I Never Sang for My Father (1970) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
43 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Father and son
jotix1001 March 2006
"I Never Sang for My Father" has to be one of the saddest films ever made. Relations between parents and grown up children are examined in this tight drama that rings true from beginning to end. We can relate to how the dynamics in a family change as parents get older and children are now involved in problems of their own with their families.

This is basically about the special relationship between a father and a son. Tom Garrison, the father, is in his eighties. His son Gene has lost his wife and is now seeing a woman doctor in California. When Margaret, the mother, suffers a heart attack and dies, Tom and Gene come to a confrontation because the father wants to keep a grip on his son to help him during that adjustment period. Gene, who has always been a good son, has to make a decision that will put him at odds with his father.

The idea of children taking care of their parents during their old age is questioned here. On the one hand, Tom, the father, is a self made man who struggled hard for all he achieved in life. Gene, the son, is in the eyes of the father, a failure, because of his passive nature. Tom has counted on relying on Gene for those late years and because of his intransigent nature, he is not willing to compromise in the solution the son has for him.

The film version of Robert Anderson's play, and directed by Gilbert Cates, gathered a stellar cast to bring the family alive. Melvyn Douglas, in one of his best screen appearances, makes Tom Garrison come alive. Mr. Douglas' take on his character shows a man that while giving an appearance of being strong, underneath, shows his vulnerability. Gene Hackman, who plays the son, is a perfect match for Melvyn Douglas. Their scenes together show a raw energy between a domineering father and a son that has gone along to please him. Estelle Parsons is seen as Alice, the estranged daughter and Dorothy Stickney who plays Margaret, the mother.
43 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
good film
kyle_furr14 March 2004
Gene Hackman plays a former marine who's wife had died not too long ago for cancer. His parents live close by and he visits every so often. Hackman has never really gotten along with his dad, played by Melvyn Douglas, but gets along better with his mother. His mother dies and his sister, played by Estelle Parsons, comes home and we find out that Douglas had banished her several years earlier and she's never come back since. Hackman and Parsons have to decide what to do with dad, which is either hiring a full time nurse or moving him into a nursing home or letting him move in with one of them. Both Gene Hackman and Melvyn Douglas were nominated for best actor but lost out to George C. Scott for Patton. Several people have called this movie very depressing but i don't think it is, but just like what Roger Ebert said, a good movie is never depressing, only bad movies are.
38 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
MOVING PERFORMANCES THAT LINGER!
shepardjessica-127 October 2004
This '70 drama is very powerful with a towering performance by Melvyn Douglas and an authentic and insightful one by Gene Hackman (right before FRENCH CONNECTION) as his son. Hackman's 2nd nom. after BONNIE AND CLYDE and I wish he'd made more human dramas like this one in the 70's and 80's instead of junk like SUPERMAN, ZANDY'S BRIDE, MARCH OR DIE. Check him out in CISCO PIKE. Estelle Parsons who played Hackman's wife in B&C plays his sister in this and is glad she escaped the clutches of her old man. Fine acting and well-directed.

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Melvyn Douglas (also nominated for Oscar). Nerves on edge and tragedy of aging beautifully told.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing
practicepiano7 April 2006
I find myself recommending this movie to people all the time. It is such a clear picture of the challenges faced by anyone trying to help an aging parent.

But there is another aspect to it that I love. It is one of the few serious films I've seen that shows the effect of a character being viewed as the salt of the earth, heroic and charming by outsiders, but who is nasty, judgmental and selfish with his own family. Whatever has happened due to Douglas' character aging and beginning to lose his mental faculties, you know that this particular pain has been part of his children's lives forever.

Such a relationship is always difficult -- it is especially so with an older relative who has truly done heroic things, and who is respected and loved even by those he abuses. It puts everyone who knows his darker side in a bizarre and awkward position, seeming like villains for ever saying a word against a much-admired person.

This movie captures the agony and poignancy of such a relationship perfectly, and shows the various levels of maturity with which one's family can choose to respond. The character's daughter needs to stay away, his son takes it with a grain of salt, as evidenced by his wry smile and mild answer when his fiancée finds his father "charming." This is a must-see film, for more reasons than I can list here.
41 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It's Like Watching My Life
dogeatdog721 August 2009
I saw this film as a child on late night TV in the 70's and never really grasped it's truthful portrayal of the classic dysfunctional family. I didn't realize at the time just how dysfunctional my family was and how my father's controlling behavior and self centered personality shaped our family dynamics and still does. The close, loving adult relationship I always wanted with my father never happened because of his overbearing personality and utter disinterest in his children's adult lives. The children of such parents are often made to feel that it's either their fault or at least their responsibility to fix it. I saw the film again today on TCM and it perfectly captured the devastating long term effects from growing up in such a household. There's not a wasted word in the script. Tom doesn't give a wit about Gene. He doesn't even know him or care to. It's all about Tom. Boy, do I know what that feels like. I wished I had written Gene Hackman's dialog down so I could use it during my next frustrating visit with the old man.

