This Movie


I don't know why, but I'm strangely fascinated with Lonelyhearts. About a year and a half ago, I came across it on TV. The summary on the TV Guide channel made me think it was a somewhat sad romantic comedy. It didn't seem very interesting, so I listened to my iPod and read a book. However, the scene where Montgomery Clift punches his co-worker at Delehanty's caught my eye. I kept watching. I found it incredibly intense and stomach-twisting, in a good way. I didn't get to see the movie in its entirety until six or seven months ago. I know that it isn't a particularly good movie, if I look at it objectively. There's just something about it. Can anyone explain this?

reply

Sorry I can't really...but I agree with you it is a compelling, unsettling, and gripping tale. Whether one cares for this particular film version is of course a matter of opinion. But to really 'get' the story, read West's novella "Miss Lonelyhearts". Sometimes it is in with his other novella "Day of the Locusts', also a great gripping read, certainly not uplifting, however, and won't improve your opinion of the human race. Great stuff though, for thoughtful readers.

reply

Oh, I've read both of them. Miss Lonelyhearts is my favorite novel.

reply

West is honest, sure.
But there is some humor in there to make it go down smooth.

reply

Maureen Stapleton is the garnish on this, that makes it have that "mystery".


Also two of West's other short novels, A Cool Million/ The Dream Life of Balso Snell

Great stuff.

reply

Maureen Stapleton brings the movie to life.

For me, it dies when Robert Ryan is speechifying. Not a word he says is believable.

reply

[deleted]

You're so right. There's so much "je ne sais pas" quality to Montgomery Clift's personae that it could occupy a psychological seminar for years. His roles aren't the Laurence Olivier/Michael Redgrave haute culture roles, nor are they the brash Humphrey Bogart/Burt Lancaster characterizations. Unfortunately the dramas that were so popular with Hollywood in those days produced heavy, overly artsy-fartsy devices to spin their strange tales heavily laden with moral messages that reflect the neo-Victorian ethics that were being forced upon people with the vitriol of a McCarthy. I found the awkwardness and indirection of Suddenly Last Summer to be nothing short of hilarious due in no small part to Katharine Hepburn's caricature face and expressions, but also because of the discombobulated nature of the story that could only have succeeded in those days it was penned. The anachronism is palpable.
So, I find myself in a similar state as you, in that I really love Montgomery Clift's performances, despite their sappiness, and their forced efforts that make you feel his pain through his awkward and shy nature. I'm not gay and don't understand male to male sexual attraction, but indeed I can see how delicate (if not masculine) and sensitive his personality is. However, he's not a very sympathetic character. He rarely helps others (that doesn't include "I Confess" where he possesses a Christ-like selflessness), yet is always in a condition of neediness requiring much from others. Indeed, his portrayal of Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt exposes a personality in his part that would be much less well received were it released the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Now that the war had wound down after its end - the existential dillemmas dramatized in those years were due to the disappointments and the failures of our societies. In the end Prewitt dies a humiliating death, being mistaken for a Japanese and in reality still deserving of his treatment due to his disloyalty and his absence without leave. All this and he does it under very inopportune and shameful circumstances.
Montgomery Clift, in his pleas for acceptance and support, reminds me of the Timothy Hutton character in The Falcon and the Snowman. Although you despise what Christopher Boyce had done in his espionage, you tend to sympathize with him due in no small part to the American CIA's role in disrupting events to favor America's businesses throughout the globe. But that same "Je ne said pas" element is present here in that makes an otherwise unsympathetic character very attractive for reasons I just can't put my finger on.

reply


I know what you mean, I just watched the second half of this movie on TCM and even though I missed the first hour, I still found it oddly compelling, almost hypnotic. Part of it was surely the acting - everyone in the cast (well maybe except for Robert Ryan) was superb; but it was also the dramatic narrative and style of the film itself.

You are right, it may not be a great movie - but it is certainly an under-rated one. Montgomery Clift is my all-time favorite actor and I had never seen it before!




"the best that you can do is fall in love"

reply

I didn't find the movie all that compelling but I was absolutely mesmerized by Monty Clift. I'm not a big Clift fan but in this film, his usual depthless vulnerability is nicely balanced by an equally intense empathy.

I felt as though I were being sucked into his burning glance. I know how gushing that seems (even to me) and I don't mean it romantically. But I finally have a sense of why others found him so magnetic.

I suspect the role was close to his heart for personal reasons. In any case, he gives an extremely personal yet entirely professional performance that I won't find easy to forget.

reply

[deleted]

I just reviewed this movie for my website Every Oscar Ever (http://EveryOscarEver.blogspot.com), and really didn't care too much for it. But after all of these comments, I think I'll have to try to watch it again next time its on Turner Classic Movies and give it a second look.

reply

I know it's been two and half years since you posted this, but it might be of interest to someone else.

"However, the scene where Montgomery Clift punches his co-worker at Delehanty's caught my eye. I kept watching. I found it incredibly intense and stomach-twisting, in a good way. I didn't get to see the movie in its entirety until six or seven months ago. I know that it isn't a particularly good movie, if I look at it objectively. There's just something about it. Can anyone explain this? "

I don't know if the "something" you're asking about is the film as a whole, or just the fight scene.

If you mean the entire film, it might be the way the film "explores" themes of realism vs. idealism and cynicism vs. compassion; and how the Adam White character has such noble intentions. I think those of us who share those values identify with the character and so it is moving for us.

If you're talking about the fight scene... well, notice how there isn't a sound effect when he punches Goldsmith/Kellin the second time? It's just the sound of fist hitting flesh? It's because that was a real punch. The cameras kept rolling through it. The emotional reaction Monty has is also real (though I think funneled somewhat through the character) because he didn't mean to hurt him. As he starts walking out the door, you can hear him begin to cry. When Donehue yelled "cut", Monty burst into tears because he felt so bad about hurting Kellin. Monty was actually so upset that he was sent back to his hotel for the rest of the day.

reply

That's true about the fight scene, with Monty bawling after truly hurting Mike Kellin, but so is this: "When we tried to shoot the close-up, it was impossible. Monty couldn't do it. He was sent back to the Bel Air. Bob Ryan ended up putting on Monty's shirt and jacket. It's Bob's arm and fist you see in that close-up." (Mike Kellin's recollection, as told to Patricia Bosworth in her biography of Clift.)

reply

I just watched this movie and noticed that punch looked real. The way he flailed rather that the usual pistoning action of a movie punch and then the actor getting punched pivot-actioning his head to the side. This one was different. I'm sitting here wondering if this was some kind of method acting. I thought that was real. When it happened I said something like ooh-whoa. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

BTW, I liked the movie. I can imagine someone who read all those letters as a job getting really down about the problems the people share.

reply

I saw this too, the first time in its entirety. Here are my thoughts.

Robert Ryan was good, but his scenes seemed repetitive, redundant, as if the director wanted him in a lot of scenes but didn't know what to do with him.

Maureen Stapleton demonstrates here in her early work, why she became a national treasure. Her storyline takes the movie from bland to bam!

Dolores Hart (now Mother Dolores) was a good little actress. Justy could have been annoying but Dolores didn't play it that way. The ending seemed badly contrived and obviously a big departure from the book, which I didn't even read.

reply