# Glass Menagerie, The (1987)

### reviewed by
Manavendra K. Thakur

                               THE GLASS MENAGERIE [1987]
                         A Film Review by Manavendra K. Thakur
                  Copyright 1987 by Manavendra K. Thakur and The Tech
                              Reproduced with permission.

    1987                                                                  135 mins.
    USA-Canada                           English                          Rated PG
    Mono                                  Color                           35mm/1.85

Cast: Joanne Woodward, John Malkovich, Karen Allen, and James Naughton.

Credits: Playwright: Tennessee Williams. Original Music by Henry Mancini. Editor: David Ray. Production Design and Costumes: Tony Walton. Director of Photography: Michael Ballhaus. Produced by Burtt Harris. Directed by Paul Newman. Sound: Nat Boxer. Art Director: John Kasarda. Set Decorator: Susan Bode.

    Studio/Distributor:        Cineplex Odeon Films, Inc.
                               1303 Yonge Street
                               Toronto, Ontario  M4T 2Y9
                               CANADA
                               (416) 323-6600

In 1945, Tennessee Williams created a sensation when THE GLASS MENAGERIE, his first play, appeared on Broadway. Since then, the play has been made into film on occasions in the past, with Irving Rapper's 1950 version being the worst. In 1986, Paul Newman saw Joanne Woodward and Karen Allen act in the play on stage at the Williamstown Theatre Festival and decided that "it would be shameful not to have a permanent record of their performance." Well aware of the respect accorded to William's most autobiographical and poetic play, Paul Newman set out to give it a definitive treatment on film. He even went so far as to declare that he "wouldn't have to hire a screenwriter because I would be faithful to Tennessee." While his version does respect William's intentions, it unfortunately isn't the permanent reproduction Newman wants it to be. Paul Newman's experience as an actor aids him considerably in eliciting good performances, but it is in his camerawork that he falters -- ever the bane of translating stage plays to film.

Joanne Woodward stars in the pivotal role of Amanda, the mother who tries to make her crippled and plain daughter Laura into the dream figure she desired for herself. Woodward's acting is excellent and quite convincing throughout the film. Her best scene is perhaps near the end of the film as Jim, Laura's Gentleman Caller prepares to leave the apartment. Seeing all her efforts wither away, Woodward evokes a mournful sadness that resonates tremendously without degenerating to melodramatic excess. In other scenes as well, such as the "Deception!" speech and the magazine subscription telephone monologues, Woodward's performance comes closest to reaching the full potential of Williams' lines.

Karen Allen proves in her performance as Laura that she can indeed handle film roles more demanding than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Serious acting is called for in this film, and serious acting is what she provides. Laura is a very intimate and shy woman, handicapped mentally by her physical ailment. Allen effectively plays Laura as an intimate and shy woman, who's handicapped mentally by her physical ailment. The way her eyes sparkle and come alive while talking about her prized collection of glass animal figurines round out Allen's evocative performance, meeting the complexity Williams wrote into Laura's character.

The two men in the film do not fare nearly as well. James Noughton gives a solid but uninteresting performance as the Gentleman Caller. Noughton depicts Jim's past glory adequately, but he fails to shine while trying to coax Laura out of her shell. As idiotic as the 1950 version was, Kirk Douglas was much more inspiring than Noughton is here. However, the source material may be the cause of this, as much has been made by critics over the years of Williams' typically uninteresting male characters. Given his character's limitations, Noughton succeeds with his performance, especially when Jim realizes he has gone too far with Laura.

John Malkovich does not deserve any such benefit of the doubt. He replaces John Sayles' work on stage as Laura's brother Tom, and his "newcomer" status shows. He virtually reads out loud the famous opening monologue, rendering it a dull and listless speech without much conviction. He sparks little chemistry between himself and the other three actors, and even his expressions of love for Karen -- a central and important theme of the play -- seem almost forced and unconvincing. After lagging for most of the film, his best moment undoubtedly comes as he pours forth his anguish in the closing monologue at leaving his sister, where he improves dramatically (no pun intended) to meet Williams' powerful poetic demands. It is surprising that Malkovich would give such an uninspired performance because his acting has usually been quite good, especially in THE KILLING FIELDS and the current EMPIRE OF THE SUN. It is unfortunate that John Sayles was not available for the role.

Similarly, it is unfortunate that Newman's camerawork calls too much attention to itself. For example, he badly misuses close ups by rapidly cutting from Karen to Jim when they first are left alone after dinner. This kinetic editing was probably introduced to spice up the somewhat slow dialogue, but it actually results in unnecessary and disorienting complications that detract from the content being conveyed. Newman partially redeems this scene by emphasizing psychological distance by placing his individual characters on the extreme edges of the 1.85 frame, but using the wider shape of the 2.35 (CinemaScope) frame would have been one possible way to accomplish the same result without resorting to choppy editing between facial closeups.

