102 reviews
A Murder Was Committed on an Army Post in the Deep South..........
Reflections in a Golden Eye came out at an interesting transitional period for gay people. The Code that had dominated what could and could not be shown on the screen was just being lifted. That Code had succeeded in making gay people all but invisible by Hollywood standards. But it was two years before the Stonewall Rebellion which gave the gay rights movement a political voice.
Originally Montgomery Clift was scheduled to do this film with three time screen partner Elizabeth Taylor, but Clift died before the film started shooting. Marlon Brando took his place and in my opinion gave a very underrated performance as the repressed latent homosexual Major married to Elizabeth Taylor.
Brando and Taylor dusted off a couple of southern accents previously used in films, Brando from Sayonara and Taylor from Raintree County. But the characters here are vastly different from the characters portrayed in both of those other films.
Although certainly given Clift's background he was eminently qualified to play a repressed gay man, I'm not sure he would have been the type to have played an authority figure like Major Penderton here. Brando was far more the type. The part of the wife was Taylor made for Liz and she went to town with it.
I wonder what those people who want to keep gays out of the military would say about Brando. Brando's burgeoning homosexuality is finding an outlet in a raging crush on a handsome private played by Robert Forster. Forster during his off hours likes to walk and ride horses in the buff and sneaks into Brando's house to play with Liz Taylor's lingerie. Liz is having an affair with Brando's immediate superior Brian Keith who has an invalid and mentally disturbed wife in Julie Harris. And Harris spends most of her time with her very effeminate Filipino houseboy, Zorro David.
Of course this is a recipe for tragedy and tragedy does come. Author Carson McCullers, herself a lesbian, created some unforgettable characters here.
Reflections in a Golden Eye was way before its time. Today the film and Director John Huston would have gotten far better reviews than the film did in 1967.
Originally Montgomery Clift was scheduled to do this film with three time screen partner Elizabeth Taylor, but Clift died before the film started shooting. Marlon Brando took his place and in my opinion gave a very underrated performance as the repressed latent homosexual Major married to Elizabeth Taylor.
Brando and Taylor dusted off a couple of southern accents previously used in films, Brando from Sayonara and Taylor from Raintree County. But the characters here are vastly different from the characters portrayed in both of those other films.
Although certainly given Clift's background he was eminently qualified to play a repressed gay man, I'm not sure he would have been the type to have played an authority figure like Major Penderton here. Brando was far more the type. The part of the wife was Taylor made for Liz and she went to town with it.
I wonder what those people who want to keep gays out of the military would say about Brando. Brando's burgeoning homosexuality is finding an outlet in a raging crush on a handsome private played by Robert Forster. Forster during his off hours likes to walk and ride horses in the buff and sneaks into Brando's house to play with Liz Taylor's lingerie. Liz is having an affair with Brando's immediate superior Brian Keith who has an invalid and mentally disturbed wife in Julie Harris. And Harris spends most of her time with her very effeminate Filipino houseboy, Zorro David.
Of course this is a recipe for tragedy and tragedy does come. Author Carson McCullers, herself a lesbian, created some unforgettable characters here.
Reflections in a Golden Eye was way before its time. Today the film and Director John Huston would have gotten far better reviews than the film did in 1967.
- bkoganbing
- Mar 19, 2006
- Permalink
An Odd Film, With Great Performances and Cineomatography
- elevenangrymen
- Feb 9, 2013
- Permalink
Brando Handles Sexual Tension, Lots of IT
Most underrated John Huston's film
"Reflections in a Golden Eye" was recognized by John Huston himself as his most important film of his late period along with "The Man who would be a King". While generally the later is accepted as his masterpiece "Reflections in a Golden Eye" is misunderstood as Huston's "misfire", as a "flop", an opinion with which I tend to disagree. What we have here is a good drama whose story is based on a book by Carson McCullers, featuring superb performances from Marlon Brando who plays a U.S. Army Major in an isolated military fort somewhere in the south, who gradually discovers his homosexuallity and Liz Taylor, simply great here in the role of his cheating wife. The film, which is basically a serious drama, turns out to be something of a cynical human comedy, due to "ridiculousness" of all of it's characters and the way the story is told by film's director - John Huston. Overall it's an intelligent film whose main theme is repression and ultimate frustration of desire with it's tragic consequences. 8/10
Not without its faults but, on the whole, quite extraordinary
God knows what this picture looked like on the printed page--or, indeed, what this cast of talented actors were thinking when they first read it. Elizabeth Taylor probably thought it a hoot. I certainly did, but really...Julie Harris as a woebegone colonel's wife, living on a southern Army base in the 1950s with her sexually-estranged husband and a flamboyant houseboy, who has used pruning shears to--oh never mind. It's really about Marlon Brando as a sexually-repressed major, married to flirtatious belle Taylor but secretly lusting for stud-soldier Robert Forster (who rides his horse "barebacked and bare-assed"). Is it camp, serious, heartfelt or just terrible? Actually, it's all of the above, which is not only what kept me watching but keeps me returning. The moody film, based on Carson McCullers' Gothic novel, feels tampered with, muted in spots where it should be played to the hilt yet overdrawn when it should be subtle, yet this is part of its erratic appeal. Aldo Tonti's vivid cinematography (most especially in the full-color re-release print) is amazing, as is Toshiro Mayuzumi's hyperbolic score. John Huston directed, boldly and with flourish. It's a glorious mess. *** from ****
- moonspinner55
- May 10, 2001
- Permalink
Admirable in many ways, beautifully staged and photographed and splendidly acted
The time is late 1948 and the setting is a U.S. Army post in Georgia, bordering on a forest preserve
A Southern amoral wife called Leonora (Elizabeth Taylor) finds a way for her stream desire in an adulterous affair with Lt. Col. Langdon (Brian Keith), carried on almost openly
Leonora gives aperture to her forcefulness and vigor in a passion for horses and riding She is attached to a handsome white horse she calls Firebird and she provokes her husband by telling him that the animal is indeed a stallion with the emotional nature of man...
