I've never seen a stage production of Frank Gilroy's play "The Subject Was Roses", but Ulu Grosbard's movie version is a shocker. Martin Sheen plays a young soldier returning home and causing a rift in his family. Patricia Neal gets top billing as the beleaguered matriarch, while Jack Albertson won an Oscar for his role as the rough, crotchety father.
The title refers to a bouquet that the dad buys the mom. What she does with it is a perfect metaphor for what's become of the family. True, there have been lots of stories about old wounds getting opened up in families. I'd say that this one has one of the most realistic feelings (probably because it was a play). Both of the parents make you feel as if you're walking on eggshells.
Basically, this is a movie that grabs you and doesn't let go. It's exactly what cinema should be. The differences between the parents and the son reflect the growing generation gap of the late '60s (even though the movie takes place in the '40s). In my opinion, you can't honestly call yourself a film buff unless you've seen "The Subject Was Roses" at least once. Definitely watch it.
The title refers to a bouquet that the dad buys the mom. What she does with it is a perfect metaphor for what's become of the family. True, there have been lots of stories about old wounds getting opened up in families. I'd say that this one has one of the most realistic feelings (probably because it was a play). Both of the parents make you feel as if you're walking on eggshells.
Basically, this is a movie that grabs you and doesn't let go. It's exactly what cinema should be. The differences between the parents and the son reflect the growing generation gap of the late '60s (even though the movie takes place in the '40s). In my opinion, you can't honestly call yourself a film buff unless you've seen "The Subject Was Roses" at least once. Definitely watch it.