Skip to main content

Review: Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)



Throughout his career, Tennessee Williams had written plays that deal squarely with his interest in violence. Violence not of a senseless, excessive kind but one that is nevertheless destructive, and targeted most of all to bring out the vulnerability of the others. The lack of any outrage that attended his violent plays emboldened him in furthering his involvement with graphic materials, and it climaxed with the release of Suddenly Last Summer in 1958, a one-act play that draws on issues like lobotomy and cannibalism. Williams was almost certain then that he’d be tarred and feathered, but the play proved a commercial and critical success. This says much about the social currents of the time, which fed on narratives like that to help coping with the bitter reality and malaise. In this case the public was obviously taken to Williams’s measure of honesty, savagery and explosiveness.

In the preface of Sweet Bird of Youth Williams attributes his propensity of violence to a means “to contend with this adversary of fear.” Fear can restore courage to the hearts of the weak, and can also be the last straw of the perennially defeated. Violence is sometimes a way of dispelling the fear but mostly with tragic consequences. Hope is absent; it seems almost as though Williams does not believe in the possibility of redemption or altered fate. There is always a sense of starkness despite the ceaseless hullabaloo.

Williams’s unsettling drama sets an uphill task for filmmakers. Past attempts at transposing Williams’s onto screen yielded very few good results. Richard Brooks, the director of the acclaimed Cat on the Hot Tin Roof (1958), did not repeat success four years later with Sweet Bird of Youth, a film that is now dismissed as one of the lesser adaptations of Williams’s great plays. It boasts of a stellar cast, with Paul Newman, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn and Madeleine Sherwood reprising their roles from Elia Kazan’s Broadway long-runner.

Brooks’s production is by and large a clunky, cluttered affair, failing to grasp the correct mood and tone of the original and unwisely concluding with an implausibly happy ending, something the critics most carped at. Newman plays Chance Wayne, a small-time drifter going home to St. Cloud, Florida, with the Tinseltown has-been Alexandra Del Largo he picks up, in hope of winning back his childhood sweetheart Heavenly Findley, daughter to Boss Findley, a despotic, insular political provocateur, who tyrannises the small town with his racist cause and malign influence. Learning of Chance’s unpropitious arrival, the townsfolk are in league against him, since years ago he left without the knowledge of an unborn bastard. Driven by a need to elope with his girl out of the hostile town, Chance sees Del Largo as a springboard to Hollywood and blackmails her unsuccessfully. The highlight of the play is the acerbic exchange between the two protagonists, which the film decided to pare down, and in consequence dwindled substantially the solid characterisation of both leads, wasting especially the talent of Page, whose formidability should’ve required more screen time.

One thing the director did well was his handle of the fine balance between chaos and solitude, and his sage resolve not to attenuate the controversial issues like drug and abortion. Moral criticism may still be valid, though one is likelier to be swayed from judging, and instead sympathise with the victim-hero, whose sauciness is coloured with certain likeability. Newman lent charm, intelligence and a light dose of loucheness to a role that seemed his own.

A lugubrious melodrama but highly entertaining. Reading the play the second time after the film I was reminded of its affinity with Streetcar Named Desire- both centre on pariahs wronged by a provincial society, the relentless nature of time, the dreamers’ inability to overcome reality, and feature ditzy, aging beauties who at one moment stare boldly but wearily into the mirror, confronting their fading looks with dogged pride and wavering dignity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: To Be or Not to Be (1942)

  In  Eichmann in Jerusalem  (1963), Hannah Arendt attributes the criminal mind of Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann to a “sheer thoughtlessness - something by no means identical with stupidity…”  A Report on the Banality of Evil , which is the book’s subtitle, introduces a kind of evil - the worst conceivable kind in human history - that departs from the “radical evil” that is at the heart of Arendt’s  The Origins of Totalitarianism  (1951). Shortly after the publication of  Eichmann , Arendt wrote to philosopher Gershom Scholem:         […] I changed my opinion and do no longer speak of “radical evil.” […] It is        indeed my opinion now that now that evil is never “radical”, that it is only        extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension […]        It is “thought-defying”, as I sai...

Review: 3 Women (1977)

  In search of what he called an “astral America” in the early 1980s, Jean Baudrillard came upon its ultimate symbol - the desert: “ Desert is simply that: an ecstatic critique of culture, an ecstatic form of disappearance.” This initial ecstasy soon gave way to sobering contemplation - of technology, the ravages of modernity, the vacuity of the American dream, the mindless luxury of civilisation…”All societies end up wearing masks,” Baudrillard pronounces, tying his observation in with the premise of his seminal work,  Simulacra and Simulation , published just a few years back, that “artifice is at the very heart of reality.”   Baudrillard’s Delphic prose, which comprises the book  America , is echoed in the strange, banal imagery of  3 Women  (1977). The locales were Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs - arid plains where spirit decayed and hopes foundered. As is frequently the case, the drab physical landscape triggers an inverse response from the psycho...

Review: Playtime (1967)

  Having left his sister’s family at the end of  Mon Oncle  (1958), a bittersweet coda which I take to symbolise in some way the irretrievable loss of an age of innocence, Monsieur Hulot, Jacques Tati’s beloved and bumbling alter ego, finds himself amongst other ill-adapted, increasingly mechanised denizens in a near-futuristic Paris -  Playtime  (1967), Tati’s penultimate full-length feature and arguably his best, involved a constructed set so lavish and enormous that the director was near bankrupt when he finished the film, three years after its start date. The so-called “Tativille” blends the Kafkesque with an impersonal internationalism; the scope of vision is at once grand and restrictive - there is space within a wide interior space and, as evidenced by a now canonical image of Hulot overlooking a grid of office cubicles (this anticipated by at least 20 years the dominance of such design), each inhabitant of the space seems contented and in a way codepende...