Leonora's husband (Marlon Brando) is a devious, insecure, impotent Army major, a hidden homosexual preoccupied with an unsociable, lonely rider who canters around the field in the nude and whose sexual emotional stress is diminished, secretively, at the bedside of the major's wife holding her clothes and looking fixedly at her marvelous hot body
Private Williams (Robert Forster) is another lonely man fascinated by the fiery Leonora and her thoughtful and gentle comments to him He takes to visiting the Penderton house at night looking attentively in the windows, observing with total recall and complete joy Leonora's nakedness, but also watching the Major in his study
Keith's neurotic wife (Julie Harris) is well aware of her husband's affair with Leonora but she only feels well from her close friendship with her houseboy, Anacleto (Zorro David), an affected companion who shares her penchant for the arts and is in every way the opposite of her abrupt, strong husband
Flavored with bitter insinuations and insulting sarcasms, Brando and Taylor's few scenes have enough flames to burn the silver screen He's a tormented human being while she's delicious but shrill and insensitive Aware of her physical beauty she fights back when she's rejected, instigating him with her impudent, insolent, shameless manner that offend his very being
A Southern amoral wife called Leonora (Elizabeth Taylor) finds a way for her stream desire in an adulterous affair with Lt. Col. Langdon (Brian Keith), carried on almost openly
Leonora gives aperture to her forcefulness and vigor in a passion for horses and riding She is attached to a handsome white horse she calls Firebird and she provokes her husband by telling him that the animal is indeed a stallion with the emotional nature of man...
Leonora's husband (Marlon Brando) is a devious, insecure, impotent Army major, a hidden homosexual preoccupied with an unsociable, lonely rider who canters around the field in the nude and whose sexual emotional stress is diminished, secretively, at the bedside of the major's wife holding her clothes and looking fixedly at her marvelous hot body
Private Williams (Robert Forster) is another lonely man fascinated by the fiery Leonora and her thoughtful and gentle comments to him He takes to visiting the Penderton house at night looking attentively in the windows, observing with total recall and complete joy Leonora's nakedness, but also watching the Major in his study
Keith's neurotic wife (Julie Harris) is well aware of her husband's affair with Leonora but she only feels well from her close friendship with her houseboy, Anacleto (Zorro David), an affected companion who shares her penchant for the arts and is in every way the opposite of her abrupt, strong husband
Flavored with bitter insinuations and insulting sarcasms, Brando and Taylor's few scenes have enough flames to burn the silver screen He's a tormented human being while she's delicious but shrill and insensitive Aware of her physical beauty she fights back when she's rejected, instigating him with her impudent, insolent, shameless manner that offend his very being
- Nazi_Fighter_David
- Jan 10, 2009
- Permalink
Unusual, surreal, memorable work of art.
This movie isn't for everybody. Huston, Taylor, Brando and the rest of the cast took some serious artistic risks back in 1967, and a lot of people didn't like the product; 50 years on, a lot of people still won't.
If one comes to it cold, hearing only that it is only a movie about "a closeted homosexual in the military", which is true of the Brando character, and expects some kind of serious dramatic narrative experience - like for example in "The Sergeant" which also came out in 1968 - the approach of "Reflections", which I think is not unlike that of a Beckett play, will be a surprise, and one might say, "this is a weird movie - it's not a good drama."
But I believe that would be a mistake. I don't mean that one kind of approach is "better" than the other, only that different kinds of movies with different kinds of artistic excellence as their goals shouldn't be measured by the same yardstick.
The action of this film is pretty much indifferent to place and setting; it doesn't need to be in the South and it doesn't need to be on a military base. It is sometime in the period from 1945-1960 when people of privilege spent their evenings at each other's houses, playing cards and drinking way more hard liquor than today. In fact the time and setting blurred in my view into a sort of dreamlike background, not demanding to be like a real place or time.
There are two military officers. There are their wives, whose thwarted lives are filled by avocations and disorders - sex, alcohol, and horsewomanship, or art, classical music, and depression. Their wives have admirers. One is the enlisted man played by Robert Forster, who elicits and then upsets one category after another. Another is the Filipino servant played by Zorro David (his only movie ever) with flamboyant swishiness, but is he really gay or are we being tempted to overassume? It's only what we see and judge, and neither can be trusted.
All have secrets, concealing who they really are while trying to figure out who the other people are, sometimes successfully, more often not. People read people and situations incorrectly and act upon their bad understanding and send the activity off in another direction. When people think they are unobserved they act much differently, comforting themselves in ways that are not provided for in the conventions that surround them. To borrow the thoughts of a character, they are all square pegs trying to deal with the round holes they have been hammered into by others or themselves.
And if that all reads sort of like the universal experience of people, that's sort of the point, I think.
I don't think it's perfect, but every time I try to pick a flaw I start to wonder if the artists didn't intend it just that way for a reason. Some detractors have noted that the Brando character's accent is just incomprehensible at times - I turned on closed captioning eventually. But then at one of those times he was giving instructions to a subordinate, who then doesn't carry them out properly, so was this on purpose? I didn't understand why the frenzied camera work in the final scene was done that way either. But was it meant to convey something? These people are not easily dismissed.
If one comes to it cold, hearing only that it is only a movie about "a closeted homosexual in the military", which is true of the Brando character, and expects some kind of serious dramatic narrative experience - like for example in "The Sergeant" which also came out in 1968 - the approach of "Reflections", which I think is not unlike that of a Beckett play, will be a surprise, and one might say, "this is a weird movie - it's not a good drama."
But I believe that would be a mistake. I don't mean that one kind of approach is "better" than the other, only that different kinds of movies with different kinds of artistic excellence as their goals shouldn't be measured by the same yardstick.
