A very primitive film. The plot is developing quite ridiculously. What is the sudden, empty love of a rich girl on this unremarkable horse in a suit? Acting as in a rundown provincial theater. Squeezing, crooking. The action in court shocked his idiocy. The dialogues were written by students for the same theater. Straight, stupid, cut, oversweetened. I think it’s best to spend time on the original book.
Initially, it was clear that to watch 'A Place in the Sun' - film adaptation of one of the monumental books of American literature 'American tragedy' - in isolation from the original source is difficult. Theodore Dreiser in 1925 published and now relevant novel, which after the release was staged in the theater - the success outgrown the reading group. And after the failure of the first film version of 1931, long forgotten by the public, to take up a repetition is to attract, to raise the unpleasant eyes of criticism, especially when the book lived for a couple of decades and even more entrenched in the minds. Although, rather, the main aggravating factor in the creation was the notorious censorship and unspoken technical rules prohibiting talking about abortion and the death penalty, as a result of which it had to be twisted - the book at times did not hesitate to express immoral topics. In addition, the title of the film, the names of the characters and the time of events changed. Whether or not a cleanup is from the failure of previous experiences doesn’t matter. But when adjusting for common names and the script, it came under the editing of Patrick Kearney. So much so that dramatically the two pieces have become completely different things.
For George Stevens, the work turned into a delightful result: many awards ' Oscar' ' Golden Globe' Success overtook the author, let the main statuette ' Place in the sun' never got there. But now, even after long-gone impressions of the book, this movie does not seem so significant creation. It was presented as a reliable, accurate film adaptation, but the truth here lies only in the plotting of the material, and that is overly curtailed. The problem of two-hour timekeeping hit the tape very hard: it does not contain the first part about the difficult childhood of the main character, nor any clear development of parallel love passions. George Eastman arrives in the city to work for a wealthy uncle in a swimsuit factory, where he falls in love with two girls from different social strata. Word for word, action for action, and the hero already hears the report about the accident on the lake, and then already veers down the thicket on the way to the final. Like a Kenyan marathon runner, he tries to finish his job within two hours, following the pages of a 950-page book. It is absolutely natural that the film seriously sags in terms of elaboration, when events consistently described in minutes turn into a quick interpretation with an attempt to fit everything.
The most obvious problem that arises almost at first is the reversal of the protagonist’s motive. Dreiser Clyde Griffiths is the son of Puritan Protestants from a poor family, who every day sees the hunger of his relatives and the hopelessness of events, the pregnant sister abandoned by a random guy and the full understanding that the psalms do not bring a crumb of bread to the house to God; this man from an early age knew life and firmly decided to step beyond the poverty line, at any cost to enter a status society - for which he chased a hare along the eastern railways, receiving from guides, and met a rich uncle. Driven by the dislike of Gilbert Griffiths (cousin), strict rules at work, inconsistency with the bohemian, he tries to get along in a new world for himself and only then passes through thorns to the stars. Cinematic Eastman immediately came, was immediately accepted, did not receive in his direction oblique glances and recklessly fell in love with two girls almost at the same time. Eastman did not try to become a man with a capital letter, did not move to high society, banal - to money. He acted purely out of his heart and tried to live as he had to. What made him leave Kansas City? On rare shots of the mother's shelter and you can not say that the family is in distress.
And Griffiths created around himself the same triangle, but much more measured step. Events ' American tragedy' lasted much longer. His tragedy on the love front correlates more vividly with the same first part, where he foolishly stumbled, fell under & #39; dynamo-machine' and in the end he never learned to take girls more seriously. Without an appropriate narrative, Eastman appears to be a deafly hopeless young man acting on circumstances (especially because of the same speed of events). While Clyde was still more attracted to luxury, and he became as unscrupulous as possible in relation to the factory lover Roberta, George fell, it seems, on the charm of Elizabeth Taylor and her heroine - for no reason, almost unconsciously. The original character crumbled, leaving only a wandering body. Also greatly thinned the image of Roberta Alden, in the movie called Alice Tripp, who was not naive timid mother’s daughter for so long, did not tolerate the endless excuses of her man, did not drag around the doctors in search of abortion. She immediately became an ultimatum fatal woman, retaining the guise of a fool. At the same time, the actors for the characters were selected amazingly, and even with the loss of some Dreiser details, their appearance looks authentic. But the point is more important, and it's lost.
But the saddest thing that has been lost from the original is psychology. The book is scary to read. It is not limited to the description of the feelings and sharpness of the participants - it is projected on the emotions of the reader and makes you think about the unspoken foundations. Starting from the middle, there are constantly contradictions in opinion about the hero, who, although he was a scoundrel, did not deserve a downward outcome - and the reader understands this perfectly. Breathing with the anger of the people and the tears of those involved, Griffiths falls into the trap of justice, bloodlust and stereotypes of the surrounding world, becomes almost a symbol of the fight against the lynching system, placed on the step to the thrones of government - it is used for internal achievements. But in 'A Place in the Sun' there is no psychological war between Eastman and the punitive majority. Not in any way. There is only action that does not concern humility, acceptance of faith, or fear of future destiny. And the ending is very close to the beginning - it is not in its original form. Descriptions of endless hope, which are unbearably hard to read, are replaced by a couple of scenes in order to logically crown everything. From a place in the quarry, the film starts and proceeds the same way.