In other scenes, Newman excessively moves his camera around characters and even behind irrelevant objects such as a lamp. Tom is given his own bedroom for what seems no other reason than to give Newman another room to shoot in. In one sequence, the camera voyeuristically peers into the living room through the crack between two partially closed curtains -- but then moves *through* the crack, pans around some characters and objects, and then shows the crack again from inside the living room. It's almost as if the camera were congratulating itself for having flawlessly executed such difficult movement in one continuous take. And on at least one occasion, the camera suddenly lurches forward for a split second before resuming a smoother and even pan. Such devices uniquely belong to film, and bold new applications of older techniques is one of many major avenues to advance the state of any art form. Given that, perhaps it could have been possible for cinematographer Michael Ballhaus and Newman to successfully integrate stylistic elements of AFTER HOURS or some of Ranier Werner Fassbinder's films (many of which Ballhaus shot), but unfortunately that is not the case here as their efforts distract rather than present Williams' play in a new and interesting way. Newman's deliberate emphasis on the filmic nature of his version comes at the expense of his sincere intention to remain faithful to Williams.

Worse yet, continuity between shots is at times surprisingly shoddy, especially for such a high class production as this one. In one scene, Karen's arms are folded akimbo in front of her whereas they are crossed behind her back in the very next shot when her reflection is seen in a mirror. Then she is again shown with arms folded in front as the next shot's point of view shifts back to her directly. Similarly, a changeover from one reel to another brings on an instantaneous brightening of the apartment's lighting, with no explanation or indication of why Karen and Jim's intimate candlelight conversation suddenly finds itself illuminated by a floor-level spotlight. The change is much too drastic to be explained by laboratory processing errors or other such possibilities. These discrepancies arise from either a serious misunderstanding of filmic fundamentals or from an inattention to detail unworthy of Williams' brilliance. These are most certainly small and nitpicky details, yet one would expect that a filmmaker who intended to create a definitive filmic recreation of such a famous play would take the necessary care to avoid such blatantly distracting maneuvers -- especially when previous attempts to bring the play to the screen have failed miserably.

The film's other technical aspects do work well, however, and do in fact display the careful attention to detail worthy of a labor of love missing in the camerawork and continuity. The mood of the film established by its set design and lighting is properly somber, with embellishments like fancy costumes and occasional lively music by Henry Mancini creating the aura of contrived yet entirely appropriate elegance. Each wall has been designed separately, and much thought has obviously gone into the decorations and furnishings. And surprisingly enough, Newman does display one brilliant inspiration in his camerawork. It comes as Tom laments to himself while leaving the living room that no one had ever escaped from his neighborhood's economic and psychological doldrums. The vacuum in the cinematic frame created by Tom's exit is then smoothly filled by the well-lit portrait of Tom's father hung on the mantlepiece that just comes into view on the right edge of the screen. The point, of course, is that Tom's father was the only one who did make it out, although at great cost to himself and his family. Contrasted to Rapper's 1950 version, where Tom drunkenly bellows "Except you!" while glaring at the portrait, Newman conveys the scene's essence by using cinematic techniques with supreme subtlety and grace. If only Newman had done the same in the remainder of the film, his version could have been the masterpiece he so wanted it to be.

THE GLASS MENAGERIE is a brilliant play from a brilliant playwright, and that is something difficult to disguise, no matter how poorly translated or mutilated. There is no doubt that Paul Newman's intentions and sincerity were true and sound, and he is to be commended for bringing the fine acting of three actors of the Williamstown stage to the world. Modern audiences will enjoy the pleasures that do exist in the film (which are considerable indeed). But those pleasures stem mainly from Tennessee Williams' words and the actors who bring those words to life. It seems clear that Paul Newman's technical direction is the weakest element in the film.

Directorial Filmography of Paul Newman:

    RACHEL, RACHEL                        1968                            101 mins.
    SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION              1971                            114 mins.
    THE EFFECT OF GAMMA RAYS ON MEN-
       IN-THE-MOON MARIGOLDS              1972                            101 mins.
    THE SHADOW BOX
       (Television Feature)               1980
    HARRY AND SON                         1984                            117 mins.
    THE GLASS MENAGERIE                   1987                            135 mins.

Paul Newman has been acting in films like THE HUSTLER, THE TORN CURTAIN, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, THE STING, ABSENCE OF MALICE, and THE VERDICT for over 25 years, and he won the Best Actor Oscar last year for THE COLOR OF MONEY. He is active in many social and political causes and manages to find time to engage in his favorite hobby, race car driving. He has been married to Joanne Woodward since 1958.

                                    Manavendra K. Thakur
                                    {rutgers,decvax!genrad,ihnp4}!mit-eddie!thakur
                                    thakur@eddie.mit.edu
                                    thakur@athena.mit.edu

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews