The Glass Menagerie (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
Adapted from the popular play by Tennessee Williams, 'The Glass Menagerie' (directed here by Irving Rapper, Now, Voyager) centers around 4 relatively unhappy people living in a rundown section of St. Louis in the early 20th century. Tom (Arthur Kennedy), the story's lead & narrator, is a poetic idealist trapped in a dead-end job, choosing to frown his sorrows in alcohol at the local pub (though, he tells his family that he heads for the movie house). Tom lives with his mother Amanda (Broadway star, Gertrude Lawrence), a faded Southern belle who lives almost entirely in the past. She's a harpy who is miserable due to her husband having ditched the family long ago. She loves her 2 children, but loves them too much; wanting great things for them when really, their life paths are much more modest.
Then we have Tom's crippled sister, Laura (Jane Wyman), an exceedingly shy young woman who suffers from an inferiority complex & escapes from her sad reality by keeping a 'glass menagerie' of small animal figurines to keep herself occupied. Laura is brought out of her shell by the 4th person in the story, a 'Gentleman Caller' named Jim (Kirk Douglas), who happens to be a friendly co-worker of Tom's who relies on charm, charisma, & bravado to get himself through life. Amanda is ecstatic that he's 'called' upon Laura for an evening. but little do all of them know the little secret that Jim is harboring. Melodrama ensues.
I remember reading 'The Glass Menagerie' in high school. It is deemed an American 'classic'. I get it. Its themes, metaphors, & symbolisms of family, the power of memory, crushing unfulfillment, & the American Dream make it a potent piece of work. It's the kind of story that lends itself to many a film adaptation. And in 1950, Hollywood decided that it needed yet another version. Is this movie a good one? Is it a good adaptation? Well, it's hard to say. I know that several components of the story have been changed for this version, including a wildly different (and optimistic) ending. But as I often say, film is an entirely different medium than books. And as long as the changes/difference isn't completely damning, then I am okay with said changes. And that's more or less the case here.
The obvious strength of this movie is the acting. Arthur Kennedy perfectly expresses that sort of 30-something yr. old man who is stuck in a blahh job, not married, forced to live with his family, & tries to escape his existence in any way he can; all the while, trying not to run out on his family like his father did. Jane Wyman is excellent as the crippled, but meek & pretty Laura. We really pull for her potential, yet nearly-out-of-reach happiness above everyone else. Kirk Douglas perfectly embodies the kind of self-assured, charming heartbreaker who doesn't really realize the disappointment he inflicts. And Gertrude Lawrence is appropriately irritating/ aggravating as the mother whose aspirations for her children are both misplaced & too lofty. Critics (of the time) didn't love her portrayal, but I found it fine. Overall, this minor film does its job. I liked it enough. Sure, it felt quite stagey in execution. But it didn't detract from my overall modest enjoyment.
Then we have Tom's crippled sister, Laura (Jane Wyman), an exceedingly shy young woman who suffers from an inferiority complex & escapes from her sad reality by keeping a 'glass menagerie' of small animal figurines to keep herself occupied. Laura is brought out of her shell by the 4th person in the story, a 'Gentleman Caller' named Jim (Kirk Douglas), who happens to be a friendly co-worker of Tom's who relies on charm, charisma, & bravado to get himself through life. Amanda is ecstatic that he's 'called' upon Laura for an evening. but little do all of them know the little secret that Jim is harboring. Melodrama ensues.
I remember reading 'The Glass Menagerie' in high school. It is deemed an American 'classic'. I get it. Its themes, metaphors, & symbolisms of family, the power of memory, crushing unfulfillment, & the American Dream make it a potent piece of work. It's the kind of story that lends itself to many a film adaptation. And in 1950, Hollywood decided that it needed yet another version. Is this movie a good one? Is it a good adaptation? Well, it's hard to say. I know that several components of the story have been changed for this version, including a wildly different (and optimistic) ending. But as I often say, film is an entirely different medium than books. And as long as the changes/difference isn't completely damning, then I am okay with said changes. And that's more or less the case here.
The obvious strength of this movie is the acting. Arthur Kennedy perfectly expresses that sort of 30-something yr. old man who is stuck in a blahh job, not married, forced to live with his family, & tries to escape his existence in any way he can; all the while, trying not to run out on his family like his father did. Jane Wyman is excellent as the crippled, but meek & pretty Laura. We really pull for her potential, yet nearly-out-of-reach happiness above everyone else. Kirk Douglas perfectly embodies the kind of self-assured, charming heartbreaker who doesn't really realize the disappointment he inflicts. And Gertrude Lawrence is appropriately irritating/ aggravating as the mother whose aspirations for her children are both misplaced & too lofty. Critics (of the time) didn't love her portrayal, but I found it fine. Overall, this minor film does its job. I liked it enough. Sure, it felt quite stagey in execution. But it didn't detract from my overall modest enjoyment.