And completely the movie feels like some kind of newspaper note, not otherwise: not reflected in the soul, rushes with journalistic temptation - read and forgot. Just like the event that formed the basis of the novel, which Dreiser gave the maximum emotionality. Clyde Griffiths is a fool and an innocent victim. George Eastman is the same, but there is no natural man in him. Periodically stirs his eyes, sits thoughtfully and that's all. It does not express the tragedy, which is undeniably present in the pages of the manuscript, and sweeps through the scenery of the stripped down version of the book. If not studio troubles, it is unclear what prevented the director to create with a sweep of the same ' Gone with the Wind'. The budget was not an ordinary melodrama. Perhaps, apart from the original source, the film looks with loyalty, but considering it, it is incomparably pale.
4.5 out of 10
Beautiful George (Montgomery Clift), in love with the incomparable pretty beauty Angela (Elizabeth Taylor), plans to remove from the road of life poor Alice (Shelly Winters), who wants to marry him in connection with an unexpected pregnancy.
Alice loves George madly. George loves Angela madly. Someone has to give in. For George, the only way out is to commit a crime. Is he willing to shed innocent blood? . .
Sometimes in the mind of every person without exception there are striking "terrible thoughts" that make you look at yourself from a completely different angle. These thoughts are stuck in the head for a long time and, if you do not get rid of them in time, they will surely materialize. Not even by the hands of the man himself. As you know, “crime creates intent, not chance.”
As a result, the magnificent play of the acting trio Clift-Taylor-Winters, brilliant love scenes and the amazing atmosphere of indecisive infernality, bursting from the heart of the main character form an exceptional film work, fascinating with its deeply attractive aura, captivating the viewer once and for all.
Bad thoughts are the suicide of the soul.
Many people dream of an interesting job, stable earnings, a cozy home and a happy family. But on the way to your dream you have to make a difficult path that involves unwanted sacrifices. A person must be guided by reason, not by feelings that can cost a lifetime. So these feelings cost the life of the protagonist in the melodramatic thriller “A Place in the Sun”.
George Eastman, a young man from a poor religious family, moves to another city with his rich uncle, who gives him a job at a local bathing suit factory. Contrary to the general rule not to enter into relations with the staff, George indulges in feelings and has an affair with his partner Alice. Soon George advances rapidly and becomes closer to high society. One day at a party, George meets and falls in love with the socially beautiful Angela Vickers, and their romance is close to the wedding. Suddenly, Alice announces her pregnancy, demanding that George marry her immediately.
The film, above all, is notable for its convincing and talented acting. First of all, I would like to mention the role of Montgomery Clift as George, a young, purposeful guy who, due to his youth, became confused in his feelings. Shelley Winters also liked her performance as Alice, a modest, respectable girl who dreamed of simple human happiness, but was forced to face betrayal and cruelty of fate.
An important role in the success of the film was played by the director's work of George Stevens, which fit in the film melodrama, drama and psychological thriller. Before watching, you expect to see a sentimental cruel and unfair love story, and in the end you encounter a knowledge of human nature in the person of a young guy George Eastman. The director shows us him as an ordinary, respectable man who, like anyone else, indulges in passionate feelings, making a fatal mistake without protection one night. The problem is that this mistake could cost George his career and future. Tension increases, the circle narrows, and dark thoughts begin to creep into the head of the hero, brought up in a strict Puritan family.
A few words should also be said about the script "Places in the Sun". An experienced viewer is unlikely to see anything new in it: a rather familiar story about a love triangle in which a key character is tossed between feelings and reason. In fact, on the screen there is a throwing between what the hero wants and what he has to do. George first becomes part of a comfortable life, but on the way to the desired "place in the sun" stands Alice, who does not mind getting rid of the child, but the decisive refusal of the doctor forces her to go to blackmail. At this point, the hero is between the hammer and the anvil, and the collision leads to a fatal mistake.
Result I am a big fan of independent cinema. I especially appreciate in films unusual script moves, directing work and, of course, the play of your favorite actors. “A Place in the Sun” fits these parameters, as it combines an eventful plot, atmospheric directing and talented cast, which are one of the many reasons to watch this film.
10 out of 10
I watched the movie right after I read the book. I didn’t have time to really understand anything after the book and decided that maybe the film will help me. I chose this film adaptation, having read that it is the most accurate reflection of the plan of Theodore Dreiser, but, alas and ah, it was not. It's a simple truth: 'book better'. I understand perfectly well that it is impossible to reflect a 900-page novel in a 2-hour film, but nevertheless.
First, Clyde's childhood is not shown (characters will be called as in the novel). In the film, he's a guy who wants to achieve a lot, and even the motive behind his move to his uncle was that he wants to help his family. In the book, however, his only motive was selfishness, vanity, ambition, and perhaps ego. The moment when he earns enough money, he refuses his mother when she asks him for $50 in loans to help his family. This money he wanted to spend on a fur vest to his lady heart, Hortense. He does not hesitate to wear good shoes, suits, accessories, while his family barely makes ends meet. Stevens didn't reflect that.
Second, Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor and Shelley Winters are gorgeous actors, but the true nature of their characters is not revealed. Clyde is weak, irresponsible, immature. He is a real coward, he imagines that the world revolves around him, he wants to achieve much, but does nothing for it. He wants a candy wrapper -- shiny, bright, beautiful, but he's absolutely not ready to take responsibility. His desire for an easy life will destroy him. Reading the book, I can not say that it caused me only negative emotions or, conversely, sympathy. It was something more complicated. It was understanding, but not empathy. You perfectly understand all his motives because they were caused, probably, by the most 'human' trait - weakness. There was no condemnation of this understanding. Whatever he did, he was cowardly, he was ashamed of his family, his parents, his position, he cheated on Roberta, the people around him, justice, I did not condemn him. Although the mind and understood that the lack of nobility, strength and decency definitely worth it. Reading the book, I worried for him as a beloved hero, hoping that he would improve, he would find a way out, he would act like a man, I experienced as if I understood that the tragedy of Clyde is a tragedy of man as a whole. It seemed to me that if he acted in conscience at least once, the man was not so hopeless, but he did not act, and so in the last pages pity was replaced by satisfaction.
He's different in the movie. You sympathize with him, you believe that you did not kill, you will not experience all the ambiguous range of feelings and emotions that you feel when reading the book. You don't think he's pathetic, petty and mean. It seems to you that ' American tragedy' in that he did not reach ' the American dream' And in fact ' American tragedy' that man lacks nobility.
About Elizabeth Taylor's character. Of course, you look at her fascinated. Whether it is in her sharpened beauty or captivating look, but she cannot be taken away. That's how I imagined Sandra Finley. In my opinion, Sandra is more naive, easier, and she fell in love with Clyde was not because of his mystery (which she repeatedly says in the film), but only because the flirtatious, how reverently and enthusiastically the Young Man treats her. I didn’t like the fact that the director makes Sandra a real lover with no memory of the girl, although in fact she sent a very cold letter without a signature when Clyde was in ' Death House'
Shelly Winters is definitely not the Roberta I envisioned, but it's just a cost to my imagination. It seemed to me that her beauty could easily compete with the secular beauties of Lycurgus. It seemed to me that she was confident, strong, firm, and not as helpless as the heroine of Winters.
The film did not show childhood, the film did not show a change in the character of the main character, the film did not show a dramatic change in the relationship between the characters, the film did not show Clyde’s emotions during the process, the film did not show the agonizing time in the House of Death 39, the thoughts of a man who knows that in a year, a month, a week, his day will be gone.
3 out of 10
Based on the famous creation of one of the greatest American writers Theodore Dreiser, the film “A Place in the Sun” managed to manifest itself as a rather independent work, albeit with recognizable plot features, which, at the same time, from the sidelines of the 20s of the last century was competently transferred to the 50s of the same century, respectively. Therefore, it can be said unequivocally that, at least in terms of working with the text of “American Tragedy”, as well as with its adaptation – a play by Patrick Kearney – the screenwriters of the film Michael Wilson and Harry Brown tried, shrouding the film with the best features of printed and theatrical creation.
Thus, in the movie “A Place in the Sun” remained the dominant backbone of the story, which tells about haste and susceptibility to feelings. Which tells of the pursuit of a dream that can so easily slip out of the fingers, since this hand has made mistakes before. It's a story of anger and humility. The story, which in its title clearly informs the viewer about the dominant theme of the film: the struggle for this very place under the sun. A place that, as a metaphor, is such a free corner, where it will always be comfortable and joyful. Where there is no loneliness and bitterness for the individual. The fight for this very dream is the main driving force of the script, which is clearly reflected in the film. Let it not be fully understood from the very beginning, in the future, namely after a quarter of timekeeping, the topic reveals itself as the main one, at the same time revealing the characters, building interpersonal collisions more inventively and sophisticatedly. Here, just the style of the film is transformed. From the romantic story, where the main character is an ambitious guy from the outback, the visualization is rebuilt on the narrative “rails” of the film-noir, starting to appeal to the light and shadows within the framework of the symbolism of this style: dialogues increasingly take place within four walls, the day is less and less shown on the screen, where now the big rights have night time, and the depressed mood, increasingly increasing in the main character, seems to affect just the world around, transforming it into something darker and mysterious. And this opening through the visual series, this development of the hero - a perfectly staged and executed detail of the tape. For from the very beginning, as the viewer is impressed by the main character George Eastman (Montgomery Clift), and at the very end he, despite what he did, is able to not stop liking. His reflections are filled not only with remorse, but also with an awareness of his desire as the opposite of what happened in the end. His haste took place and she was stupid - that's for sure. But is it possible to blame such a handsome, handsome, young guy? An equally ambiguous question... And such questions the film is full of “to the edges” to its ending, which, at the same time, does not finally solve them, giving the viewer himself to think about similar neither white nor black, namely gray, personality problems. A person who was wrong in many of his actions. But a person who tried to achieve a better life not only for himself.
In view of the beautiful acting, in which the actors are able to turn their own beauty into ugliness for the sake of greater immersion in the depths of the conflict of the viewer, as the beautiful Shelly Winters (Alice Tripp) did only with facial expressions and dialogues. Due to its interesting history and especially remarkable visual design. In view of the unusual conclusions that the film itself makes reluctantly, giving a layer of information to the viewer, who sums up some results, which makes you simply interact with the film not only in a purely contemplative way. In view of albeit simple, but due to the properly worked out personalities of an interesting plot, which at the same time is remembered just for its simplicity. In view of this, the film “A Place Under the Suns” can be called a good, strong dramatic picture, where romance acquires bitterness due to actions that are entirely dependent on persons who themselves nurtured and developed this romantic plot.
