MovieChat Forums > Suddenly, Last Summer Discussion > The 'Dawn of Creation' garden

The 'Dawn of Creation' garden


The old show-me-don't-tell-me conflict arises again; the problem with filming Williams's text is that what he takes pages to describe, a well-chosen image can show in moments. Viz. the final procession of cannibal boys with their impromptu instruments fashioned from the debris of automobiles, not to mention turtle shells (a knowing metatextual wink)... and at the same time Taylor is describing what we are already seeing. Except that the image is more powerful, her delivery is shrill (which she herself admitted), and most egregiously what she's describing is not-quite what we are seeing. Image and text collide, and both suffer. Williams writes beautiful poetry but by god he can be prolix. The other instance of clumsy realising of text is in the early scene in the Venables garden (so freighted with metaphorical burdens it overwhelms poor Hepburn and Clift); what looks like a giant lily is growing in the middle of the horticultural extravaganza - perhaps a Rafflesia Arnoldii, or "Stinking Corpse Lily", to carry the metaphor home? - but I doubt it would survive in a Louisiana garden. More unfortuante is the "Venus Fly Trap" Mrs Venables feeds. The problem is that it isn't. A Venus Fly Trap, that is. It's a Pitcher Plant (albeit a clumsily- constructed prop), which carries no metaphorical value and undermines the (all too long) dissertation Hepburn is trying to give on the subject of Cruel Creation and its Savage God.

reply

How does the plant have no metaphorical value? The whole film is about things feeding on each other. The rich sex tourist Sebastian exploiting the poor, the poor literally devouring the rich, the birds feeding on the turtles, Violet (who notably shares her name with a plant) using her money and influence to butcher her niece's brain. Hell, Hepburn's rictus smile with almost always bared teeth makes her look like a Venus Fly Trap. If it isn't the right meat eating plant is immaterial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npou8eFIWHM
"No need to be rude, dear"

reply

I was wondering how much of the garden was actually real. The birds were but what about the vegetation?

Thoughts?

'That's not a hairstyle, it's a cry for help!'

reply

[deleted]

I think you missed the point if your complaint is that the garden 'unrealistic'; the whole point was that it was strikingly out-of-place in its setting. Even so, the modest little pitcher plant struck me as real, I certainly wouldn't call it clumsily-constructed... if it was a prop, I applaud the designer. And the metaphor doesn't wither in any sense either, as regards the crazy old lady's description of the plant's nature. Basically, I fail to see the point of your post, other than to congratulate yourself over spotting some botanical inaccuracies in a 55 year-old melodrama.

~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

reply