The action of this film is pretty much indifferent to place and setting; it doesn't need to be in the South and it doesn't need to be on a military base. It is sometime in the period from 1945-1960 when people of privilege spent their evenings at each other's houses, playing cards and drinking way more hard liquor than today. In fact the time and setting blurred in my view into a sort of dreamlike background, not demanding to be like a real place or time.
There are two military officers. There are their wives, whose thwarted lives are filled by avocations and disorders - sex, alcohol, and horsewomanship, or art, classical music, and depression. Their wives have admirers. One is the enlisted man played by Robert Forster, who elicits and then upsets one category after another. Another is the Filipino servant played by Zorro David (his only movie ever) with flamboyant swishiness, but is he really gay or are we being tempted to overassume? It's only what we see and judge, and neither can be trusted.
All have secrets, concealing who they really are while trying to figure out who the other people are, sometimes successfully, more often not. People read people and situations incorrectly and act upon their bad understanding and send the activity off in another direction. When people think they are unobserved they act much differently, comforting themselves in ways that are not provided for in the conventions that surround them. To borrow the thoughts of a character, they are all square pegs trying to deal with the round holes they have been hammered into by others or themselves.
And if that all reads sort of like the universal experience of people, that's sort of the point, I think.
I don't think it's perfect, but every time I try to pick a flaw I start to wonder if the artists didn't intend it just that way for a reason. Some detractors have noted that the Brando character's accent is just incomprehensible at times - I turned on closed captioning eventually. But then at one of those times he was giving instructions to a subordinate, who then doesn't carry them out properly, so was this on purpose? I didn't understand why the frenzied camera work in the final scene was done that way either. But was it meant to convey something? These people are not easily dismissed.
Tortured Souls Entwined...
There's a melting pot and into it's thrown, the souls of folk who sink like a dead stone, all have crosses they must bear, after lives of wear and tear, as they've found themselves remote, distant, alone. Of its time the themes reflect certain brutality, of an individual and rationality, where the lines one cannot cross, are tattooed, scored, burnt, embossed, on the culture of this world and its normality. The performances are great, so is the cast, from a director who commands a certain class (excepting 'The Man Who Would Be King' which is trash), it might just touch a nerve, just depending on your curve, a disconnection from today, back to the past.
Southern Fried Gothic Of The Most Delicious Kind
Montgomery Clift was supposed to play Brando's part. Elizabeth Taylor had put her own salary as a collateral for insurances purposes. It wasn't to be but the thought stayed with me throughout the film without spoiling the perverse delights's of Carson McCuller's steamy original story. Gladys Hill, adapting McCuller's book, was clearly giving John Huston exactly what he needed, she did it two other times in "The Kremlin Letter" and most memorably in "The Man Who Would Be King" John Huston has traveled through many different universes throughout his career. Sometimes he merely visited with a fantastic inquisitive eye and his masterful hand. He was never one to judge, he seem to find redeeming sides even in the, apparently, unredeemable. Here he seems to observe this peculiar world from a distance and what he gives us is a brilliantly cinematic glimpse into the unmentionable. In lesser hands this would have been an heavy, turgid melodrama in Huston's hands is a brilliantly heavy, stunningly turgid, intelligent melodrama. Brando is terrific in one of his most uncomfortable performances. You sense he is a time bomb that stopped clicking. Elizabeth Taylor throws herself into the part with such gusto that keeps the proceedings not merely high but in flames - this was her messy wives period, Virginia Woolf and Zee - The shots of her beautifully round behind bouncing up and down her horse's saddle is a funny reminder of her National Velvet days. So far, far away. Here, her casual cruelty is so totally amoral that verges on innocence. Julie Harris's performance is nothing short of sensational and Zorro David as her loyal Anacleto starts as a caricature and ends as one of the stalwarts of the piece. The great John Huston had cinematographer Aldo Tonti to translate this kinky universe into a stunning, steamy masterpiece.
- gabrieletaibo
- Aug 6, 2005
- Permalink
A flawed classic
- parachute-4
- Nov 3, 2006
- Permalink
From here to perversity
- Prismark10
- Aug 30, 2015
- Permalink
Marlon and Liz get John Huston's muted-color southern treatment
Marlon Brando's career may have been in a rut at the time, but he got a fine role in John Huston's "Reflections in a Golden Eye". I had never heard of Carson McCullers or her works when I started watching it, but I'm now eager to read her works. This tale of sexual tension and repressed homosexuality on a military base in the 1940s has it all (and I don't just mean a certain scene of Elizabeth Taylor). These are some of the most intense performances that you'll ever see, and the movie features what must've been some of the most extreme scenes allowed on screen at the time.
Definitely worth your time.
Definitely worth your time.
- lee_eisenberg
- Sep 17, 2019
- Permalink
A sensual cat
In an army barracks where life seems to go on with apparent naturalness there takes place a human drama of lust, adultery and repressed homosexuality in which Elizabeth Taylor, that sensual cat, moves herself like a fish in a pond. She is married to a major (Marlon Brando) but has an established affair with a colonel (Brian Keith) since her husband seems not to accomplish with his marital duties, being a repressed homosexual feeling himself attracted against his will to a private soldier (Robert Forster). The colonel is married to a neurotic woman who has a filipino servant (Zorro David) who makes a curious character indeed in his devotion to his mistress. This story develops itself in a calm way interrupted here and there by only a few outbursts of emotion and violence when repressed feelings explode. It's not a masterpiece but a movie that portrays with enough truth and authenticity a lot of human actions and reactions, making it worth to be seen. I think however that Montgomery Clift who was first designed to perform the role of Major Penderton would have done it much better than Marlon Brando since he was a much more sensitive kind of actor in his performances.
Gold Finger on Trigger
"Reflections in a Golden Eye" begins with a quote from the original novel's author Carson McCullers, "There is a fort in the south where a few years ago a murder was committed." Elizabeth Taylor, Marlon Brando and Murder! It's a grand opening, full of promise. Unfortunately, the quote turns out to be the most exciting part of story. The film is in what you could call sepia/color; not entirely color, but not sepia, either. This is an obvious play on the "Golden" title. Got it...
