I sometime quite like these rather thinly disguised and experimental looking theatrical movies, and though this is hugely over-scripted, it's still quite an interesting prognostication on just how an illicit relationship between Sidney Lumet and Montgomery Clift might have played out. The former (Aaron Fors) is also the narrator as he befriends the latter (Gavin Adams) after a drunken conversation in an alleyway. What now ensues is heavily stylised and entirely speculative but there is a spark of chemistry between the two men and it does illustrate well the ridiculous lengths men had to go to to cover up their sexuality when it didn't conform to the designs of the studios, the PR men, the press or even the law. Now this is by no means a great production, indeed I think it might have looked better had it stayed within the confines of a stage setting rather than move out into the big bright world, but as a piece of challenging cinema it's not bad at all. No, I probably wouldn't watch it again and the dramatic elements are basic and sometimes downright hammy, but it's still just about worth a watch as an amateur-looking piece of what might pass for Hollywood Babylon!
3 Reviews
Disappointing
rklein1237 May 2023
The movie purports to be based on true events, but this is questionable. Except in the context of this film, I can't find any meaningful support for the relationships portrayed in this film.
Beyond the question of whether actor Montgomery Clift and director Sidney Lumet knew each other, much less were engaged in a love affair, the film falls flat in other areas as well.
The script is so stilted that you're left wondering if we're to believe this is how "artistic people" behaved, spoke, and acted in the 1950s.
I couldn't help thinking during quite a few scenes that I was watching a first run through of script. Exaggerated, first time readings of lines that would hopefully come together later - hopefully with a sense of realism. Too bad they didn't wait until that happened.
Another questionable historic bit of the film is the failed marriage that's referenced when Sid meets Montgomery in Hollywood some years later. Hannah a blind socialite is Sid's girlfriend, who he references as the failed marriage. In fact, Sidney Lumet was married four times. None of his wives were blind, or named Hannah.
The presence of Richard Rogers was curious, and I never figured out why his character was included. He seemed basically to be a bystander, who added little to nothing to the story.
Gene Tunny, the boxer, was an interesting character, and possibly the best acted in the film. It was unfortunate that at the end of the movie, there is an older Sid Lumet who looks so much like the actor who portrayed Tunny that I found it confusing as to who the character actually was supposed to be.
Theda Bara, a silent film star shows up in the movie too. There's an interesting scene that supposedly takes place in some quiet corner of Central Park. It's actually one of the better scenes in the movie. A boxing scene is another good segment of the film.
Later, I realized that the actress portraying the nurse is one and the same as the one portraying Theda Bara. I could not find any historical references of Theda Bara becoming Florence Nightingale following her movie career. If the nurse is supposed to be the same character, they forgot to apply age makeup for her scene at the end of the film, when Sid is an old man.
The ending is rather confusing, partly because I thought ''old Sid" was Tunny. I had to watch it twice to figure out exactly what was going on.
Overall, the film was disappointing. Not sure I'd recommend it for its story, it's script, its acting, or as an historical piece. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it at all.
Beyond the question of whether actor Montgomery Clift and director Sidney Lumet knew each other, much less were engaged in a love affair, the film falls flat in other areas as well.
The script is so stilted that you're left wondering if we're to believe this is how "artistic people" behaved, spoke, and acted in the 1950s.
I couldn't help thinking during quite a few scenes that I was watching a first run through of script. Exaggerated, first time readings of lines that would hopefully come together later - hopefully with a sense of realism. Too bad they didn't wait until that happened.
Another questionable historic bit of the film is the failed marriage that's referenced when Sid meets Montgomery in Hollywood some years later. Hannah a blind socialite is Sid's girlfriend, who he references as the failed marriage. In fact, Sidney Lumet was married four times. None of his wives were blind, or named Hannah.
The presence of Richard Rogers was curious, and I never figured out why his character was included. He seemed basically to be a bystander, who added little to nothing to the story.
Gene Tunny, the boxer, was an interesting character, and possibly the best acted in the film. It was unfortunate that at the end of the movie, there is an older Sid Lumet who looks so much like the actor who portrayed Tunny that I found it confusing as to who the character actually was supposed to be.
Theda Bara, a silent film star shows up in the movie too. There's an interesting scene that supposedly takes place in some quiet corner of Central Park. It's actually one of the better scenes in the movie. A boxing scene is another good segment of the film.
Later, I realized that the actress portraying the nurse is one and the same as the one portraying Theda Bara. I could not find any historical references of Theda Bara becoming Florence Nightingale following her movie career. If the nurse is supposed to be the same character, they forgot to apply age makeup for her scene at the end of the film, when Sid is an old man.
The ending is rather confusing, partly because I thought ''old Sid" was Tunny. I had to watch it twice to figure out exactly what was going on.
Overall, the film was disappointing. Not sure I'd recommend it for its story, it's script, its acting, or as an historical piece. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it at all.
Dubious Hollywood Melodrama
ozjosh0320 November 2020
As Long As I'm Famous purports to be "inspired by true events", but precisely what level of veracity that denotes remains frustratingly unclear. Certainly, nothing about the film rings true, either as an homage to the Golden Years of Broadway and Hollywood or as tale of young love among aspiring artists in the 1950s. The film alleges a romance between director Sidney Lumet and the young Montgomery Clift , though I can find no evidence that any such romance ever occurred. In any case, there's little about the plot or the characterisation of either Lumet or Clift that reveals much about either of them, even if there is some glimmer of truth buried here somewhere. It doesn't help that large tracts of the film are stagey and melodramatic or that the dialogue is preposterously flowery and pretentious. It's a little like it was written by someone who only ever saw Tennessee Williams' worst plays. If you're someone who can't get enough of Hollywood nostalgia with homoerotic overtones - if you're Ryan Murphy, say - then you might find As Long As I'm Famous intriguing. My guess is anyone else is just likely to be annoyed and bored by it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
