CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)

post #1 of 18
12/25/08 at 12:02am
Thread Starter 
Very, very well acted film and very funny thanks to the dialogue (the "No sir because I like to drink" line killed me.) Is it just me, or does Elizabeth Taylor and Megan Fox look a lot alike?
Reply
post #2 of 18
12/25/08 at 4:25am
It's an OK movie but it short changes itself by editing out the homosexual content. Without that, the story doesn't exactly make a lot of sense...
Reply
post #3 of 18
12/25/08 at 4:43am
The homosexual content isn't as overt as in the play, but it's still there (probably easier to spot in hindsight than it would've been for audiences seeing it fresh). This was 1958 though; they were pushing things as it was by having Liz in her underwear for the first half hour.

Absolutely love Burl Ives in this. I caught this on TCM the other night and have been walking around, inhaling deeply and going "There is a distinct oder of mendacity here." Just the way he delivers it cracks me up.
Reply
post #4 of 18
12/25/08 at 7:02am
I love the living bejesus out of this film. This may be one of my favourite Newman performances in such a stellar career. Williams words in Newman and Taylors mouths is damn-near american shakespeare for my money.

Newman is a young actor withe everything to prove and just fuckin goes for it and Taylor is the epitome of southern belle-minx.

Yeah the homosexual allusions are more broad but theyre still there, and the fact that they are more vague actually feels more real for me considering the era the film is set in.

I remember catching this at about fourteen late one night just as it was starting and being utterly gripped from start to finish (my introduction to the mighty Tennesee).

Own it. Love it. Watch it at least ever couple of years.
Reply
post #5 of 18
12/25/08 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
The homosexual content isn't as overt as in the play, but it's still there (probably easier to spot in hindsight than it would've been for audiences seeing it fresh). This was 1958 though; they were pushing things as it was by having Liz in her underwear for the first half hour.

Absolutely love Burl Ives in this. I caught this on TCM the other night and have been walking around, inhaling deeply and going "There is a distinct oder of mendacity here." Just the way he delivers it cracks me up.
Ives, Newman, Taylor and....hell, the whole cast save this thing. But the fact is, without the overt homosexual content, the ending is totally different. In the play, Brick isn't content to keep trying to have kids with Maggie and that's kind of the point. In the movie, he just kinda stops being mopey and his attitude shifts to the point where he might as well say "lets start fuckin!"

That just doesn't work with the plays material. I give the movie credit for not dropping the issue entirely, but they pussyfoot around it enough to make it too oblique.
Reply
post #6 of 18
12/25/08 at 1:39pm
I have to agree with Parker. Brooks isn't a talented enough director, or just didn't care enough to try to make the story work even with the cuts, like Kazan was able to accomplish with Streetcar. Still, the acting and the writing around the central Brick business is quite lovely.

I still need to see the 80s television version with Jessica Lange and Tommy Lee Jones, which I believe kept the original script intact.
Reply
post #7 of 18
12/25/08 at 10:22pm
Burl Ives is great in everything though. You could dip the man in dog shit, and he would make entertaining.
Reply
post #8 of 18
9/22/10 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Ives, Newman, Taylor and....hell, the whole cast save this thing. But the fact is, without the overt homosexual content, the ending is totally different. In the play, Brick isn't content to keep trying to have kids with Maggie and that's kind of the point. In the movie, he just kinda stops being mopey and his attitude shifts to the point where he might as well say "lets start fuckin!"

That just doesn't work with the plays material. I give the movie credit for not dropping the issue entirely, but they pussyfoot around it enough to make it too oblique.
I only just saw this for the first time last week and Parker's comment here sums up the weakness of it for me, in that Brick's change feels contrived and off.

Having never seen the play I didn't know much what to expect, but it's a film I always wanted to see because of hearing the name so often. And because I knew I'd be watching Paul Newman. And having never seen or read the play I still noticed that homosexual subtext, and was surprised and kind of thrilled at the suggestion coming from a 1958 American film. That knowledge of era and context sets up a tension even from a modern perspective but but it peters out instead of finding a resolution.

But like you guys I was rivetted by the performances in spite of all that, and I laughed a lot more than I was expecting to too.
Reply
post #9 of 18
9/23/10 at 8:56am
The play is much better than the film, if only because the conclusion does not feel anywhere near as forced. Hollywood has to have their "happy ending." As such, it can't stand beside something like WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINA WOOLF?, but, nevertheless, it's a pretty solid flick. Ives delivers a great performance.
Reply
post #10 of 18
9/23/10 at 4:26pm
I thought Ives and Newman were both pretty magnificent and magnetic, but my favourite performance was Taylor's. She hit a beautiful balance between vulnerability and inner strength and my heart really went out to Maggie.
Reply
post #11 of 18
9/23/10 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post
I thought Ives and Newman were both pretty magnificent and magnetic, but my favourite performance was Taylor's. She hit a beautiful balance between vulnerability and inner strength and my heart really went out to Maggie.
Taylor is phenomenal in it - but then, she really doesn't seem to get her due with the younger set of film fans these days. Such an actress.

Gotta say tho, the fifteen minutes or so of Ives and Newmans back and forth that culminates with "I hurt him Maggie, I hurt him bad" is simply some of my favorite acting to come out of classic Hollywood. It's just electric.
Reply
post #12 of 18
9/23/10 at 9:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
It's an OK movie but it short changes itself by editing out the homosexual content. Without that, the story doesn't exactly make a lot of sense...
Well, they don't really need to explicitly say it, when the guy is REJECTING THE ADVANCES OF ELIZABETH TAYLOR. That in and of itself is enough.
Reply
post #13 of 18
9/23/10 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Shark View Post
Well, they don't really need to explicitly say it, when the guy is REJECTING THE ADVANCES OF ELIZABETH TAYLOR. That in and of itself is enough.
Well quite.
Reply
post #14 of 18
9/24/10 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Shark View Post
Well, they don't really need to explicitly say it, when the guy is REJECTING THE ADVANCES OF ELIZABETH TAYLOR. That in and of itself is enough.
That's not the point. They don't explicitly say it in the play either (at least, there's never a line where Brick says "Big Daddy, just so we're clear, I'm a flaming homosexual.")

The problem is that they water it down so the conversations between Daddy and Brick become somewhat vague. And then they change the ending of the play, giving it a happy ever ending vibe, suggesting that Brick and Maggie are gonna to try to have a child after all, so they can take up Big Daddy's mantle.

Regular "changing the ending" complaints aside, this doesn't make a lick of sense, character wise. If Brick's gay, he's gay, and no matter how much heart-to-heart he has with Big Daddy, that ain't gonna change.
Reply
post #15 of 18
9/24/10 at 11:43am
When reading the play, it seemed to me that Brick was bisexual, rather than flat-out homosexual.
Reply
post #16 of 18
9/24/10 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post
When reading the play, it seemed to me that Brick was bisexual, rather than flat-out homosexual.
That's certainly possible. But when reading the play, did you notice the ending of the play? Because that's what I'm talking about. They're not happy at the end like they are in the movie. It could be because he's gay, or that he feels trapped, or fake, or still has affection for the dead guy. It doesn't matter. In the movie, Brick suddenly has a change of heart that's not based on anything in the text. It doesn't make sense. That's the problem.
Reply
post #17 of 18
9/24/10 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
In the movie, Brick suddenly has a change of heart that's not based on anything in the text. It doesn't make sense. That's the problem.
Of course. And I said as much above. The ending of the film feels very forced, even if the actors do their best with the material. There's a glimmer of hope at the end of the original play (depending on how it's staged and acted, of course), but it's fragile, and plenty of tension remains.
Reply
post #18 of 18
5/21/12 at 5:39pm
Here's a segment from the 1984 tv version with Jessica Lange which used the uncensored script:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUYQNgasYww
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)