Well-built young Robert Forster (as Williams) takes care of the horses, especially a white stallion named Firebird. He belongs to well-built wife Elizabeth Taylor (as Leonora). Her husband is mumbling major Marlon Brando (as Weldon). He is more interested in Mr. Forster than Ms. Taylor. Both display a nice pair of naked buttocks. A body double plays Taylor's part. She is having a not-so-secret affair with boring neighbor Brian Keith (as Morris). He is married to psychologically disturbed Julie Harris (as Alison). After a tragic pregnancy, Ms. Harris cut off her nipples with garden shears. She enjoys being fawned over by swishy Filipino houseboy Zorro David (as Anacleto). He reflects the title with a peacock's eye, and Forster brings it home by being both an exhibitionist and a Peeping Tom. Whew...
All of the above sounds better than it appears.
**** Reflections in a Golden Eye (10/11/67) John Huston ~ Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Forster, Julie Harris
Well-built young Robert Forster (as Williams) takes care of the horses, especially a white stallion named Firebird. He belongs to well-built wife Elizabeth Taylor (as Leonora). Her husband is mumbling major Marlon Brando (as Weldon). He is more interested in Mr. Forster than Ms. Taylor. Both display a nice pair of naked buttocks. A body double plays Taylor's part. She is having a not-so-secret affair with boring neighbor Brian Keith (as Morris). He is married to psychologically disturbed Julie Harris (as Alison). After a tragic pregnancy, Ms. Harris cut off her nipples with garden shears. She enjoys being fawned over by swishy Filipino houseboy Zorro David (as Anacleto). He reflects the title with a peacock's eye, and Forster brings it home by being both an exhibitionist and a Peeping Tom. Whew...
All of the above sounds better than it appears.
**** Reflections in a Golden Eye (10/11/67) John Huston ~ Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Forster, Julie Harris
- wes-connors
- Nov 18, 2012
- Permalink
Underrated Masterpiece from the '60s
Marlon Brando's career was on a downward slide when he appeared in "Reflections in a Golden Eye" (***1/2). His previous film was Charles Chaplain's disastrous "A Countess from Hong Kong" in which he gave one of his worst performances. In "Eye" he proved that as an actor he was still capable of being as daring and surprising as he once was as a sexually repressed Army Major. Widely misunderstood at the time of its release, John Huston's adaptation of the Carson McCullers novel is a witty and provocative tragicomedy in which none of the characters succeeds in escaping from their own self-imposed prisons. There have probably never been two more incompatible married couples in the movies than the brooding introverted officer played by Brando and his bawdy, outgoing wife, a fine part for Elizabeth Taylor at her funniest and most natural. Complementing them are Brian Keith as a rather dim but basically good-natured fellow officer who is having an affair with Taylor, and Julie Harris as his hypersensitive invalid wife. Zorro David also scores as her pretentiously effete Filopino houseboy. One of the many fascinating things about this film is watching how these characters interrelate without ever making a real connection. Director Huston finds a great deal of humor (most of it intentional, I'm convinced) in this sometimes hard-to-take, but fascinating film.
A new direction for everybody involved.
Since mostly everyone involved in this film is either dead or retired, I think it is safe to say that looking back, Reflections in a Golden Eye can be seen as the turning point in many of the careers of those involved, particularly director John Huston and actor Marlon Brando. Huston, who before was used to working under strict studio rules and churned out some great Golden Age classics such as The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Asphalt Jungle, really goes out on a limb here in bringing Carson McCullers' bizarre tale of Southern drama to the screen. This is quite unlike anything he had done before and makes sense after seeing some of the films he made in the twilight of his directing career. As for Brando, once the biggest actor of the 1950s, his star had faded and many had forgotten him. Nevertheless, he took a role many thought wouldn't suit his style and nailed it, proving once again he is arguably the greatest actor of all time. Elizabeth Taylor was one of the biggest names in movies at the time, and she also shows her incredible versatility as the plucky and carping wife who is having an affair with her husband's colleague. There are also some nice supporting roles from Julie Harris as the sick wife of a loveless husband and a young Robert Forster as a mysterious private with a fetish for horses.
Again, this is a very bizarre tale and perhaps a second viewing is required to understand exactly what is trying to be said here. Nevertheless, the acting is top-notch from Brando and Taylor and Huston directs effortlessly and shoots in a weird, saturated light that adds to the strangeness of the atmosphere. Certainly a film for adventurous filmgoers, expect to scratch your head at the end of this.
Again, this is a very bizarre tale and perhaps a second viewing is required to understand exactly what is trying to be said here. Nevertheless, the acting is top-notch from Brando and Taylor and Huston directs effortlessly and shoots in a weird, saturated light that adds to the strangeness of the atmosphere. Certainly a film for adventurous filmgoers, expect to scratch your head at the end of this.
Strange film with many little subplots.
A strange film starring Elizabeth Taylor and Marlon Brando. Everything in this film it seems is on the suggestive note. Homosexuality, SM etc. It requires the viewer to watch and watch with concentration to absorb the story. One bizarre feature is Zorro David as Anacleto a Philippine servant in the home of Julie Harris and her husband Brian Keith. He is cast as essentially a TA-TA boy who engages in weird conversations with Julie Harris's character. One hilarious part has him falling down a flight of stairs when he begins prancing around a room and forgets where the stairs are.
Elizabeth Taylor is probably at her most beautiful in this film. The movie is weird but if you've never seen it do so.
Elizabeth Taylor is probably at her most beautiful in this film. The movie is weird but if you've never seen it do so.
A Chilling Descent into Dark Sexuality and Madness
- irishcoffee630
- Apr 7, 2005
- Permalink
Self-consciously arty REFLECTIONS with only a mild payoff
Sometimes it pays to have low expectations. Rest assured, I was not expecting a lot from this movie, since the reviews I had read of it were often less-than-complimentary & that of a movie beneath the talents & pedigrees of all involved. I put this movie in & just let it go on. Final analysis: Yes, the high standards of cast, director & source outweigh the execution, but maybe those who have castigated the movie only watched it once, then threw it away. A second viewing might change their minds & maybe even mine.