P.S. Thank you very much.
Provincial dummy George Eastman (Montgomery Clift) has the luckiest last name. His uncle, a large manufacturer, invited George to his job. At first, George was identified as a handyman in the workshop, but over time (very short time) glamorous horizons will open before the young boy: social gatherings, yachting trips, country gatherings and the attention of beauty Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor) from the cohort of “golden youth”. But all this will be a little later, and while George fucks his factory colleague Alice Tripp (Shelly Winters), managing to bring the girl even to the stage of pregnancy. And when the world of the beautiful and rich really opens the gates of paradise before George, the manufacturer Alice begins to whine and demand in the ultimatum form of marriage.
In the cinema, this film by George Stevens is considered the best adaptation of Theodore Dreiser’s novel American Tragedy. His version (not very successful, at least Dreiser even sued the film studio) in 1931 was shot by Joseph von Sternberg, but to convey the essence of the novel, as well as to get as close as possible to the original source, it was Stevens. Although who knows how Theodore Dreiser would react to this film adaptation, if he was still alive in 1951. And the "maximum proximity to the source" in this film is also conditional. Stevens and the writers completely missed the first part of the novel about the adventures of the main character Clyde Griffiths. There is no Clyde Griffiths in the novel, as well as Sondra Finchley and other familiar names for those who are used to reading books in our time. All the names in the film have been replaced by others. However, this is certainly not a fundamental difference from the novel.
The main thing that Stevens successfully conveyed the idea of the work of Dreiser - the guy was on the way to the jackpot, but innate weakness, as well as pathological bad luck led the hero to a very bad place. But in the moral details Stevens still cunning. First, in this film, Montgomery Clift's character is in love with only one girl - young Angela Vickers. The second woman (namely the woman) is used (I judge only from the film) exclusively in terms of overfucking. At the same time, Stevens also specifically selected a scary and nasty character in the guise of Shelly Winters, who played well. In principle, it is impossible to fall in love with such an egoistically beastly lady, but to drown or nail with a paddle is, please. It’s not that she’s pregnant and fighting for her place in the sun. After all, she does not ask her boyfriend (knowing that he does not love her) for money - she demands that he ruin himself, descend to her unpresentable level, become the same shit as her.
On the other hand, George Eastman remains a loser and a shit. He makes everything half-smeared, everywhere does not agree, does not refuse and even does not kill. And life pays him back in the same way - he even in court teeters on the verge of "getting a jackpot or an electric chair." But given that he's a chronic loser, the finale will be predictable even for a schoolboy who doesn't read the classics. And by the way, in this chronic predictability lies the initial weakness of the production. Stevens has made an academic film in which there is no surprise. The director borrowed something from the German Friedrich Murnau (the episode on the lake in the boat is a pure climax scheme of the nettle “Sunrise”), presented something with a predictable set of witnesses before the future trial (random passers-by, scouts, etc.).
Besides, I didn’t see that the character of 19-year-old Elizabeth Taylor is in love with the Glavhero. That is exactly what Stanislavsky did not see. As a result, a strong novel by Theodore Dreiser in the production of George Stevens appeared in the following light - an unscrupulous and weak-willed guy with the appearance of Montgomery Clift "ambushed" between the case a terrible lady, managed to attract the attention of a beauty similar to Elizabeth Taylor, and when the price of the question could be decided by a couple of hundred dollars or a slap of an arrogant manufacturer - the guy demonstrated the unique abilities of a louch.
The verdict. Probably became quite a grouch, but this production on me did not make the indelible impression that this film made on a lot of film critics and viewers of various generations. But George Stevens' work is certainly worth a look. More than stupid.
Growing up in the remote rural hinterland and nurtured by the heavy iron hand of Puritan upbringing, the attractive young man George Eastman, having sprung from the suffocating stone walls of his native land, falls into a large, teeming with millions and shining with neons, city. With only an immoderate ambition to conquer the new Babylon and an unspent libido, Eastman quickly finds a passion for the soul, heart and body and a passion for the purse. The tight Gordian knot of passion, lust and greed is tightened more and more around George’s neck, and he decides to break into pieces the love triangle he himself designed.
Of course, Theodore Dreiser's "American Tragedy" was only such - American in flesh and blood - only partially, because if you reject all the husk of the prototypic nature of the main characters of the novel, the plot of which, as you know, went into the criminal case of 1906, when Major Chester Gillett killed his beloved Grace, then "American Tragedy" will become a rather socialized tragedy - universal and extracontinental, despite the fact that Dreiser in his book, published before the Great Depression, in one way or another, but ambitious American myths, all those who fervented for him, and those who fervented for their grave goals. Dreiser-realist and Dreiser-humanist, of course, in his literary and philosophical researches makes you look for parallels, perhaps, with only one Russian writer of similar personal scale - Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the end, they are related by the cross-cutting theme of the Fall and progressive salvation, which is present in almost all the works of both writers, and the American Tragedy is at all perceived as a story of the new Raskolnikov that has grown up on star-striped soil. However, Raskolnikov, although new, but the problems are old, not changed after hundreds of years.
