MovieChat Forums > Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967) Discussion > A Huston Classic

A Huston Classic

posted 18 years ago by nfaust1
20 replies | jump to latest

When this movie came out most critics ridiculed it (Roger Ebert, not one of them), and audiences stayed away in droves. Have watched the film over the years, and just now finished watching a DVD I got on Ebay. This full screen and blurry version certainly reduces the film's visual impact, but not its power. Am thinking Huston's straight on adaptation of Carson McCuller's novella, detailing the effect of extraordinary repression, was just ahead of it's time, for the movie is anything but ridiculous. Huston builds the film quietly, with a steady but measured pace; visually framing shots that are classically composed, formal and stark. Within the formality, though, Huston clearly communicates that what we see is not all there is. Sexual roles transfered back and forth, repressed desire, madness brought on by extreme anxiety, infidelity, and suggestions of perversion: all these things ring loud and clear in this film. Brando's plays a repressed homosexual in the Army way before it was considered brave. His performance remains out on a limb throughout and may be one of the most heartfelt, unguarded, examinations of this kind ever committed to film. He allows us to see the utter contradictions at work in the character. There's no safety net; Brando's Major Pendleton is a sad, grotesque figure, lost in confusion and constantly on the brink of disaster. The rest of the cast follows suit, all giving deeply felt, challenging performances. Huston's work shows how directorial restraint can lead a viewer into a world that's twisting in on itself. He does not exploit the grotesque, nor does he reduce it all to something grim and voyeuristic. Rather, the film asks the viewer to participate and understand. Huston does not judge, and I think that's why the critics all those years ago found this film to be tasteless and unnecessary. Now, years later, we see they are wrong. The film deserves to be seen, should be seen. It's another classic from a man who gave us many.

[–] jhb-4 17 years ago

By now you must know of the Widescreen (approx. 2:35-1 Scope ratio-- essential in my opinion) DVD release of this fascinating film. It's a gorgeous copy of the golden-tinted original-Huston release. Rather bare-bones, though. It would have been interesting to see both the golden-tinted and the full color versions in the release. There is certainly enough "room" on the single dvd for them. The sound quality leaves alot to be desired but I'm sure this stems from the original material.

This somewhat strange film is, I think, superb from many standpoints, particularly the performances of the leads-- Brando (faultless-- the accent and inflections are that of a "butch" Tennessee Williams); Taylor (excellent here with a more credible touch of the magnolia than in "Cat"); Julie Harris (wonderful as always), and the fine, fine work of always-dependable Brian Keith (one of Hollywood's most underrated actors.)

This is part of the Brando Collection dvd set just released in the US (not sure about other-than-Region-One releases) that is most representative of Brando's versitility as an actor.

[–] nfaust1 17 years ago

Watched the new DVD, letterboxed, gold tint, last night. Must admit that the tint unnerved me for a while. This may have more to do with the fact that I'm used to the studio's version, which is also muted and visually cold. But as the movie progressed it struck me that the gold tint, which constantly confronts the viewer, visually represents the overwhelming atmosphere of repression that motivates the film's action. Huston's camera here captures and frames action classically, with balanced images that remain so even when the camera moves. His approach remains cool and methodical, breaking out at the end when the camera swings back and forth between Forester, Taylor, and Brando. (The runaway horse sequence is another exception.) Merely muting the color, the way Warners eventually did, gives the film a sense of realism that doesn't really accommodate what appears to have been Huston's original intention. The golden tint, on the other hand, tells us throughout that what we're watching, though classically rendered, is stylized; it makes us interpret each and every moment of the film. The formality of that Army base is reflected in the formality of Huston's camera, but the repression that comes as the result of such formality is seen in the way natural color is washed away, faded to gold.

[–] alfiehitchie 17 years ago

The film features a memorable music score by Toshirô Mayuzumi. John Huston gave the composer his first American film assignment with the epic The Bible (1966). Mayuzumi got an Oscar nomination and followed up with this score. Unlike The Bible, there was, unfortunately, no sound track released by Warners or anyone else (most likely due to the films poor critical and box-office reception). This ranks with the best of the unrelased soundtracks of all time; and the movie 'aint so bad eather, especially the performances of Brando, Keith and Harris and David. Unfortunately, Taylor has the weakest role--as the birdbrain wife and she plays it like a younger Martha (Woolf). The composer returned to Japanese films and only did one other American film (uncredited) in 1970--once again working with Huston in The Kremlin Letter.