Many people think REFLECTIONS was miscast, but I actually think the actors were matched to their parts just fine. We can only imagine how Montgomery Clift would have been as Penderton, but Marlon Brando gives somewhat of a rough approximation. In real life, perhaps we cannot imagine him being married to Elizabeth Taylor, but at least it is to Liz's credit that she insist Marlon be cast for Major Penderton. He was in the middle of a creative & box-office slump at the time, with many people thinking he was wasting his talents & making some movies just for the quick paycheck. I would venture to say this was probably his most substantial part in years, and if the movie's other components had been better-thought-out, people would have thought the same.
As for Liz, her pseudo-erotic role as Mrs. Penderton is mostly another day at the office for her. After winning a second Oscar for VIRGINIA WOOLF, Liz apparently still found good parts hard to come by & it seems this one was a role she could have done in her sleep (though her Southern accent is quite well-done). With the surprising amount of nudity for a film made in 1967, Liz indeed has one such scene, but as has been pointed out before, it was done by a double. The reason for this is probably because her drastically fluctuating figure made it unfeasible. The Production Code had been severely weakened by this time, but I am still surprised they let the movie pass with the nudity intact, even if it is mostly from rear & side views. I am sure if the movie had been released a year later with the new rating system, an R would not have been unreasonable.
The supporting cast is mostly left in the dust by the marquee value & histrionics of Brando & Taylor. Brian Keith again suffers from a "phoning in" syndrome with his Colonel Langdon, and makes you wonder if Julie Harris as his rather insane wife Alison is henpecking him to no end. That said, Harris does very well with her rather thankless role, especially with a major plot point involving her character (the "garden shears" incident) only talked about in passing, diluting its impact. If Liz had not have been the "STAR", Julie could have outdone her for "grande dame" theatrics.
Probably the character who suffers the most in a thin characterization is Private Williams. Robert Forster does what he can with a mostly wordless role & pretty much skulks about the movie, voyeuristically watching things unfold. Even when he is a part of the movie's main action (as in his nude horseback riding scenes, which are again done from a distance), he does not appear to affect it directly. When he meets his fate at the movie's end, you wind up knowing little about Private Williams than you did coming in. Warner Brothers was "introducing" Forster as a new find, but this was some role to do it with.
Director John Huston always considered REFLECTIONS to be a favorite film of his, but I would gather he thinks that way of the film that could have been made from it. Maybe he was too hamstrung by Carson McCullers' somewhat unfilmable text & the result was a little too haphazard in the narrative department. The ending in particular is one that has come under major criticism. It is one thing to leave more questions than answers for dramatic effect, but with REFLECTIONS, I imagine it was more a case of not having much more to do with the action, so they just abruptly ended it. The schizophrenic camera movement & Liz pulling off one of the longest, loudest screams this side of Fay Wray does not help matters at all. As a gifted, award-winning screenwriter himself, I would think maybe John Huston could have done a better job at the screenplay than those who did originally. But that is another thing we as the audience can only ponder in retrospect.
His original decision to mute out the colors for the film was grudgingly accepted by Warners, and was released to theaters that way initially. But when audiences complained about the cinematography, a normally-colored print was issued thereafter. The DVD release of REFLECTIONS restores Huston's "colorless" vision with a golden amber tone to the proceedings that, in effect, was a brave experiment, but I can clearly understand audiences' tepid response to it. Artyness is one thing, but when you lack a payoff for it, more harm is done than good.
Final thoughts: A failed experiment to be sure, REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE still had plenty of good things going for it. But whether it was because of script or production problems, the final result is not much better than average.
Many people think REFLECTIONS was miscast, but I actually think the actors were matched to their parts just fine. We can only imagine how Montgomery Clift would have been as Penderton, but Marlon Brando gives somewhat of a rough approximation. In real life, perhaps we cannot imagine him being married to Elizabeth Taylor, but at least it is to Liz's credit that she insist Marlon be cast for Major Penderton. He was in the middle of a creative & box-office slump at the time, with many people thinking he was wasting his talents & making some movies just for the quick paycheck. I would venture to say this was probably his most substantial part in years, and if the movie's other components had been better-thought-out, people would have thought the same.
As for Liz, her pseudo-erotic role as Mrs. Penderton is mostly another day at the office for her. After winning a second Oscar for VIRGINIA WOOLF, Liz apparently still found good parts hard to come by & it seems this one was a role she could have done in her sleep (though her Southern accent is quite well-done). With the surprising amount of nudity for a film made in 1967, Liz indeed has one such scene, but as has been pointed out before, it was done by a double. The reason for this is probably because her drastically fluctuating figure made it unfeasible. The Production Code had been severely weakened by this time, but I am still surprised they let the movie pass with the nudity intact, even if it is mostly from rear & side views. I am sure if the movie had been released a year later with the new rating system, an R would not have been unreasonable.
The supporting cast is mostly left in the dust by the marquee value & histrionics of Brando & Taylor. Brian Keith again suffers from a "phoning in" syndrome with his Colonel Langdon, and makes you wonder if Julie Harris as his rather insane wife Alison is henpecking him to no end. That said, Harris does very well with her rather thankless role, especially with a major plot point involving her character (the "garden shears" incident) only talked about in passing, diluting its impact. If Liz had not have been the "STAR", Julie could have outdone her for "grande dame" theatrics.
Probably the character who suffers the most in a thin characterization is Private Williams. Robert Forster does what he can with a mostly wordless role & pretty much skulks about the movie, voyeuristically watching things unfold. Even when he is a part of the movie's main action (as in his nude horseback riding scenes, which are again done from a distance), he does not appear to affect it directly. When he meets his fate at the movie's end, you wind up knowing little about Private Williams than you did coming in. Warner Brothers was "introducing" Forster as a new find, but this was some role to do it with.
Director John Huston always considered REFLECTIONS to be a favorite film of his, but I would gather he thinks that way of the film that could have been made from it. Maybe he was too hamstrung by Carson McCullers' somewhat unfilmable text & the result was a little too haphazard in the narrative department. The ending in particular is one that has come under major criticism. It is one thing to leave more questions than answers for dramatic effect, but with REFLECTIONS, I imagine it was more a case of not having much more to do with the action, so they just abruptly ended it. The schizophrenic camera movement & Liz pulling off one of the longest, loudest screams this side of Fay Wray does not help matters at all. As a gifted, award-winning screenwriter himself, I would think maybe John Huston could have done a better job at the screenplay than those who did originally. But that is another thing we as the audience can only ponder in retrospect.
His original decision to mute out the colors for the film was grudgingly accepted by Warners, and was released to theaters that way initially. But when audiences complained about the cinematography, a normally-colored print was issued thereafter. The DVD release of REFLECTIONS restores Huston's "colorless" vision with a golden amber tone to the proceedings that, in effect, was a brave experiment, but I can clearly understand audiences' tepid response to it. Artyness is one thing, but when you lack a payoff for it, more harm is done than good.
Final thoughts: A failed experiment to be sure, REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE still had plenty of good things going for it. But whether it was because of script or production problems, the final result is not much better than average.
Huston and Brando at something near their best
Director John Huston paints life at a Georgia army base in odd pinkish and amber tones to point up its off-color nature beneath its khaki uniformity. Reflections features Brando as a Colonel, supposedly courageous and a leader of men, who turns out to be weak, cowardly, hag- ridden, and unsure of his sexual orientation. It was one of his best, most creative and least likely performances, and shocking to audiences of the time. If anybody but Brando had played that character it would have scarred his career and maybe ended it. Just taking on the role was a brave move, but he did so much with it to bring out the man's un- Brando nature. Bold, brilliant and daring as a lead performance, he plays off wonderfully against Taylor in one of her patented bitch queen roles as an unsatisfied man-eater stifled by the regimentation of living as an army wife. The scene in which she flogs him for a weakling in front of dinner guests is shocking to watch but wonderfully evocative of the nature of their relationship roles. Taylor's infidelity and Brando's weakness become two sides of the same co-dependent coin.
Reflections was a watershed film in its day but at the same time years ahead of its day. It flopped at the box-office because the mid-60s were just not ready for it.
Reflections was a watershed film in its day but at the same time years ahead of its day. It flopped at the box-office because the mid-60s were just not ready for it.
Southern Discomfort
- writers_reign
- Jun 26, 2009
- Permalink
Apart from shock value, there isn't much to this one...
I saw the DVD version of this film and its print is the original golden-toned version (where the only other color that is noticeable are the reds). Apparently, audiences were NOT impressed by this weird amber look and the film was removed from circulation and released in a normal print. I would have preferred this second print, as the look of the original is hard on the eyes.
This story must have really caught folks' attention back in 1967. Not only did it star two of the hottest stars of the day (Liz Taylor and Marlon Brando), but its plot was very, very adult--with themes of adultery, sadism, homosexuality, perversions I cannot classify (what's with the horse and that naked guy?!)and voyeurism! In addition, there is some nudity (I think they used a body double for Taylor in her scenes--as you can't see her face)--something very unusual for the time. Heck, even today this would make quite a stir in the theaters! This is one you have to see for yourself to believe!
The film begins with Brando playing an officer in the Army. His wife has contempt for him, as he's impotent--and deeply closeted. So, she has an affair with their neighbor (Brian Keith)--a fellow officer. As for Keith, his wife (Julie Harris) is severely depressed following the death of their child and all her moments with their houseboy. As for this houseboy, he is a VERY effeminate homosexual who minces about the house to the wife's amusement (clearly the woman could have used a TV or some books). Clearly, this was not filmed in Mayberry! And, more importantly, is the film any good or is director John Huston just warming up for his next and even more super-offensive film, "Myra Breckenridge"? Unfortunately, once you peel away all the shock value of this film, you are simply left with nothing...no plot of any great interest and a waste of some talented actors. I have no idea WHAT this film was trying to say other than we are all hypocrites--though this is hard to generalize from the film since NO ONE in the film acts like anyone remotely normal or realistic. A weird misfire...but a misfire nevertheless.
This story must have really caught folks' attention back in 1967. Not only did it star two of the hottest stars of the day (Liz Taylor and Marlon Brando), but its plot was very, very adult--with themes of adultery, sadism, homosexuality, perversions I cannot classify (what's with the horse and that naked guy?!)and voyeurism! In addition, there is some nudity (I think they used a body double for Taylor in her scenes--as you can't see her face)--something very unusual for the time. Heck, even today this would make quite a stir in the theaters! This is one you have to see for yourself to believe!
The film begins with Brando playing an officer in the Army. His wife has contempt for him, as he's impotent--and deeply closeted. So, she has an affair with their neighbor (Brian Keith)--a fellow officer. As for Keith, his wife (Julie Harris) is severely depressed following the death of their child and all her moments with their houseboy. As for this houseboy, he is a VERY effeminate homosexual who minces about the house to the wife's amusement (clearly the woman could have used a TV or some books). Clearly, this was not filmed in Mayberry! And, more importantly, is the film any good or is director John Huston just warming up for his next and even more super-offensive film, "Myra Breckenridge"? Unfortunately, once you peel away all the shock value of this film, you are simply left with nothing...no plot of any great interest and a waste of some talented actors. I have no idea WHAT this film was trying to say other than we are all hypocrites--though this is hard to generalize from the film since NO ONE in the film acts like anyone remotely normal or realistic. A weird misfire...but a misfire nevertheless.
- planktonrules
- Jun 8, 2012
- Permalink
A place where happiness is a Mirage...
Lots of star power, but a little melodramatic
Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, and John Huston collaborating to adapt Carson McCullers' 2nd novel, one that pushed sexual boundaries, is something that I looked forward to seeing. McCullers work of dark, fractured lives in the South is in the company of William Faulkner and Tennessee Williams, every bit as good, and predated Williams - her first two books were written a few years before he broke through with 'The Glass Menagerie.' Like a lot of women artists, she's underrated.
Illicit sex and sexual repression are pervasive in the story: an army major (Brando) is a closet homosexual married to a brazenly lusty woman (Taylor); right under his nose she's having an affair with his friend, a colonel (Brian Keith), who is in turn married to a woman traumatized by her child dying (Julie Harris); comforting her is a (stereotypically) effeminate servant (Zorro David); meanwhile, an enlisted man (Robert Forster) is a peeping tom who likes to go out riding buck naked, driving Brando's character to distraction. Whew, that's a lot, and maybe too much. The melodrama that works in print is less successful on the screen, even though the film is faithful to it, and both are pretty reserved, leaving a lot to our imaginations.
As in some of his other films, I'm not quite sure about the accent Brando affects, but in his scenes of emotional intensity and in those where his character quietly tries to reconcile the fact that he's a "square peg in a round hole", he's brilliant, and as always, fascinating. Taylor is pretty strong too, especially when she dominates him, which she does both physically and mentally, at one point parading around the house defiantly nude. I'm not sure about the supporting cast though, as they seemed a little flat, and I didn't like some of the choices Huston made. The color palette is tinged yellow and subdued to just barely above black and white throughout the film, the soundtrack is dated, the pacing is off, and the ending camera movement not very artistic, to put it kindly. I loved the emotional angst but to be honest, I struggled to stay fully interested. Worth seeing though.
Illicit sex and sexual repression are pervasive in the story: an army major (Brando) is a closet homosexual married to a brazenly lusty woman (Taylor); right under his nose she's having an affair with his friend, a colonel (Brian Keith), who is in turn married to a woman traumatized by her child dying (Julie Harris); comforting her is a (stereotypically) effeminate servant (Zorro David); meanwhile, an enlisted man (Robert Forster) is a peeping tom who likes to go out riding buck naked, driving Brando's character to distraction. Whew, that's a lot, and maybe too much. The melodrama that works in print is less successful on the screen, even though the film is faithful to it, and both are pretty reserved, leaving a lot to our imaginations.
As in some of his other films, I'm not quite sure about the accent Brando affects, but in his scenes of emotional intensity and in those where his character quietly tries to reconcile the fact that he's a "square peg in a round hole", he's brilliant, and as always, fascinating. Taylor is pretty strong too, especially when she dominates him, which she does both physically and mentally, at one point parading around the house defiantly nude. I'm not sure about the supporting cast though, as they seemed a little flat, and I didn't like some of the choices Huston made. The color palette is tinged yellow and subdued to just barely above black and white throughout the film, the soundtrack is dated, the pacing is off, and the ending camera movement not very artistic, to put it kindly. I loved the emotional angst but to be honest, I struggled to stay fully interested. Worth seeing though.
- gbill-74877
- Jul 20, 2020
- Permalink
John Huston's depressing, oddly compelling adaption of Carson McCullers' best-selling social elegy is, still and all, a misfire.
Carson McCullers' second novel `Reflections in a Golden Eye,' first published in 1941, is a great depressing read -- full of lurid, loveless, neurotic, alienated, self-destructive characters who mire in their own and others' unhappiness. The mood and tone distinctly reflect the author's own morbid life story (McCullers, the Diane Arbus of literature, was a chronic depressive and bisexual who was married to a suicidal alcoholic and bisexual). In 1967, John Huston took her novel to film. End result: the book is infinitely better than Huston's erratic, muddled handling of the rather ignoble material. I'm sure it was very tempting to tinker around with this type of scandalous fodder, especially with the abolishment of the longstanding Hollywood production code in the mid-60s, but what comes off morbidly fascinating in the novel with its themes of self-mutilation, masochism, impotence, sex and murder, is just plain dreary here. Pseudo-smut can come off quite boring, sometimes laughable, if not handled properly.
Set on an army base in the Deep South, the story revolves around Captain Penderton (Marlon Brando), a morose high-commanding officer and pent-up homosexual who disguises his humiliation with sadomasochistic acts. He finds an interesting outlet for his deep-seated frustrations by fixating on a very handsome young private on base, who has his own arousing aura of mystery. As the Captain scouts around, he finds out that the private, a raging sociopath if ever there was one, gets his kicks taking naked midnight rides in the woods on his horse and engaging in voyeurism. The Captain naturally is curious yellow and yearns to find who the target of this man's obsession is. Meanwhile, the Captain's shrewish, adulterous wife, Leonora (Elizabeth Taylor), a spoiled slob of a socialite who, after the death of her son, decides to make life a living hell for her husband, sexual distraction with Major Langdon (Brian Keith), her neighbor, while his crackpot invalid wife, Alison (Julie Harris), a walking suicide just waiting to happen, seems to find her only source of joy in the company of her devoted, extremely prissy houseboy who gets off on spouting poetry passages and flouncing around the room like `Tinkerbell.' God, love it-- is this America or what?
The first and foremost problem with Huston's film is that its interest is derived not from the sordid characters but from the high-profile stars who play them. Taylor delivers another in a long list of blowsy, viper-tongued bitches that she started churning out after her Oscar-winning performance as monster Martha in `Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' in 1965. As in other grotesque roles of this ilk and era (`Boom!', `Hammersmith Is Out,' you name it' ), she is all bark and all bite...shrill and shallow. It is a one-note performance that comes off lazy, annoying, and ultimately tedious, with no shred of dimension or nuance to perk up the distastefully sensational aspects. Like Bette Davis' Rosa Moline in `Beyond the Forest,' Taylor squelches our desire to care about or understand this vindictive, bitter woman's misery. Just feed her to the wolves and be done with it. Is it any wonder Brando's character is turned on to her polar opposite -- a man with nothing to say?
