Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967 film)

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 5/28/10 at 6:14am

I just watched this and wasn't too pleased with it. I'm sure the critics weren't crazy about it either. I could barely understand what Brando was saying half of the time and Julie Harris's Filipino houseboy was beyond annoying and insulting. The gold/sepia tone of the film didn't bother me that much but it doesn't really enhance the movie in any way. The final moment of the film with the fast pans back and forth between the three actors was ridiculous.

Thoughts?

[Marquise]

Posted: 5/28/10 at 7:17am

Haven't watched this film in a number of years. I'll have to pull it out of storage and re-watch it. From what I remember it was full of underlying symbolism. I do remember liking it but not as much as say, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or even A Streetcar Named Desire.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 5/28/10 at 10:19am

I watched this oddity a few months ago for the first time since I saw it in the theatre in 1967. Parts of the movie, large parts in fact, are patently ridiculous and laughable. However most of those ridiculous parts are stylistic rather than in the property. Madame Taylor's hairstyles would be a starting point.

But when it was over I thought maybe if the script could be filmed as written with only a few tweaks, by another entire cast, director and crew, that it might work. The adaptation of McCullers' work is solid. I had read the novella just before seeing the film back then. I has also written a long paper on McCullers for my 11th grade English class. (How queer is that?)

This film in 1967 was a scandal and it didn't play outside the big cities for several reasons. One it wasn't very good, but also the topics covered (adultery, homosexuality, murder, sexual obsession, etc.) along with rear nudity! The film fails but in an interesting way.

"She cut off her nipples with a pair of garden shears!"

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/28/10 at 12:47pm

I agree that the movie is a lot more fun if you have read the novella. Definitely a curio.