This film should be required viewing for any adult son (or daughter) who is guilt-ed on a regular basis and told that everything their parents ever did for them as children has strings attached.

I'm an actor and I hope I get the chance to play Gene Garrison some day...with my father in the audience. Who am I kidding? He still wouldn't get it.
40 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overflowing with deep feeling and insight into father-son-family relationship...
Phil Phlash22 May 2001
I can count on this movie to move me, to bring up feelings for me EVERY TIME I see it. Robert Anderson, the writer, nailed it, caught the essence of the difficulty children have relating to their fathers. Melvyn Douglas is outstanding as the father who, when his son (Gene Hackman) comes to visit falls asleep in front of the TV watching inane Westerns and then says to his son, "Gene, Gene are you leaving so soon? We hardly get to spend any time with you..." And the daughter says: "I am grateful to him (her father) because he taught me a very important lesson: This world is cold and lonely and uncaring and if you can't get the love and attention you need from your own father, who can you get it from? Yes, I am grateful to him..." This is powerful stuff. Great writing and acting except for the woman who plays Hackman's future bride. Bad casting there. The rest is superb. If you want to be moved (and some movies SHOULD move you -- that's another reason they're called 'movies,' right?!!), this is it.
31 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Death Ends a Life, But Not a Relationship
jzappa24 February 2011
As the first and last shots of this film, we see a granular photograph of an elderly man and a man in his prime, arms flung on one another's shoulders, gazing indecisively into the camera as if they're not very convinced what brought them out into the daylight to sit for this picture. And we take notice of Gene Hackman's voice: "Death ends a life. But it does not end a relationship." This film takes that unadorned reality and exercises it to make a moving, if slushy, account about blood relations, living and dying, and all the words that go unheard. The member of the old guard is played by Melvyn Douglas, and Hackman plays his son, and the film is about the turbulent feeling they have for one another, and about their failure to express that feeling, or a great deal of anything else.

The tale is set at a stage when the fogey's life is closing down, but he won't acknowledge it, and when the younger man's life is about to allow a fresh start. The stick-in-the-mud is eighty-one, and once upon a time he was one of the community's foremost citizens. Nevertheless, now he's essentially ancient history, left to live a calm life in the sprawling old family home. He lives there with his wife and his reminiscences, and a forceful overprotectiveness for his son.

What he wants from the son is a glimpse of affection. He doesn't connect with him. Actually, he fritters lots of time dozing off facing the TV. Yet he wants him there, virtually as a detainee, as he has a need for warmth deferred from his own ignored childhood. The son attempts to do his duty. Although his own wife died a year ago, and now he's resolved to marry a doctor who lives in California. This will entail leaving the hometown, and that'd be sacrilege to his father.

The predicament grows insistent when his mother passes. The old man appears to understand the death as a bother, reassigning his sorrow to recollections of his own mother's death some fifty years ago. But his reliance on his son grows to be full-blown. His daughter comes home for the funeral. In a convulsion of wrath, the intransigent had exiled her for marrying a Jew.

Now she rationalizes to Hackman, with a neutrality that seems brutal but arises from affection, that plans are going to have to be made about dad. He can't live in the immense estate alone. The problem is, his conceit makes him reject hiring the housekeeper he could effortlessly afford. He requires his son to look after him. And Hackman has not yet garnered the nerve to disclose his marriage plans.

Robert Anderson's piece makes a lifetime of sense. Yes, characters fuss and bicker, but the feelings have been gathered not from life but from dated TV. For every line delivered with authenticity, there's another that's lugged with all of the poise and none of the effect. But still, I must concede that his dialogue is straightforward and informative, sans the erudite flourishes or refinement that could've interfered with the characters. For Anderson's narrative, which looks to everyday pragmatism and would find symbolism precarious, the plain dialogue is important, so when we feel the theatrical roots of the script bleeding through the celluloid, it dulls the blade of the poignant material and earnest performances by feeling contrived.

