The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 4:01am

I just finished this movie in my continuing process of watching and reading every single Tennessee Williams work available. I had heard very negative things about this movie so I had been avoiding it for a while, but now that I've seen it I'm not entirely sure why people didn't like it. The movie feels like it was made in 1957, which was slightly jarring at first, but once I got used to it I really liked the way it was shot and directed. Bryce Dallas Howard was excellent, as was Ellen Burstyn. I found Chris Evans to be slightly awkward in the piece, but he wasn't terrible. Like all of Tennessee Williams's work, it is poetic yet impossibly honest. It is also compassionate, wise, and romantic. Thank you to all of those involved in this production for helping this beautiful work be filmed. Has anyone else on here seen it? What did you guys think?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 5:39pm

Williams originally developed it for Elia Kazan as a vehicle for Julie Harris. Watching the movie I felt I could understand why Kazan abandoned the project. I found it kind of meandering. Ellen Burstyn was wonderful and her scene with Howard was brilliantly written.

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 5:52pm

I'll be looking Fantod, sounds like a good one I've never seen.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 6:52pm

I love Williams, but it felt too old fashioned, to me (which none of his plays, do.) The reeleased script was was expanded, and I have no doubt that it would have bee more potent as a short film.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 7:59pm

I recommend this underrated film.

Tennessee Williams is not old-fashioned--he is classic!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 8:42pm

I am a massive Williams fan--and would never call his writing old fashioned. The way the film was directed and acted, however, was, IMHO.

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 8:51pm

That's what I said, how it felt like it was made in 1957 (when it was written) instead of today. I, however, loved that the movie did that once I got used to it, and felt it worked in the movie's benefit.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 9:29pm

I did enjoy it for what it is. As I badly said above, I think it worked better in Williams' original shorter script than what was expanded.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 11:20pm

Oh, Eric, I guess I misinterpreted your remark. Apologies. But the movie is set in the '50s, wasn't it?, so it felt appropriate that it look '50s-ish in filmmaking style as well as costumes, etc. It's late and my mind is going... to continue the Williamsesque mood.....

whereas most of today's nitwit semi-literate reviewers blasted the film as a pointless story by that old hack Williams...

Fun fact: Liz was going to do the film at one time. (We may recall that she had some success with the works of T. W.) Updated On: 3/7/15 at 11:20 PM

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 11:35pm

IMDB says it's set in the '20s. Memory plays tricks on us all.

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/7/15 at 11:58pm

I would have loved to see Elizabeth Taylor in this movie. James Dean too.