MovieChat Forums > Interiors (1978) Discussion > Color (or the lack of it!)

Color (or the lack of it!)

posted 14 years ago by practicepiano
6 replies | jump to latest

I just saw the end of this film, after a very long wait.

I went to see this movie, with my Mom, when it first came out in 1978. We were prepared to give Woody a chance at a serious film, I like Bergman and was happy with the idea of an homage. I was young at the time, but was not very caught up in pop culture. We are kind and open-minded women, interested in the arts. We are never rude in a movie theater.

However, we never made it to the end. The constant use of beige, tan, brown, ecru, egshell, off-white, taupe, etc. built up to such a point (with the obvious contrast of Pearl's colorful garb) that it started to give us the giggles.

We tried to control it. But, when a character went out to a car to snort cocaine, and even the *car* was tan with a tan interior, we lost it, and had to leave the theater to keep from disturbing other patrons!

I know, I know -- the use of color was a big part of the movie, it was symbolic of their personalities, their ability to agonize over infinitesimal details, to spend huge amounts on objects so tasteful they were dull, the mother's rigid approach to her profession, etc.

But it was just too much - for us, anyway.

I have the same problem with The Natural. There's something about being hit over the head with visual themes using color that just makes me want to yell "OK, OK, I GET it!" at the screen.

So, I finally saw the rest of the film, just now. And, besides not slathering on so many earth tones, I think Woody made another mistake -- for anyone who had seen and loved Love and Death, it was hard to watch that last shot without thinking . . .

"Wheat . . . "

[–] Geechee 14 years ago

I know this movie is supposed to be an 'artsy' movie but the characters were the most boring I've ever seen in a work. I would not want to know people like this in my life. They're indicative of the 'me, me, me' philosophy and seem incapable of facing life with any real depth yet they're supposed to be creative and talented people. Please.

When I first saw it in a theater, one thought that came to me was the phoniness of the dialogue. That last little speech Joey gives her mom before the 'dip in the ocean' was so contrived that it was laughable. No one talks like that.

"If I don't suit chu, you kin cut mah thoat!"

[–] elysergooser 14 years ago

"There's been perverseness...and sickness of spirit!" LOL I agree. The dialogue was like a SCTV parody. These people (aside from Maureen Stapleton's character Pearl and the father and Sam Waterston and the good looking self deprecating sister, Flynn) were written as such serious, ungrateful narcissists.

And yet...this depressing soap opera is still intriguing in its own awkward, self conscious way.

Why the heck didn't the daughters take her on a cruise or something and try to find her a new boyfriend or some outlet to bring her some joy. They were so into their own pain they effectively shut her out. That thing Joy said to her severely tortured mother was ridiculously cruel and uncalled for given her mental illness. Joey was the worst of all of them despite her later heroic actions.

Scratch that. Frederick was by far the worst. Ew.

[–] blinger12 14 years ago

the characters were the most boring I've ever seen in a work. I would not want to know people like this in my life. They're indicative of the 'me, me, me' philosophy and seem incapable of facing life with any real depth

How can someone get the point of a film so perfectly and yet miss it at the same time?

I'm carrying the fire, are you?
Last seen: The Unborn, 4/10

[–] trob226 14 years ago

I didn't find the characters boring. You could see layer after layer in them and how they produced those layers in each other. That's what was interesting about the film - watching what they were doing to each other and how Pearl's introduction into the mix started loosening up the knots. And these were not average Joes - they were upper class preppy types, so the speech patterns were pretty upper class and not what most of us hear every day. I certainly wouldn't call anybody a "vulgarian," but upper class types would (I know them, I've heard them, and sometimes I do have to stifle a laugh).

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CalvinJarrett (235) 3 years ago

I think, yes, Allen was attempting to juxtapose Pearl's red dress and overall colorful attitude toward life against the family's blandness. But, beyond that, if you look back on 1978 "interiors," those color schemes were very accurate. Sure, people had earth tones in their '78 homes and apartments, but that was likely left over from 1974-77. If you were designing something new in 1978, and Eve was an interior designer, the color palette would look very much like the rooms in Interiors. They were wealthy New Yorkers/Long Islanders. They're not going to be living like it's 1974 in 1978. And when 1981 came around, I'm sure they swapped out all that furniture and repainted/wall papered their homes in the contemporary style of the early '80's.