Different generations understand this movie in another way...

Well... one of the main aspects of Hollywood's golden age movies is that they are centered around characters from the upper-middle or upper class. Why else would we see the females changing outfits and haircuts so often between scenes? And everyone always dressed formal, even if it wasnt really necessary...

We almost never see the stories about working class people or rural families... and even less about bums, prostitutes, drug addicts, etc, etc.

And well, I can assume all this is because it was directed at the upper class... or at least at the middle-upper...

-----------------
EL GATO

Fairyangel has it right. Older movies weren't made about the upper classes so that the upper classes could enjoy them, they were made for working class people to escape from their day-to-day reality. This is particularly true of movies made during the great depression- it's almost all escapist fare. The reason that more movies nowadays are made about poor people, drug addicts, etc. is that society is much more affluent today. People not only don't feel the need to escape as much, but many of them feel guilty about the quality of their lives, and therefore, want to empathize with those who are worse off.

Here's a chance to sample Tandy. She seems to me to lack the innate flair for the language that made Blanche as fascinating as Leigh did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmpjP-ZKDvg&feature=channel_video_t itle

I think no one speaks for an entire generation.
It's all about the spectator's sensitivity.
People have either always loved Stanley or hated him. He's a jerk-he's a rapist and a bigger liar than Blanche, or he's funny, earthy and reacting out of the disruption to his life.

However---in any case, Blanche is not sympathetic to people because of superficialities like class and education, but because of her enormous self-punishment and guilt.

I don't like black and white movies, a movie is there to show both sides of any issue and can do it direct to the audience. If there is one thing movie and TV today does well ... and maybe even too well, it is to shift back and forth between different points of view and moral aspects. Movies like James Bond are silly with their absolute super-villains.

The issue was who was cruel from a position of strength, and anyone who doesn't get that I don't really know what they are thinking. Stanley was not a "big" man, he was petty and small. Blanche was broken a long time ago and all she had were her delusions, and Stanley took delight in stripping her of them.

[deleted]

DannyJane,I very much agree with your post,but calling Blanche a "child molester" is a bit out there,no?The student she slept with was 17 years old, definetly not a child anymore,and in most states it wouldnt even be considered statutory rape (legal age is usually 16).

Not that Im excusing Blanche for what she did,it was very very wrong (especially because he was her student),but you could mislead someone that never saw the movie or play before.

About Stanley,I used to loathe him with passion,but then I realized just how utterly insecure he was. He had such an inferiority complex about his background that drove him to destroy anything that didnt make him feel like the man he wanted to be.Deep down,I dont think he was as afraid of loosing his family as he was afraid that all those things that Blanche said and thought about him could be true.He wanted to remain king of his castle, and in the end,he realized the only way that could happen was to bring Blanche down with the rape.

I agree. Stanley was a fairly down-to-earth guy who didnt put up with bs and wanted to protect his friends, but he was also an abusive person who used violence to get his point across. He meant well for the most part, but ultimately his poor methods outweighed any good that he intended.

Stanley is Trump picking on Rosey O'Donnell, he has brought out the bully in some of the audience members. That is really good writing.

I'm in my late 20s and would have to respectfully disagree with the OP's take on the fact that current generations see a role reversal in who the villain is of the piece.

I played Blanche in a small production of Streetcar some years back (yes, I realize I was technically too young for the role but I believe I pulled it off!) so maybe I have a deeper understanding of Tennessee Williams' original intentions for the character from my study of the the play, or maybe I hold greater sympathies toward Blanche as I had to play her to the best of my ability.

Blanche was by no means perfect, but we are meant to feel sympathetic toward her. We are meant to believe that Blanche only prostituted herself in order to save Belle Rive, her childhood, Southern Aristocratic home. In addition, she hadn't had the best/ easiest of lives, especially with her diabolical marriage as a girl. When we meet her in Streetcar, she's in her 30s, and she realizes her beauty (one of the few things she had left) is fading, as is her sanity due to the emotional hardships she's had to endure.

Stanley, on the other hand, is obviously working class and realizes he is "beneath" the social station that Blanche and Stella had been raised into. Although his relationship with Stella may have been better before Blanche arrived, it's inferred from his drunken rampages, that this is something Stella is bitterly accustomed to. If he *really* cared about Stella's happiness, as the OP inferred, he would have kept his alcohol addiction and violent temper under control to the best of his abilities.

Additionally, how can we forgive Stanley raping his sister in law, while his own wife was in hospital for the birth of their fist child? Although we are lead to believe that this too was an alcohol-induced incident, this is further proof of Stanley's lack of moral fiber, ethics, and proof that he is, and always will be, the villain of the piece. Being born into the lower, working classes, is no excuse for this kind of violent, deviant behavior.

I agree that Blanche was manipulative, but don't agree that she was purposefully so. With regards to her 'lies' to Mitch for instance, it seemed to me that she was desperate for a fresh start, desperate for somebody to love her. She wanted to wipe out the last 10+ years of her life, and subconsciously resorted emotionally to the young girl she was during or before her first marriage, before her first husband's suicide and before her problems started escalating. She didn't set out to harm Mitch, but she wanted a serious chance with him. She knew that any respectable man wouldn't give her the time of day if they knew what she'd really been through, and what she'd really done.

Anyway, that's just my take on the situation. I could never feel sympathy for Stanley no matter what way I look at the film or the play. Blanche was never emotionally or mentally stable, but it hardly makes her the villain of the piece.

Neither Blanche (emotionally broken and preying on teenagers) or Stanley (drunken and violent) were very relatable characters to me. However, I still sympathize more with Stella. She is looking for a crutch and an escape when she comes to see her sister admittedly, but when she finds her married to the kind of man who comes home drunk and beats his pregnant wife, then demands sex, I kind of felt her disgust was justified. Sure, Stanley felt threatened by her attempting to change his married life but his married life kind of needed to be changed. I felt no sympathy for his resistance. Raping Stella was just icing on the proverbial cake of awfulness that his character embodied.

I will agree that there was no real villain, but there were also no heroes.

Beating your wife was acceptable back then under many circumstances.

Obviously that kind of abuse is not tolerated today, and it makes Stanley a much more violent character when viewed through a modern lens.