AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
7,0/10
1,9 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA 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.
- Ganhou 1 Oscar
- 2 vitórias e 3 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
9jk8n
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.
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.
I was a senior in high school, or freshman in college when this film came out. My favorite female vocalist was Judy Collins and her Wildflowers album. Now in 2018,I am finally seeing this film and voila! The songs are by Judy Collins! They accompany the film well! Watching Martin Sheen in his early years of who he was to become. Wow. Excellent acting. And I have always loved Patrice O'Neal. Very poignant film, with 3 main actors/actress. Nicely done, well scripted, and no three actors could have portrayed their parts better. Timeless.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThis 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."
- Erros de gravaçãoThe 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.
- Citações
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.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosThe MGM roaring lion logo does not appear on this film.
- ConexõesFeatured in Pat Neal Is Back (1968)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Subject Was Roses?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- The Subject Was Roses
- Locações de filme
- Spring Lake, Nova Jersey, EUA(Monmouth Hotel where Nettie goes by herself)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 47 min(107 min)
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente