Desire Under The Elms (1958)
Desire Under The Elms (1958)
I have to make a special plea to those who have not seen Desire Under The Elms which will be shown tonight on TCM at 7pm CST. I read the Eugene O'Neill play in college and was immediately stricken by it. Without giving out too many plot details, it is a study in greed and coveting. Everybody wants something and they try many things to get what they want-to their detriment at the end. I was suprised to see Burl Ives and Sophia Loren as "The Most Ludicrous Romantic Pairing In Movie History" in "Son of Golden Turkey Awards". Once you understand Burl Ives' character you can see why this pairing happens in the plot of the film, and also where Anthony Perkins comes in. If you loved Ives in movies such as "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" you will enjoy this movie. Also features music by Elmer Bernstein which is very good from the arresting introduction which introduces the "vistaVison Motion Picture High Fidelity".Ives gets to dance quite a Hoedown 2/3 of the way through the film as he shows everybody how hale and hearty he is. Admittedly, the film was done on a soundstage because of budgetary limitations and it shows, but this was a stage play at first, for crying out loud! The plot will suprise people that it was written in the 1920's. I guess there were censorship issues back then but things had loosened in the 1950's. Perhaps since people get their commuppance at the end made it ok to bring this story to the screen. Also look for Pernell Roberts (from the TV show Trapper John, MD).
-
jdb1
I hadn't seen this one in years, and I had very mixed feelings about it last night. I think that something was wrong with the script -- I'm not a great fan of O'Neill's writing; too ponderous and too obviously leaning on the "message." The screenplay credit was given to Irwin Shaw - what did he do to this play? To me the dialog sounded even more false and stylized than the usual O'Neill portentousness. I suppose it was the censorship thing.
I had trouble getting past Burl Ives' false nose, too. Probably intended to make him look more chiseled and craggy, as the imagined New Englander should look - but in some shots the nose was so distracting. I also wondered about his delivery of lines - it almost sounded as though he were singing the words. A craggy New Englander shouldn't be singing; he should be speaking in clipped tones, don't you think? I also felt no heat from Ives, even though his character talked a good game. (I kind of remember seeing the play in some form with Raymond Massey, or someone like Massey, as the father -- anyone know what that might have been? TV?)
I thought Perkins did pretty well (boy, someone was working out before shooting this film!), and kept his customary nerves and tics to a minimum. Loren also toned herself down quite a bit, although I thought she was just too contemporary and sophisticated in manner. However, for me their smoldering scenes together just didn't smolder all that much, although they did play well together. Loren seemed so much older than Perkins, even though she is a year younger. I wonder how much of that lack of steam was due to actor reticence, and how much was due to censorship.
On the whole, although I enjoyed watching this film, I felt it missed the mark on many counts.
I had trouble getting past Burl Ives' false nose, too. Probably intended to make him look more chiseled and craggy, as the imagined New Englander should look - but in some shots the nose was so distracting. I also wondered about his delivery of lines - it almost sounded as though he were singing the words. A craggy New Englander shouldn't be singing; he should be speaking in clipped tones, don't you think? I also felt no heat from Ives, even though his character talked a good game. (I kind of remember seeing the play in some form with Raymond Massey, or someone like Massey, as the father -- anyone know what that might have been? TV?)
I thought Perkins did pretty well (boy, someone was working out before shooting this film!), and kept his customary nerves and tics to a minimum. Loren also toned herself down quite a bit, although I thought she was just too contemporary and sophisticated in manner. However, for me their smoldering scenes together just didn't smolder all that much, although they did play well together. Loren seemed so much older than Perkins, even though she is a year younger. I wonder how much of that lack of steam was due to actor reticence, and how much was due to censorship.
On the whole, although I enjoyed watching this film, I felt it missed the mark on many counts.
Judith, when Mongo Joe spotlighted Burl Ives, I told him that Mr. Ives just totally creeps me out. When I sat down and thought about it, it was because of this movie, and this role. He just seemed evil and um, snarky. Can't think of a better word than that one. snarky. UGH. Couldn't watch this movie again if some one paid me to do so. So is that acting, or is that his personality showing through?
"Life is not the way it's supposed to be.. It's the way it is..
The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir
""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard
The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir
""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard
-
feaito
-
jdb1
Now that I've been thinking about it, I don't think Ives was the right man for the role of the father. The role was created on stage by Walter Huston, much better casting, I think. Imagine someone like Robert Ryan as the father. Whoo -- hot stuff.
Nando, your comment about the photography makes me think of something else: one of the things I think was wrong with the movie was its expansiveness. The action was opened up to show fields, and roads and woods, etc. I think one of the concepts of the play is to demonstrate the small, enclosed, claustrophobic family arrangements that brewed all the troubles the family encountered. As I remember it, the staging of the play usually shows two elm trees on either side of the house, marking the boundaries of the family's life. The emphasis on constantly constructing stone walls around themselves is clue as well. Having the young lovers wandering around the countryside (and the elm trees weren't all that easy to identify, although they were there) made what should have been steamy and intense relationships seem lyrical and idyllic. One rarely uses words like lyrical and idyllic to describe O'Neill's dramas.
I was looking at the written play yesterday and saw that it is written in dialect - that is, mid-19th Century New England farmer speech. Apparently, the film makers felt that was inappropriate for its audience. I guess that's one of the reasons the dialog sounded stilted and artificial to me -- by modernizing the characters' speech, the intended rhythm of the piece was changed. Of course a justification for that change must have been the presence of Loren (the character's name is Addie, changed to "Anna" for Loren).
Nando, your comment about the photography makes me think of something else: one of the things I think was wrong with the movie was its expansiveness. The action was opened up to show fields, and roads and woods, etc. I think one of the concepts of the play is to demonstrate the small, enclosed, claustrophobic family arrangements that brewed all the troubles the family encountered. As I remember it, the staging of the play usually shows two elm trees on either side of the house, marking the boundaries of the family's life. The emphasis on constantly constructing stone walls around themselves is clue as well. Having the young lovers wandering around the countryside (and the elm trees weren't all that easy to identify, although they were there) made what should have been steamy and intense relationships seem lyrical and idyllic. One rarely uses words like lyrical and idyllic to describe O'Neill's dramas.
I was looking at the written play yesterday and saw that it is written in dialect - that is, mid-19th Century New England farmer speech. Apparently, the film makers felt that was inappropriate for its audience. I guess that's one of the reasons the dialog sounded stilted and artificial to me -- by modernizing the characters' speech, the intended rhythm of the piece was changed. Of course a justification for that change must have been the presence of Loren (the character's name is Addie, changed to "Anna" for Loren).
-
feaito