Gilbert Cates' direction also defers to the reality that this is a movie not about visual flair or any other trendily cinematic self-consciousness. Not including an unsuitable song which creeps onto the soundtrack early on, Cates has directed exclusively to extract moving performances. Much of the film is simply between Hackman and Douglas and the characters appear to work so capably because they physically answer one another in every shot. The result is not of acting, but as if the story were occurring presently while we see it.

Death ends a life, but not a relationship. That's accurate of all intimate and profound human relationships. When one person dies, the other keeps speculating what could've been said between them, but wasn't. This film has the nerve to keep open-ended. The issues between father and son stay largely unsettled. That's actually more unfortunate than the reality of death, which is biological, but human nature shouts that parents and children should identify with one another.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The title is haunting and sad...
MarieGabrielle26 July 2006
as are the performances of Gene Hackman and Melvyn Douglas, who portray an alienated father and son, brought together after the death of Hackman's wife, and as his father is becoming in need of more medical assistance and attention.

Anyone who has taken care of an elderly parent may be heartbroken by the performances in this film, as I was. Melvyn Douglas is at once critical, angry and resentful of his son, yet still hopes for his love, in the end. Gene Hackman is torn, whether to sacrifice his life, and ultimately feel better, having done the "right thing" or to marry his new fiancée.

Estelle Parsons is always affecting, as she advises Hackman to "live his own life- why bother..." Therein lies the dilemma; people have to sort through issues like this everyday- there are no concrete answers. Highly recommended. 9/10
27 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Heavy-handed, and none-too-large in scope, yet it contains scenes of repressed anger and frustration which will touch a lot of people...
moonspinner559 February 2010
Gene Hackman gives a strong performance as a 40-ish writer and widower who harbors trepidations about moving his life forward once his elderly mother dies, leaving his old codger of a father in his care. Screenwriter Robert Anderson, adapting his own play, works in the usual character-exposition without much skill or grace; still, there are some very real, human anxieties explored here, an internal struggle between a father and his son which is fraught with love/hate dynamics. Anderson's words are no doubt given a great deal of depth just from the players alone. Melvyn Douglas accurately pins down a precise type of strict, no-nonsense gentleman who lives mostly in the past, finds the present a nuisance, is frightened about his own sanity and yet refuses to accept help from anyone. It's a grandly unsentimental tour-de-force, with layers of character underneath to relieve the repetitiveness of the central situation and presentation (which feels like a television movie blown-up for the big screen). With Hackman internalizing the frustrations he has felt his entire life in regards to this cantankerous man, one waits for the proverbial 'showdown', the moment where the son can longer accept not getting answers to his questions, having been fed up a long time ago by the constant criticism and belittling. What's surprising is, the build-up to this moment is just as intriguing as what follows, and the actors (both Oscar-nominated) manage to make their dilemma seem universal. Still, the production is pedestrian, the editing (with jagged little flashbacks) often sloppy, and the music is silly. None of these technical faults take away from the highly-charged work by either Hackman or Douglas, though they do weaken the overall effect of the picture--turning it from something extraordinary into something passable. **1/2 from ****
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Marvelous script and great performances by the leads make this an excellent film
llltdesq16 August 2001
I saw this movie when it first came out and I remember it vividly from over thirty years later. I recently saw it again, expecting the passage of time to have dimmed my fondness for it somewhat. It was just as wonderful as I remembered it, but I understood things at the age of 39 that I did not at ten. Melvyn Douglas and Gene Hackman deservedly got Oscar nominations for their splendid work here. There is also a marvelous script, also nominated for an Oscar. I expect I will remember the last line until I die. Most Highly Recommended
40 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Father and Son
Rindiana27 August 2010
Watchable character study in the O'Neill vein though lacking a deeper resonance.

The screenplay offers some emotionally captivating moments, though the plot development is much too telegraphed throughout. The dramatic situations work in themselves, but they're slightly too easy, too fabricated. The marvellous acting rings true and elevates the whole scenario.

What a shame, then, that the heavy-handed direction tends to over-emphasize the characters' inner turmoils by way of obtrusive scoring, freeze frames, camera movements and the likes.

Still worth a look for the Douglas-Hackman sparring alone.

6 out of 10 gruesome nursing homes
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Still Remembered Thirty-Five Years Later
tfbrown427 September 2005
This is one film that has stayed with me since I first saw it; in spring, 1971; in a time before I had to shave everyday. The movie theater in which I saw it has long-since been turned into a touring-company playhouse...and the name of my date has long-since slipped my mind. Not really...but my wife might read this.

A friend of mine who is a physician told me that no one ages gracefully. As much as I value his friendship and judgment, Melvyn Douglas must be held as an exception to that dictum. Though his role here is little different from that of Paul Newman's father in "Hud," he plays it magnificently. One can scarcely imagine him as a romantic leading man, although he was...and opposite Greta Garbo, at that. His scene with Gene Hackman at the funeral home is too real and too devastating to pass off as "schmaltz." Gene Hackman has never given a bad performance, and his role here, as the dutiful, though semi-distant son, is (arguably) one of his best. He realizes he must live his own life...though, being a widower himself, he knows on an adult level what his father--suddenly all-too-human and frail--is suffering. He must choose between fealty to the man who gave him life and the woman who now gives his life meaning and passion. The bedroom scene, in which he discusses his doubts with her, is very real. Not every middle-aged adult has faced such choices.

I saw this film when I was 17 and have not seen it since. But as I grow older its meaning and significance grows ever-increasingly important. We, all of us, want to gain the approval of our father. Yet, our passions, those things that give meaning to our life, might not be what our father values...and so we share them with others and not with the one whose approval, love, and affirmation we most desire and most need.

Is it schmaltzy, as some have said?....Is life?
47 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Elevated by the acting.
gridoon20 April 2001
An intelligent, thoughtful, extremely well-acted drama. Both Gene Hackman and Melvyn Douglas perform with great restraint, helped by a script that gives them fully-drawn characters to play. The direction, although not the most important element in this type of film, also has its moments, like a visit to an old-age home that is presented as a descent into Hell. But there is a burden that keeps this film from being a really great one; its overwhelming banality. (**1/2)
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
WORDY
giuliodamicone2 October 2023
Wordy family drama constructed in large blocks. The scene of choosing the coffin is too long (and I would even say in bad taste), just as the hospice scene is too long. Today we are perhaps shocked to see Gene Hackman play such a characterless man. Furthermore, when we see him in bed with his partner, the director could have avoided the prolonged exposure of his hairy chest. Then there is a bit of carelessness in the sound mixing: in the interview scene in the hospital you can hear an unjustified buzz in the background, and during the walk in the park the birds sometimes almost drown out the dialogue.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worrisome and moving film about father-son relationship.
Deusvolt2 September 2006
I saw this movie as a very young man with a father who was growing very old. Even then it worried me as it reminded me of my relationship with my own father who had complained that we weren't spending as much time together as in my boyhood. Remembering this film now with three grown sons makes me wonder if they suffer from the same contradictory feelings I had for my father at their ages.

And this is exactly what makes this film great. It essays the human condition in its stark reality.

Quite frankly I wouldn't have seen this film if I didn't know Gene Hackman from his French Connection series. Oh, I knew it would be some kind of very talky drama but just the same I wanted to see how he would do in such a story. He did very well.

If you are curious about the title see my question in the discussion board and the compleat answer by Cassandra.

If you like themes like this see also Death of a Salesman (the version with Frederic March) and Nothing in Common (Tom Hanks).
21 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"spoiler?" Not sure, but most comments are not as I remember it...
rosesinbloom23 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
...the idea that the family is in trouble long before the scene opens, by way of the title.

I think the pivotal idea is in how each of us remembers certain events in life. The father remembers the relationship in one way, the son in another. Old age and parents experiencing end of life issues, families in turmoil - topical for today's baby-boomers.

I would strongly recommend viewing it. I believe I saw it in 1971 when it appeared in theaters. Sad and sardonic, it plays to everyone or anyone who has had to take care of a parent with whom times were not always bright and sunny. In fact, relationships take on such dark, shadowy aspects it is too easy to get lost in the depths of remembered despair.

I think Hackman's character shows sufficient torment - "do I love him or hate him for being the sad character he is now or for what I remember of him as a kid?" Which, if you are like others, the latter will be the more likely choice. We struggle with our consciences the whole of our lives, but even when the other dies, the object of our contention, we are still racked with guilt.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Very relevant 40 years later
Jay0910195111 July 2010
The aging Baby-Boomers are faced with exactly the same issues that Gene Garrison and his sister faced in 1970. We are part of the "sandwich generation", caught between caring about our own kids and our aging parents .Our parents are living longer because of new medicines but with what quality of life? A question a doctor tells Gene in the film. We are forced to decide when our aging folks have to start giving up some freedoms, like driving a car. When is the time to put them in assisted living or a nursing facility. Anyone in their 50's or 60's faced with these issues will understand this movie and maybe it will help them face the choices they are forced to make.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I Never Sang for My Father (1970)
fntstcplnt1 May 2020
Directed by Gilbert Cates. Starring Gene Hackman, Melvyn Douglas, Estelle Parsons, Elizabeth Hubbard, Dorothy Stickney, Lovelady Powell. (PG)

