Hey! Hey Stella!

Here we go again...

Exhaustive quest to watch all of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year.

Film 37

37.  "A Streetcar Named Desire" (AFI Rank #47)

It is hard to imagine a time when live theatre audiences were treated to a much more graphic, more sophisticated, more adult version of a story than the one that was filmed.  This particular film is one of those instances.  Other examples include "Bad Seed," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," and "Born Yesterday," to name a few.  Pretty sure ALL of Tennessee Williams was sanitized.

I was involved with a production of this particular masterpiece in 2009, acting as Producer.  At that time, I'd had a skewed version of it.  I thought a lot of the subjects broached in the play were handled elsewhere in film/television/theatre in much better ways.  What I was neglecting then, of course, was a sense of perspective.  That this play existed (and was a smash hit) in its time period, with the themes that it addresses, is a testament to just how unsophisticated we may be now.  Shows like this are still done, but the blush is off the rose, if you will, and graphically shocking material, at times, seems like just that.  "Let's see what else I can get away with!"  I digress.

I'm going to treat you like you've seen this.

Let's talk about the film version of Tennessee Williams' great play, "A Streetcar Named Desire."  Directed by Elia Kazan, who directed the original production on Broadway, and featuring EVERY performer except 2 from the original Broadway cast, this is an incredibly faithful film version of a stage play.  I mentioned that only 2 actors were not on Broadway...they are Wright King in the role of the young collector (originally played by Vito Christi) and Vivien Leigh as Blanche DuBois, replacing Jessica Tandy.  I cannot imagine what it must have been like to film this.  "Hey, remember what we did like 400 times before?  Let's just do that, only with better sets, better lighting and no audience...and occasionally going to a different location.  Sound good?"  Seriously.  All the pieces were in place.  All the motivations had been tested, repeated, and made to work.  Chemistry is already there.  Sure, blocking changes when you're not constantly facing the fourth wall, but what a luxury to have tested materials and actors with major studio backing...

And they took advantage of it.  Kazan's direction is superb.  His visual telling of the story is spot on...we see shadows when they should be there, we see light when we should.  We feel hot and sweaty when we glance around the Kowalski apartment.  Acting choices that were made are spot on, and a great deal of that has to do with the director.  I know.  I've directed a time or two, and there is a great deal of trust involved with actors stepping beyond their comfort zone and trying something, only to be rewarded with "YES!  That's right!"  Take, for example, the moment that Blanche meets Stanley.  We immediately see her desire. She finds Stanley remarkably desirous, and the moment is played so subtly, so understated...it's just sexy as hell. Kazan was given a rare treasure, and he flourished with it.  I also liked that he took a few scenes out of the Kowalski apartment.  It helped, especially in the Mitch/Blanche confession about her young husband's death.  Having that taking place on a date...somewhere that Mitch had to find...well...that's a wonderful touch.

I would be negligent not to talk about Tennessee Williams.  The opening lines...well...they kind of set it all up for us.  "Why, they told me to take a streetcar named Desire, and then transfer to one called Cemetery, and ride six blocks and get off at Elysian Fields."  Not so subtle, but that kind of craft is genius.  Yes, Blanche's journey is one precipitated by her Desire...to where she can only reach her Elysian Fields after she's been to the cemetery.  It's great stuff.  In Blanche, we have a terrifically strong woman, whose weakness and frailty, we are shown, is merely an act of self preservation. She knows PRECISELY whom she is, what she has done, and why she is where she is.  In Stanley, we see the overwhelming presence of ignorance, and how that can destroy all those around it.  In Mitch, we see the cuckolded hero, virtuous to a fault.  And Stella is our wide-eyed innocence...or is she?  She's more likely "the maid in the living room, cook in the kitchen...and whore in the bedroom."  She's the grown-up.  And she's the one, throughout the film, carrying the next generation of Stanley Kowalski, carrying on the ignorance, but maybe carrying the hope for the future. Williams wordplay, his tone...his fantasy...it's tremendous.

I can't say a whole lot about the acting in this, save "Superior."  Brando is amazing.  Sexy, brutish, hard to understand (yeah, his voice......boy...it needed help), Brando inhabits Stanley.  You watch him eat a cold plate of food for dinner and you buy it.  You watch him drink a beer, and you buy it.  You watch him oafishly paw through Blanche's steamer trunk, and you buy it.  It's a complete character, fully realized, and I'm glad it's preserved on film.  Karl Malden is fantastic as Mitch, always with the best of people in mind, always with that "hey, look at me" child-like demeanor...until it matters.  Then he turns, and he turns quickly, and hard.  It's masterwork.  Kim Hunter as Stella is sexy, earthy, smart, but not so smart as to make us wonder why she's there.  Also...terrific.  At center, of course, is Leigh's Blanche.  38 at the time of the filming, Leigh was a stunningly beautiful woman, and she had the acting skills to back up her metamorphosis (as a British actor) into two of the screen's most indelible "Southern Belles," Blanche and Scarlett O'Hara.  Leigh is a powerhouse here.  Vulnerable and strong, gorgeous and plain, fantastical and grounded...Leigh covers all the ranges of humanity that Blanche exhibits with a grace and ease that is just a pleasure to watch.  That she was thrust into a film with a gang of people who had worked together a long time...and thrived...is a testament to what she brings to the role.  It's a wonderful, wonderful performance.  It should be noted that Leigh, Hunter, and Malden all won Oscars, while Brando did not.  Only one other film had 3 people win Oscars for acting...the just-reviewed-in-this-blog "Network."  It is hard to imagine why Brando wasn't awarded, too.  Especially since the award went to the clearly drunken Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen."

And ultimately, I have to say a few bad things.  It is a tragedy that this film took out or hinted at in odd ways a couple of essential elements to the play.  For example, Blanche is raped by Stanley.  We see her thrown to the bed in the play, while Stanley says "We've had this date coming for a long while" (Possibly paraphrased).  In the film...we get the idea that Stanley has done something bad...but it's represented by a physical motion...and a broken mirror. We are left to wonder if he physically abused her...or if he, as he does in the play...rapes her.  I knew the answer...the film doesn't necessarily confirm it.  Also troubling is the ending.  Stella leaves Stanley.  That isn't what happens in the play...and I've read that she had to leave because there was a code that said that criminals must be punished.  Bullshit.  It's more tragic, more satisfying, and way more disturbing if she stays.  Blanche has told Stella that she was raped by Stanley.  Stella says "I couldn't live with him if I believed it."  Then...she leaves.  No.  Staying is what Williams intended...and Kazan tried, desperately, to get that ending.  It is a tragedy that it had to be that way.  Also missing is the notion that Blanche's dead husband was a homosexual.  The play makes this clear.  Man...so much missing...yet still a great film.

So.  Great film, based on a great play, starring the people that helped make that play great.  Might, just might, be worth your time.  I'd say...YES.

The film was re-released in 1993, with a lot of the missing things I complained about above restored.  Kazan filmed it all, hoping to show two versions of the film, one that complied with code, and one that was his "director's cut" that would be advertised as outside the code, and give people the choice.  The studio chose not to do this.  Ebert reviewed it then.  Here's his take.  I guess Roger and I are on the same page again.