Marlon's tortured Captain is the film's big lure here. He brings to the movie all the mumbling melancholy he can muster and he alone commands any sympathy. But you can't help forgetting the character while concentrating on Marlon's technique as he teases us with ever-so-slightly mincing affectations. How is Marlon going to play a closet queen in uniform? That is the excitement and the oddly compelling element of this feature. Is he successful? Not really. But you can't help but be drawn to him. He is Marlon after all. Initially cast in this role was Taylor's close, devoted friend (and closet homosexual) Montgomery Clift, who died before filming began. I doubt if he could have done any better than Marlon, despite Monty's correlation.
Dark, handsome, saturnine Robert Forster is indeed another drawing point in the role of the remote, taciturn private. This was his first big role and though he has almost no dialogue, Huston manages to make him a fascinating, rather enigmatic and sexy figure. Gruff and virile Brian Keith is reliable as always, while plaintive Julie Harris is a pro when it comes to dishing out the neurotics. Zorro David's portrayal as Anacleto, the houseboy, is bad and sad enough to send the gay movement back thirty years. It's reviling, degrading and, like a horrible traffic accident, impossible to ignore. No wonder Brando's character is desperate to keep his little secret. Look at his role model! This was David's first and only film role. You see? There is justice.
The overall production values may be up to snuff but the camera work is lifeless and mundane -- and they certainly do not flatter the actors, that's for sure - particularly Taylor, who was getting quite zaftig at this time. To top it all off, the supposedly explosive climax is shot terribly, with Huston's jarring, swerving camera moves from character to character coming off amateurish. A totally bizarre miscalculation on his part to achieve the shocking effect he was going for.
You WILL stay with `Reflections in a Golden Eye' but be warned: it will leave you as empty as the film's characters, and you'll probably hate yourself in the end for caving in to your primitive, prurient curiosity. McCullers' first novel, `The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter,' as a book and film, is better in practically every respect. Catch IT instead.
Set on an army base in the Deep South, the story revolves around Captain Penderton (Marlon Brando), a morose high-commanding officer and pent-up homosexual who disguises his humiliation with sadomasochistic acts. He finds an interesting outlet for his deep-seated frustrations by fixating on a very handsome young private on base, who has his own arousing aura of mystery. As the Captain scouts around, he finds out that the private, a raging sociopath if ever there was one, gets his kicks taking naked midnight rides in the woods on his horse and engaging in voyeurism. The Captain naturally is curious yellow and yearns to find who the target of this man's obsession is. Meanwhile, the Captain's shrewish, adulterous wife, Leonora (Elizabeth Taylor), a spoiled slob of a socialite who, after the death of her son, decides to make life a living hell for her husband, sexual distraction with Major Langdon (Brian Keith), her neighbor, while his crackpot invalid wife, Alison (Julie Harris), a walking suicide just waiting to happen, seems to find her only source of joy in the company of her devoted, extremely prissy houseboy who gets off on spouting poetry passages and flouncing around the room like `Tinkerbell.' God, love it-- is this America or what?
The first and foremost problem with Huston's film is that its interest is derived not from the sordid characters but from the high-profile stars who play them. Taylor delivers another in a long list of blowsy, viper-tongued bitches that she started churning out after her Oscar-winning performance as monster Martha in `Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' in 1965. As in other grotesque roles of this ilk and era (`Boom!', `Hammersmith Is Out,' you name it' ), she is all bark and all bite...shrill and shallow. It is a one-note performance that comes off lazy, annoying, and ultimately tedious, with no shred of dimension or nuance to perk up the distastefully sensational aspects. Like Bette Davis' Rosa Moline in `Beyond the Forest,' Taylor squelches our desire to care about or understand this vindictive, bitter woman's misery. Just feed her to the wolves and be done with it. Is it any wonder Brando's character is turned on to her polar opposite -- a man with nothing to say?
Marlon's tortured Captain is the film's big lure here. He brings to the movie all the mumbling melancholy he can muster and he alone commands any sympathy. But you can't help forgetting the character while concentrating on Marlon's technique as he teases us with ever-so-slightly mincing affectations. How is Marlon going to play a closet queen in uniform? That is the excitement and the oddly compelling element of this feature. Is he successful? Not really. But you can't help but be drawn to him. He is Marlon after all. Initially cast in this role was Taylor's close, devoted friend (and closet homosexual) Montgomery Clift, who died before filming began. I doubt if he could have done any better than Marlon, despite Monty's correlation.
Dark, handsome, saturnine Robert Forster is indeed another drawing point in the role of the remote, taciturn private. This was his first big role and though he has almost no dialogue, Huston manages to make him a fascinating, rather enigmatic and sexy figure. Gruff and virile Brian Keith is reliable as always, while plaintive Julie Harris is a pro when it comes to dishing out the neurotics. Zorro David's portrayal as Anacleto, the houseboy, is bad and sad enough to send the gay movement back thirty years. It's reviling, degrading and, like a horrible traffic accident, impossible to ignore. No wonder Brando's character is desperate to keep his little secret. Look at his role model! This was David's first and only film role. You see? There is justice.
The overall production values may be up to snuff but the camera work is lifeless and mundane -- and they certainly do not flatter the actors, that's for sure - particularly Taylor, who was getting quite zaftig at this time. To top it all off, the supposedly explosive climax is shot terribly, with Huston's jarring, swerving camera moves from character to character coming off amateurish. A totally bizarre miscalculation on his part to achieve the shocking effect he was going for.
You WILL stay with `Reflections in a Golden Eye' but be warned: it will leave you as empty as the film's characters, and you'll probably hate yourself in the end for caving in to your primitive, prurient curiosity. McCullers' first novel, `The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter,' as a book and film, is better in practically every respect. Catch IT instead.
- gbrumburgh-1
- Oct 17, 2001
- Permalink