Irene Dailey from the Broadway cast. Albertson won a Tony Award for Best Actor yet he only one for Best Supporting Actor for the film. Go figure.
Albertson and Neal are Mr.&Mrs. Cleary who have a red letter day in their lives in 1945. Their son Tim played by Martin Sheen has come home from World War II. He's been gone for several years, probably the duration of the American involvement in World War II.
Absence has made Sheen see his parents in a whole new light. As it turns out they're not the happiest of people. Albertson's totally consumed with business and making a success for himself. He's so self absorbed that he treats Neal like a doormat. And in his cultural background the woman merely acquiesces to the men.
I remember years ago a woman I knew was of Irish background and was involved politically as the female Republican State Committeewoman of her district. She was nice and popular and knew her place. When her male counterpart was getting together with some cronies to pull a power play in the party in her county of Kings, she wasn't crazy about it. When asked about whether she approved or not she wasn't sure, but since THE MEN are in favor of it, she would acquiesce.
Patricia Neal stopped acquiescing after a few ugly arguments with Albertson and Sheen. Her big act of defiance was to take $50.00 worth of accumulated change, get on a bus and have a big fling just getting out and about for several hours. For her that was tantamount to a declaration of independence.
The Subject Was Roses set in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx which is still an Irish enclave there, though not anything like it was in 1946 is author Frank D. Gilroy's bittersweet memories of the place. I'd love to know who the models for his characters were, hopefully not him and his own parents.
The only other nomination was Patricia Neal for Best Actress which makes Albertson in the Supporting Category equally strange. 1968 was the year of the tie between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion In Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl.
Maybe Albertson was right to be considered in the Supporting Category purely in terms of winning. Still he and Neal are a matched team of marrieds facing a most uncertain future when Sheen leaves the nest. The Subject Was Roses was a nice slice of Bronx life circa 1946 and holds up well today.
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.
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 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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis movie was the first film Patricia Neal made after suffering three massive and near-fatal strokes early in 1965. Neal was in a coma for two-and-a-half weeks and underwent emergency brain surgery. Paralyzed on her right side and unable to talk, she had to learn how to use her limbs again, how to speak again, and had to relearn the alphabet in order to spell the simplest of words. By early 1967, her recovery was so remarkable that it was difficult to tell that she'd suffered a stroke, although Neal admitted to still having memory problems. In April 1968, while shooting this film in an old warehouse on Manhattan's West 26th Street, Neal reflected on her ordeal to critic Rex Reed: "I hated life for a year and a half, then I started learning how to be a person again, and now I've loved life for a year and a half. And I love it a lot."
- GaffesThe family is seen eating breakfast before Mass. At the time, practicing Catholics could not eat for 3 hours before taking the Holy Sacrament at Mass.
- Citations
Nettie Cleary: I never doubted he'd do as well as anyone else.
John Cleary: Where he's concerned, you never doubted, period. If he came in right now and said he could fly, you'd help him out the window.
- Crédits fousThe MGM roaring lion logo does not appear on this film.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Pat Neal Is Back (1968)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Subject Was Roses?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Subject Was Roses
- Lieux de tournage
- Spring Lake, New Jersey, États-Unis(Monmouth Hotel where Nettie goes by herself)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 47 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Trois étrangers (1968) officially released in India in English?
Répondre