And like Joseph von Sternberg in 1931, and George Stevens after exactly 20 years in the second adaptation of Dreiser’s novel, the film “A Place in the Sun”, which was crowned subsequently with six Oscars, managed not only to grope and press on the sick nerves of the literary source, reinterpreted also in the play by Patrick Kearney (because “A Place in the Sun” is not so much by Dreiser as by Kearney), but also, after the authors, tried to understand and forgive his main character – Clyde Griffiths / George, who will become the worst of all desires, who will become a victim of this father. The standard way "from mud to princes" with the fact that later he would voluntarily throw himself again into the mud, getting dirty with it not only outside, but also inside. It is the eternal “creature I tremble, or have the right”, this rustle of banknotes and the smell of expensive cigars, this hum of a large city, which attracts to itself, drags into the darkness and seductive. How can you not fall in love?
In the rich, albeit sometimes too academic in film language, the director’s interpretation of George Stevens, acting in the film without excessive pressure, almost without didactics and strained moralization, the director draws, like Dreiser, a realistic and revealing portrait of a new generation of young and greyhounds, for whom there is nothing easier to betray and sell both the soul and body, and even someone else’s. Egoism, egocentrism, simply the Ego to the highest degree, and typical American individualism contrasted with the conveyor-line collective unconscious. Was that goal worth a drop of blood? Was it worth falling down, not realizing that upwards would no longer be destined to rise? Every American dream is never broken about life; it’s too simplistic. Sacred sacrifices are needed, only the executioner must be prepared for them by circumstances that can hardly be called Eastman. George, first walking on corpses and drowning in tears of those whose fates he breaks, trying to get into the corporate system, to climb the spiral staircase to the higher society, in which he will still be a stranger and a stranger, is nevertheless doomed to death. To repentance. For him, from his childhood in the grip of puritanism, freedom was too much in the big world, freedom, soon turned into permissiveness. And hypothetically having achieved his goal, becoming a cog of an even more clumsy System, George is still doomed to revolt against it. George Stevens, more clearly than Dreiser or Kearney, sculpts Eastman as a hero outside of any system, but with too broad an understanding of freedom in general and free will in particular. For George, freedom becomes dangerous, and the highest goal with that dehumanizing trigger, pressing which you can open the “Pandora’s Box”, waking up overnight in a man of a beast in fever, crucifying his own morality on the swastika. However, Eastman, unlike the literary Griffiths, deserves the right to salvation simply because there is no true seal of evil in him, but only ambition and fate. Stevens deliberately does not thicken the colors in the picture, does not make the tape invective, giving his hero the ways to retreat, to salvation, to begging, in fact turning the hero of his time into just a hero from timelessness, for the sake of his own momentary well-being who crossed the line, but is doomed to regain the status quo. However, this salvation does not lie in the space of divine illuminations, since both God and Mamon for the hero of “Places under the Sun” were equal in their destructive essence. Having lost faith in God, George no longer believes in himself. Only the inevitable death will justify it. Love him black, just love him, because the place in the sun was too heavy for George. Only death will justify him, and only in another world will he be destined to comprehend the simple truth: live in honor and not in hardness, and you will be rewarded.
American Tragedy is a tragedy that touches the soul.
Dreiser’s American Tragedy is one of my favorite books. And despite the fact that I try not to watch the adaptation of novels, and I am skeptical of them, in this case, I decided to take a chance. Quite by chance, I came across the trailer for the movie “A Place in the Sun” and as soon as Montgomery Clift appeared on the screen as Clyde Griffiths – I exclaimed “Not possible!” It looks like Clyde! That’s how I imagined it!! But everything in order.
For those who are familiar with the greatest creation of T. Dreiser, the plot will not be new. But, I will say only one thing, first it is better to re-read the book and only then start watching the film, so it becomes more understandable. After all, many important storylines were cut in the film adaptation and of course everyone knows that Dreiser is an inimitable master in describing the inner experiences of a person in the smallest detail, thus, the silent experience of the main character was supplemented by my memories of their description in the book, and in the end a stunning film was drawn. I would like to say: “Bravo Director!” – many scenes in which just stopped breathing while re-reading the book, in the film were also conveyed at a decent level, although there was no heat of emotions – the imagination is still stronger. For example, I was completely absorbed in the tense scene, starting with Clyde getting into the boat with Roberta and until the end of this tragic situation, I felt anxious, and even the terrain was completely in line with my imagination.
And now I want to move on to the main thing - to the actors!
Clyde Griffiths (whose name has been changed by the director) was played by a certain Montgomery Clift and, as I have already noted, it is just an incarnation of Clyde! Starting with his appearance, ending with his insecure timid manners, and awe of Sondra Finchley, the girl who embodied all his dreams. In general, I think Montgomery is the ideal actor for all the leading characters in the novels of T. Dreiser. For example, in the Trilogy of Wishes, he could easily embody the image of Frank Cowperwood - an apparently perfect match, add only a little self-confidence, determination and strength of character of Frank and now the image is ready. In "Jenny Gerhard," he would have approached the role of Lester Kane, etc. It is a pity that these works were not filmed in those days, there is hardly an actor who better embodied the image of Dreiser characters.