Poignant but platitudinous father-son-relationship drama driven by perceptive performances from the two leads. Gene (Hackman) wants to move out to California and marry his girlfriend (Stickney), but feels guilty about leaving his aging father Tom (Douglas) all by himself, especially since they have plenty of unresolved issues that the elder would prefer to bury and ignore, even while stubbornly sticking to his ways. Adapted by Robert Anderson from his own autobiographical play, the script has its share of affecting exchanges and conversations, but the mindset, emotions, and even the characters themselves are dowdily shallow--at one point, Gene's sister describes it as "a lot of sentimental crap," which isn't such an unreasonable sentiment (there are, certainly, moments of truth, but they swim in bathos). Uninspired direction and a disagreeably trilling music score don't help. The viewer's personal history will likely determine whether the ending is registered as a tearjerker or a yawner.

66/100
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Best Movies In a Lifetime
etodd-41 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I never sang for my father is a great character driven story that will always resonate with me because it mirrors the dynamics of my family. Whenever I watch this movie, it is an out of body experience. I am floating above the characters watching myself, my parent, and my sibling react to the narcissistic sociopath who is disguised as a dad.

This is an outstanding movie that one will never forget especially for people who can relate to an overbearing parent who mentally manipulates and abuses their offspring.

For those who've have had healthy parent child relationships, you will be able to peer into lives that are unlike your own and it will hopefully give you a better understanding about the human condition.

I cannot say enough about this powerful movie. It is one of the best in a lifetime.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great Film with ONE Caveat
arfdawg-116 January 2021
This is a really really well sone picture. It's a small picture with a big impact. The acting is wonderful and so is the directing.

The scrpt is just great, based on a play.

There's one problem seing tis movie in 2021. The soundtrack. It's the worst, most distracting dated track on the face of the Earth.

Look for some sitcom actors showing up.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A father-son relationship in crisis.
PWNYCNY25 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Melvyn Douglas gives a stellar performance as an elderly man whose gruffness and bravado masks a highly sensitive and needy person who wants to be loved and taken care of in his old age. The problem is that the people closest to him, his daughter and son, harbor resentments which block their efforts to be supportive and ultimately creates huge and insurmountable conflict, especially for the son, played by Gene Hackman, who cannot reconcile his own personal needs with that of his father's. This story highlights the generational conflict inherent in families and the lack of any viable options to resolve this conflict. Children grow up, leave home and the parents get old, leading to as reversal of roles that neither are prepared or equipped to deal with. In this movie the son remembers his father as being strong and commanding, and now is needy and clinging, which the son cannot accept. This generates feelings of frustration and resentment in both father and son as both reveal expectations that are unreasonable: the father wants his son to stay with him and the son wants his father to stop his clinging, neither of which is going to happen. This movie is an excellent drama which deals with sensitive themes that are presented in a thoughtful and straightforward manner.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Too Maudlin
evanston_dad31 March 2020
The subject matter of "I Never Sang for My Father" resonated with me because I, like the character played by Gene Hackman in the film, am in my 40s and am watching my parents turn elderly. I and my siblings are going to have to decide who takes care of whom and how. I have a much healthier relationship with my parents, so there won't be all of the baggage to work through that there is for the characters in this movie, but still, I could relate.

But the film is just too maudlin. It's based on a play, and it shows. The characters deliver lines that might sound o.k. on stage, but they sound overly scripted in a movie. All of the acting is pretty good. Melvyn Douglas and Gene Hackman received Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor Oscar nominations, respectively, for their work, though there was a bit of category fraud at play. I didn't time it, but it feels like Hackman has more screen time, and he definitely gets the bigger character arc, but he was relatively unknown at the time so I see why he was relegated to a supporting player. Estelle Parsons also delivers a good if much shorter performance as Hackman's sister, though she's the biggest victim of the film's stagey screenplay. But good acting aside, the film is too soft and sentimental to hit you where it should.