There's a true story about Brando's brilliant performance in the film: John Huston recalled that he did a take with Marlon Brando while directing Reflections, "It was perfect," he said. When Brando insisted on doing it again, Huston said it wasn't necessary. Brando insisted and did a completely different reading. Later, Huston complained that in the cutting room, he was stumped as to what take to use! Now that's the mark of a great actor.

alfie

[–] nxgn_not_not 17 years ago

I'll bite, which scene was it that he wanted 2 do again?

Beating the Horse?
The stair way "hate U?"
Patton 2 the class?
Square Peg "wrattel-link around?"

More importantly do U feel this s/b watched Bac2Bac with Apocalypse Redux?

I'm a little up in the air about the movie as yet. Never rilly drew me in. Interesting ... makes ya thank ... moments of beauty ... Had some real problems with the camera werk in the final scene. The Jury's out.

I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey. --Texas Ranger

[–] pyotr-3 17 years ago

I'd have to say I found this film to be a masterpiece. Not flawless, but so rich in performances and so well put-together that it qualifies as a masterwork to me.

The ONLY thing that bothered me about this film was the music. I liked it, but at times I thought it was too loud and at times I thought it interfered with the movie - and silence would have been preferable. But I thought the music added great mystery to the movie and was very true to the setting and story...

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

the gold is great.

🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃

[–] trainer1158 8 years ago

I'm finding the gold hue of the film difficult on my eyes. Maybe with a super-sharp picture it would be better.

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

a glass or two of wine will cure that. 🍷

🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

a very good film. I gave it a 9. Taylor, Brando, Keith, Harris were all great. Forster was okay. Also loved the direction. Kind of a wacky story, but it worked and wacky is good from time to time.

[–] csu16387 14 years ago

Reflections in a Golden Eye is a very strange, yet hypnotic film. It's far from perfect, but I was hooked from the very beginning. I'll have to rewatch this one again very soon.

The entire cast is fine, but Brando is SUPERB!! His performance as the repressed homosexual Major is among the best things he ever did on-screen.

An overlooked gem from director John Huston...

"Now what kind of man are YOU dude?"

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

I saw the film for the first time last night and will, of course, rewatch it because I struggled with the characters and some of that is to do with the culture - army and Southern USA. However I found the film, aided by the music, had a slightly mesmeric and menacing tone and at points I was hooked.

Huston is one of my favourite directors and he seemed to have a good sensibility in bringing to life on screen a southern USA menatlity/experience.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] becausethenightbelongsto 12 years ago

this was a fabulous movie. brando was fantastic in it from start to finish.

i thought liz taylor fit the part of his wife pretty well also.

[–] matt72582 8 years ago

Bullocks! Pretentious review for a pretentious film...

My review:

It only gets a 5 because Brando is in it, but the film is junk. The best part of this film was seeing Elizabeth Taylor's arse. It's a weird movie, but nothing interesting. You might be paying attention, but once it was over, I thought "Where was the film?"

Again, I should have FF'd the intro by TCM. I think we all agree, but I don't want to know if the film has a weird ending, and weird people. Robert Osborne said it reminded him of a Tennessee Williams adaptation, and if I hadn't known otherwise, I would have agreed. He seems to always have films about homosexuality, and any regular sexual relationships have to be devious.

Brando's character and performance isn't nothing to talk about. Clift died, and Brando replaced him, probably because he wants to show how open and liberal he is. I'd like to see one film where a homosexual is just a character, and whose sexuality isn't constantly on display. It's that, or repression (American Beauty).. The odd thing is some people might think it's great only because it's "risque" - which is a stupid reason. It's not progress, quite on the contrary, I think it's exploitation if anything, but I'm guessing gay people loved it just because. Reminds me of the Cheerios commercial I never watched. I prefer talent over affirmative action.

I think the film would have been much better if the nude weirdo riding the horse died in the first scene, along with the "crazy" woman's fairy.

[–] nfaust1 8 years ago

"He seems to always have films about homosexuality, and any regular sexual relationships have to be devious."

"Regular sexual relationships" ?

What does that mean?

".... Brando replaced [Montgomery Clift], probably because he wants to show how open and liberal he is."

Liberal? You gotta be kidding!

"The odd thing is some people might think it's great only because it's "risque" - which is a stupid reason."

Whereas you think it's bad because you find it "risque"!

And, besides, being risque or not misses the point. The movie is a fairly accurate version of Carson McCuller's book. It takes place on a military base during peacetime. The basis of the entire drama is set up by that antithesis: military & peacetime. The book and movie both examine consequential results when there are people do not fit into the roles designated them by societal labels. What is a Man? What is a Woman? What happens when what a society (like that of a military base in peacetime) designates is not followed? Taylor is more a Man than her husband, Julie Harris' effeminate servant is more a companion to her than her husband, and so forth.

"It's not progress..." No, you're right, it's not, and it's not meant to be. The film's drama show the effect of repression; repression creating narrow minds that BLOCKS progress.

" ... I'm guessing gay people loved it just because. Reminds me of the Cheerios commercial I never watched. I prefer talent over affirmative action."

Pauline Kael, who was definitely NOT gay, called this "One of Brando's most daring performances ...."

Your affirmative action statement is as off the point and stupid as the Cheerios commercial you never saw.

[–] matt72582 8 years ago

+1 for the Pauline Kael reference, she was great.

I do think you are trying to intellectualize that last post too. I could do the same for any movie I watch, even though it might not be what was intended by the director. Then again, it's your right, and I have my right to see the film through my lenses, and I'm sure I take some symbolism and make it more than it was. As Robert Altman said "I believe everyone watches a different movie (same movie).

Watch Streetcar, Hot Tin Roof, Pawnbroker, etc etc., always repressed homosexuality, and every heterosexual relationship is "devious". Maybe you didn't get the point - this just doesn't just happen to gay people. For example, in the past, the black actor was a crook, or Indians were the "bad guys", some say "Well, at least they are in pictures, and at least they are getting paid." That's a sell-out mentality. You also seem to imply I'm a conservative, when I'm somewhere between a leftist and a liberal. Some would say radical, but I think it's an American tradition..

Can't say the same about the rest. You have to understand - Brando is the greatest actor ever, and Huston is one of the best, and was disappointed so much I was/am upset. I care about movies almost more than anything..

You seem passionate, do you have a Top 10-15 film list? I'll throw mine in. If anything, I hope this forum could be used to spread great movies.

1. Harry and Tonto
2. Nashville
3. La Strada
4. They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
5. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
6. Network
7. Mr. Deeds Goes To Town
8. There Will Be Blood
9. La Grande Illusion
10. Birdman of Alcatraz
11. The Battle of Algiers
12. McCabe and Mrs. Miller
13. The Seventh Seal
14. Ikiru
15. Wild Strawberries

[–] nfaust1 8 years ago

I can't make lists, matt72582: how do you comparatively judge the works of, say, Fellini, against Rob Zombie, John Frankenheimer, or Mike Nichols? It's impossible for me to come up with reasons, one against the other.

Your thoughts on REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE read like a stunt, not a review or a commentary. Saying that my response intellectualizes what you wrote is such a cop out. What did I intellectualize?

After reading your comment on my response, I realize how smart you are and how not-very-smart you sounded before. Why do that?

The smart matt27582 has a lot more going on.

In any event, sorry it took so long - thanks for responding.

[–] matt72582 8 years ago

I'm not going to read earlier comments made in haste. You must have got "emotional Matt" who takes film very seriously and sometimes it gets the better of me.

Brando is very favorite director ever, Huston is one of my favorites, so I hold certain movies to higher standards, so a bigger letdown.

Who am I to say how one can judge a movie. Sorry.
-Matt

[–] nfaust1 8 years ago

Well, "emotional Matt" I take it pretty seriously, too. I make them sometimes. (Am in Norway making a film now.) Why does it become difficult to articulate a critical response that's also emotional?

[–] matt72582 8 years ago

I meant to say "Brando is the best, Huston is one of the bests"

Speaking of Fellini, "La Strada" is a great one. But there are some of his I don't care for. I can say that's true of almost every one of my favorite directors.

[–] nfaust1 8 years ago

matt72582, yes, it's impossible to make only masterpieces.

Huston is a director I admire a great deal. I like many of his films that did not find favor with critics or audiences when first released.