Sondra Finchley, played by Elizabeth Taylor, even if I didn’t quite imagine that, Elizabeth convinced me that she had to be. A capricious girl spoiled with a luxurious life, any whim of which is fulfilled immediately, accustomed to the worship and admiration of the male sex. Needless to say, Taylor conveyed the image of Sondra at a high level, and what else could be expected from the icon of cinema.
Here's the character of Roberta (Shelly Winters), I was a little disappointed, I had a different idea of Roberta. More attractive and more compassionate. Although Roberta was persistent, but the same rudeness and obsession that the actress showed us, she was no different.
A special thank you to George Stevens for the penultimate scene in which Sondra visits Clyde in prison and expresses his love for him - this is what I missed when reading the book, in which Sondra limited herself only to a note of condolences, which plunged Clyde into utter despondency.
At the moment, this is the best adaptation of the immortal masterpiece of T. Dreiser and for one selection of actors for the main roles (Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor), the film deserves the highest rating:
10 out of 10
“A Place in the Sun” is a rather famous film based on Dreiser’s novel “American Tragedy”.
In this case, the director refused the original title of the work, the original names and some plot lines of the novel, and this gave him the right to freely draw the images of the characters. Therefore, it is impossible to call this film a full adaptation.
The film will please fans of the era of “Golden Hollywood” and fans of actors of the old Hollywood school. That's the charm of the movie. This movie is not being made right now.
The director managed to squeeze the volumetric work to the limit, literally one or two frames to show the key events and episodes of the life of the main character. There are both positive aspects (dynamics, looks on one breath) and negative ones – a lot of the book is not reflected in the film at all.
Elizabeth Taylor is gorgeous, of course. But her image is the image of a mature, sophisticated secular beauty. And in the book the prototype of her heroine is a young and charming teenage girl, almost a child, restless and mischievous, but generally naive.
The acting work of Montgomery Clift and Shelley Winters is good in its own way, but their dramatic relationship in the book is much more complicated. The character of the main character in the book is a sample of insignificance and cowardice, in the film it is somewhat softened.
The film tends more to tearfully beautiful melodramas, especially at the end. Tears, beautiful poses, endless “I love.” The plot is reduced to a banal love triangle, where two girls love the same hero, and he simply does not know how to get rid of the one that is already tired. In the book, everything is more complicated, and there is little love as such, one has a thirst for the expense of another to live beautifully and without worries, another has a fear of shame and a desperate struggle for the right to live normally, and someone has only mischievous love fun in the spirit of youth.
In the film, the crime itself looks like an accident (in the book it is not at all so), and the hero is a kind of stupid sufferer. At the same time, the whole acuteness of social drama, the tragedy of life illusions, is lost. And that makes the movie lose a lot. The audience begins to sympathize with the hero, and he does not deserve it at all.
However, those who appreciate the spirit of old Hollywood and want to sigh at the sugar beauty of Elizabeth Taylor, the film will probably like.
5 out of 10
Of course, I am not Christopher Columbus and I am not going to open America, saying that the film adaptation is very serious. And in order to bring a novel or a play to the screen, you need to try hard, despite the former merits, if the director is famous and despite the inspiration and talent that supposedly belong to you. You have to work really hard here, as George Stevens did when he decided to film Theodore Dreiser’s novel American Tragedy. And here's the thing, I think a lot of people would agree with me. Those of us who did not read the book, but watched this movie, firstly, did not regret the time spent, secondly, were able to see the Hollywood star landing in action and fully armed, and thirdly, implicitly wanted to get acquainted with the work of Theodore Dreiser. And that means only one thing: the picture is great!
Who among us has not dreamed of conquering a major metropolis? That's it. Who hasn’t dreamed of meeting smart interesting people from the high society of this metropolis? That's it. Maybe at the beginning of the film on the expression of the hero Montgomery Clift and not say that he really wants to become part of the elite and beau monde, but there are certain thoughts in the soul, you can not doubt. Just a guy from the hinterland, while still a little understands in bohemian life, but when before his bright eyes there is a burning brunette of unearthly beauty, then the desire to get into the upper world takes on more weighty outlines. He recently met a good girl. Ay, ay, ay, Mr. George Eastman, ay, ay, ay. Not good. After all, again, in the appearance of Eastman, you can not say that he is a reveler and womanizer, especially since the heroine Shelly Winters is very charming. Perhaps she's not as outwardly attractive and sophisticated as her counterpart, so look at Mr. Eastman. After all, you did not do with love and the fruits of your actions, the best way you can soon reflect the stomach of Alice Tripp (Shelly Winters). Yeah, man, you're screwed. So the wormhole sharpens the soul of the hero Montgomery Clift, so washed all sorts of bad climbing into the head, from which you can not hide, not hide. And the horned sees everything and will certainly give the opportunity to materialize those faint-hearted thoughts. That's the story.
Experienced director George Stevens, who shot such famous films as “Penny Serenade”, “Woman of the Year”, “Blissful Lady” and this time did not have a haircut. Properly rehearsing and honing all the details and nuances, letting the fateful beauty Elizabeth Taylor and the nugget Montgomery Clift into battle, Stevens created a movie that is said to be a classic, no more and no less. But you and I don’t always like to listen to classical music and watch classics. You're definitely lucky this time. The movie is quite bright and noticeable, and most importantly, relevant and topical. How can I not see this?
Growing up in the remote rural hinterland and nurtured by the heavy iron hand of Puritan upbringing, the attractive young man George Eastman, having sprung from the suffocating stone walls of his native land, falls into a large, teeming with millions and shining with neons, city. With only an immoderate ambition to conquer the new Babylon and an unspent libido, Eastman quickly finds a passion for the soul, heart and body and a passion for the purse. The tight Gordian knot of passion, lust and greed is tightened more and more around George’s neck, and he decides to break into pieces the love triangle he himself designed.
Of course, Theodore Dreiser’s “American Tragedy” was only such – American in flesh and blood – only partially, because if you reject all the husks of the prototypical nature of the main characters of the novel, the plot of which, as you know, went into the criminal case of 1906, when Major Chester Gillett killed his beloved Grace, then “American Tragedy” will become a rather socialized tragedy – universal and extracontinental, despite the fact that Dreiser in his book, published before the Great Depression, in one way or another, but ambitious American myths, all those who fervently bowed to him, and those who fervented for their grave goals. Dreiser-realist and Dreiser-humanist, of course, in his literary and philosophical researches makes you look for parallels, perhaps, with only one Russian writer of similar personal scale - Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the end, they are related by the cross-cutting theme of the Fall and progressive salvation, which is present in almost all the works of both writers, and the American Tragedy is at all perceived as the story of the new Raskolnikov that has grown up on star-striped soil. However, Raskolnikov, although new, but the problems are old, not changed after hundreds of years.
And like Joseph von Sternberg in 1931, and George Stevens after exactly 20 years in the second film adaptation of Dreiser’s novel, the film “A Place in the Sun”, which was later crowned with six Oscars, managed not only to grope and press on the sick nerves of the literary source, reinterpreted also in the play by Patrick Kearney (because “A Place in the Sun” is not so much by Dreiser as by Kearney), but also, after the authors, tried to understand and forgive his main character – Clyde Griffiths, the future victim of the desires to become the worst of all. The standard way is “from dirt to princes” with the fact that then he would voluntarily throw himself again into the mud, getting dirty with it not only outside, but also inside. It is the eternal “creature I tremble, or have the right,” this rustle of banknotes and the smell of expensive cigars, this hum of a large city that beckons to itself, drags into the darkness and seduction. How can you not fall in love?
In the rich, albeit sometimes too academic in film language, the director’s interpretation of George Stevens, acting in the film without excessive pressure, almost without didactics and strained moralization, the director draws, like Dreiser, a realistic and partly revealing portrait of a new generation of young and greyhounds, for whom there is nothing easier to betray and sell both their soul and body, and even someone else’s. Egoism, egocentrism, simply the Ego to the highest degree and at the same time typical American individualism, contrasted with the conveyor-line collective unconscious. Was that goal worth a drop of blood? Was it worth falling down, not realizing that upwards would no longer be destined to rise? Every American dream is never broken about life; it’s too simplistic. Sacred sacrifices are needed, only the executioner must be prepared for them by circumstances that can hardly be called Eastman. George, first walking on corpses and drowning in tears of those whose fates he breaks, trying to get into the corporate system, to climb the spiral staircase to the higher society, in which he will still be a stranger and a stranger, is nevertheless doomed to death. To repentance. For him, from his childhood in the grip of puritanism, freedom was too much in the big world, freedom, soon turned into permissiveness. And hypothetically having achieved his goal, becoming a cog of an even more clumsy System, George is still doomed to revolt against it. George Stevens, more clearly than Dreiser or Kearney, sculpts Eastman as a hero outside of any system, but with too broad an understanding of freedom in general and free will in particular. For George, freedom becomes dangerous, and the ultimate goal with that dehumanizing trigger, pressing on which you can open the “Pandora’s Box”, waking up overnight in a man a beast in fever, crucifying his own morality on the swastika. However, Eastman, unlike the literary Griffiths, deserves the right to salvation simply because there is no true seal of evil in him, but only ambition and fate. Stevens deliberately does not thicken the colors in the picture, does not make the tape invective, giving his hero the ways to retreat, to salvation, to begging, in fact turning the hero of his time into just a hero from timelessness, for the sake of his own momentary well-being who crossed the line, but is doomed to regain the status quo. However, this salvation does not lie in the space of divine illuminations, since both God and Mamon for the hero “Places under the Sun” were equal in their destructive essence. Having lost faith in God, George no longer believes in himself. Only the inevitable death will justify it. Love him black, just love him, because the place in the sun was too heavy for George. Only death will justify him, and only in another world will he be destined to comprehend the simple truth: live in honor and not in deed, and you will be rewarded.
10 out of 10
Suffice it to say that the film honestly won all its Oscars – and this I say not about every film. Directing? The direction is high-quality, the atmosphere is inflated slowly, gradually, but extremely skillfully, consistently and balanced. That message in the news, then accidentally told the story about a couple who drowned in the lake last year - and the hero's face goes through hundreds of phases, and you can see in each frame how he is more and more inclined to a terrifying decision.
Soundtrack? Each melody sounds at the right moment and greatly enhances the perception of what is happening. Cinematography? The camera here acts perfectly, angles, perspective - everything is filigree to the last detail. Pine trees that disperse when approaching the lake, a car rushing rapidly into the wilderness, landscapes, ballrooms. George Eastman dancing with Angela, her tilted head, face with this graceful mole... Best editing? Again, the transitions between episodes are smooth, virtuoso, and tension is thoroughly maintained. Adapted script? Of course, there are discrepancies with the book, but I like this interpretation of incidents and characters. Best suits? There is nothing to explain here, since the excellent Edith Head was engaged in them!
Although the acting and not awarded, she also wants to sing praises. Montgomery Clift amazingly played a sympathetic at first, in essence, a guy whom temptation undermines insidiously, gradually. Anne Rever in her usual role, and as Eastman's mother she is inimitable. Shelly Winters - as if a tormented victim, naive, vulnerable, but extremely persistent, decisive and in the most terrible moments. Elizabeth Taylor Angela in her performance at first looked extremely predatory, left, seductively and enterprisingly gaining the desire of George. But in the end, it opens a lot of sincere, childish, and from her fate, too, extremely hurts the soul.
And since the themes that are shown here have been relevant since ancient times, the action reaches almost the intensity of the Greek tragedy, let us say some “Medea” by Euripides, a powerful catharsis occurs. The film reminds me of “The Postman Always Calls Twice.” Especially with the ending, in which it is impossible to escape from earthly retribution, but there is still hope for reconciliation with Providence and with all those whom you have wounded.
I think all viewers of this picture should be divided into those who have read or not read Theodore Dreiser’s American Tragedy, perhaps the most famous work of the writer.
First of all, I want to say that I liked the film. The play of Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor is flawless and fully corresponds to the main characters of the novel by Theodore Dreiser, while Montgomery Clift, in my opinion, is the ideal performer of Clyde Griffiths, the main character of the novel. The script of the film in general fits into the main canvas of the novel, and keeps the viewer in constant tension, adding elements of a thriller to the picture.
However, it is worth remembering that initially the novel consisted of two books, that is, it is a voluminous, thorough work, describing in detail the life, customs and foundations of America of the 20s. Against the background of a literary work, the film looks like a shortened version of the novel (not due to the understandable limitations of cinema), almost like a tragic story that originally appeared due to a banal, almost everyday situation.
In fact, Dreiser’s novel is a deep, iconic work that touches on the main, not only social and spiritual problems of that period, but also the question of the delicate verge of the painful choice of one’s “I”, when all hopes, postures and inner struggles of a person are poured into an incorrigible action, as a result of which a person’s death occurs. The author literally makes the reader get into the skin of Clyde Griffitz and feel the whole course of his thoughts, in which the main character does not yet want to see malicious intent, while realizing that the death of his mistress / bride is directly related to him. Does Clyde really want Roberta dead? He doesn’t want to, and he feels that all of his bright future, love and possession of another woman, now depend on Roberta’s disappearance or death. Within the film, the idea of what is happening sounds like “A Place in the Sun,” and, in my opinion, does not fully correspond to the idea of the novel, narrowing its boundaries, without revealing the deep struggle in Clyde’s soul, making his act an obvious murder.
In the film, oddly enough, the death of Roberta looks more like an accident, and Clyde, being in the boat, does not even take the initiative to kill, (as well as to save Roberta) and the viewer for some time remains confused. He will be charged with murder.
Clyde makes no attempt to save Roberta, knowing she can’t swim. Although this could be explained by the shock of a sudden fall into the water, the darkness. But, at the trial, he himself admits that he originally had the idea of killing Roberta, although he does not consider himself guilty of her death and really believes in it.
The peculiarity of Dreiser’s works is their amazing relevance. Probably, the whole plot of the novel could be without damage transferred to our days.
I recommend watching and reading the book later.
A beautiful novel by T. Dreiser, based on real events that occurred at the beginning of the XX century, at a difficult time for America, when society was too strict to all kinds of entertainment beyond the limits of morality, which were quite narrow; and a film-average, Oscar-winner, having a bunch of other awards.
Now, let’s talk about what relates directly to the film itself. The film is black and white, and this is already a minus, since the film does not reflect either the beauty of the landscape or the gloom of the action committed by the main characters; neither the luxury of a wealthy family, nor the poverty and poverty of poor neighborhoods.
The acting is good (yet), Elizabeth Taylor - one of the queens of Hollywood, Montgomery Clift - really fully corresponds to the main character, both external and internal: all imbued with insecurity, which runs through all his actions; this is how I imagined the main character. And for this alone you can put 5 points.
Further, the plot is shortened, somewhere retreated, somewhere replaced, and as a result, significantly inferior to the book. 1 point.
If Dreiser shows the main character as a complex nature, then everything is rather simplified in the film; however, his love, the one for which he went on a crime, came out quite different, I would even say too complex, and does not correspond to the original source. Although, the film has a different title, different names, and therefore do not necessarily stick. As a bonus, another 1 point.
But where's the long process? Is this a fair American trial? This democracy? Where is the main character’s doubt? Oops, he's too simple. Oh, I forgot to mention Robert, or what was her name in the movie? I forgot that just the role of an actress (Shelly Winters) was negligible. There is no character, not the slightest virtue. Simple and naive.