Robert Anderson also received an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Grade: B-
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not like father, not like son.
mark.waltz28 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Tom Garrison (Melvyn Douglas) is a charming, if stubborn older man, determined to keep his dignity as he gets old. Of course, anybody can understand this, but there's more to Tom than meets the eye. He seems to spend more time badmouthing his own father (who abandoned him and his mother when he was a youth, turning up at her funeral only to be rebuked by his son) than really taking the time to get to know his children, loyal Gene Hackman and rebellious Estelle Parsons, never caring to know their own dreams and goals or sharing their passions. Yes, he's a very warm person, certainly not cold like "On Golden Pond's" Norman Thayer, but there's something controlling in his warmth. Parsons ran out on the family years before, disappointing her father by marrying a Jewish man, which left her and Hackman's mother (the lovely Dorothy Stickney) lonely for the companionship of their children.

Hackman's Gene (yes, the same first name as the actor) has stood by his parents as they've aged but secretly both hates his father and desires the chance to really get to know him. When mom passes away suddenly (from a broken heart Douglas accuses Hackman of giving her when he announces his desire to marry and move to California), Parsons shows up and together they try to get their father to make plans. But the old man at first gently claims that he's capable of making it on his own (as long as Hackman is around to check on him once or twice a week), and this leads to a verbal fight between Douglas and Parsons because of her insistence that he get a live-in housekeeper. She's through with the feelings of guilt, having only been a recurring presence in the household since running off, while Hackman has stood by. The anger deep inside Hackman which he has held onto finally explodes after a scene insinuating a possible emotional closure, and as many old people find out, their children aren't as willing to kow-tow to their every whim as they think they are.

Powerful, emotional family drama, nobody is the villain here and yet nobody (except maybe Stickney) is perfect. Douglas, the romantic leading man who kissed Garbo, Crawford, Colbert and many others, is now the Lionel Barrymore of his day, an irascible but lovable man who shoots himself in the foot by being unable to give his children the unconditional love they require. Of course, he's wounded from the memory of his own father and the premature death of his beloved mother, so the scars are real. While the story seems to surround Hackman, it is Mr. Douglas you will long remember, feel sorry for, even though you can tell that being in the same shoes as Hackman and Parsons (a nice reunion as siblings after playing husband and wife in "Bonnie and Clyde") would make you react the same way. There's not really a conclusion here, but a winding circle that continues to tick the clock of time, where each generation must learn from the mistakes of the previous generation of how not to be.

The lovely Elizabeth Hubbard, then playing a doctor with many romantic issues on daytime's "The Doctors", is sweet and loving as Hackman's fiancée (even though he cheats on her with Lovelady Powell in an earlier scene), and a far cry from her lioness businesswoman/mama Lucinda Walsh on "As the World Turns". With sandy blonde hair, a gorgeous face and an unforgettable voice, Hubbard makes something really shine in the small part. Character performers like Conrad Bain, James Karen and Sloane Shelton pop up in small roles, all providing something special to this excellent ensemble piece.

After sharing "Life With Father", Broadway vet Dorothy Stickney takes that character to a modern, aged level as Douglas's loyal wife, quietly lonely since the departure of her children. I would have loved to have one scene between Stickney and Parsons, but even in excellent theater, you can't have everything. Parsons isn't the screaming harpy of "Bonnie and Clyde" or the judgmental, nagging mother on TV's "Roseanne". She's a totally happy woman, content as long as she is away from her father. When she declares how much she misses her mother, the years of regret seem to erase itself from her mind as she remembers exactly why she departed in the first place. Hackman, bursting on the brink of becoming a leading man, almost is the leading man, snipped by just a hair by the presence of Douglas as his father whom he never sang for. This film has many reminders of why families usually fail in their attempts to remain together as old resentments continuously resurface, especially when never properly dealt which when the original circumstances occurred.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Heavy Movie
mchl8817 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Heavy movie.

Gene Hackman plays the son to Melvyn Douglas' overbearing father. Unlike his sister, played by Estelle Parsons, Hackman has stayed close to his parents both physically and emotionally. But now that Mom has passed things come to the forefront. This father/son relationship which was never good, strains at the seams.

This isn't my usual type of movie. It was a bit too talkie for my tastes with no real action or even tension. But the acting was crisp and the storyline very real. Fortunately I had a much closer relationship with my father but at the end when Hackman says: "Death ends a life. But it does not end a relationship; which struggles on in the survivor's mind, toward some resolution, which it may never find" it hit me hard.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen.
jennifer424743 October 2003
This is the kind of movie that really makes you think about the people that you love. It also makes you think about the fact that time is inevitable, and thorough communication about the things we feel should hold the highest priority over anything else.

Excellent script and the actors are brilliant. Everyone should see this movie!
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed