THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES Review – ***½

“In all my life, the past twelve hours are the only real freedom I’ve ever known.” “Did you enjoy it?” “Every moment.” “Why did you come back?” “I’m a coward.”

Like most members of my generation, I knew Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe in Willy Wonka. But did you know that three years prior, Albertson won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor—actually BEATING Gene Wilder in The Producers for that Oscar? (And on top of that, both that film and this one reference the song “Flying Down to Rio” (“Rio by the sea-o”).)

But while The Producers is remembered as one of the all-time great comedies, The Subject Was Roses and Albertson’s win have largely been forgotten; Subject is only available on a Warner Archive DVD, making it one of the hardest post-1965 Oscar-winning performances to see. Having seen it, I can understand why, even if I don’t think it’s necessarily merited.

Based on Frank D. Gilroy’s Pulitzer-winning play, it follows a couple of days in the life of the Cleary family of New York City in 1946, the son, Timmy (Martin Sheen), having come home from WWII to stay with his parents John (Albertson) and Nettie (Patricia Neal). But almost immediately tensions begin to grow between the three of them, as John’s combative personality and infidelity, Timmy’s drinking and newfound agnosticism, and Nettie’s long-simmering resentments prevent the family from going very long without arguing.

Like a lot of mid-century American domestic drama, it’s full of carefully-tuned dialogue, with lots of repeated lines, monologues, revelations, and chances for the actors to shine alone and in concert. I’ve never seen the shown done live, but the film at times feels like a pretty close approximation, especially as Albertson and Sheen played their roles on the stage under the direction of Ulu Grosbard…who directed the film as well. The effect, especially in the first half, can be a shade heavy-going.

But as the film progresses and the family’s arguments reach a breaking point, it cuts deeper and touches one more profoundly, and the performances are key to why. Neal, making her first film appearance after recovering from a series of strokes, is painfully affecting as the emotionally exhausted Nettie, herself hardly above weaponizing a conversation; a matter as simple as making Timmy waffles for breakfast gives rise to an achingly petty spat, a scab she can’t stop picking at. And when, towards the end, she monologues about the roots of her marriage to John and all that might have been, the wistfulness and weariness in her voice justify the Oscar nomination she received.

Albertson nails John’s inherently performative nature, most overtly depicted in the scene where he sings “Sunbonnet Sue” to a nightclub crowd, but subtly shown throughout in his stale jokes, blustering complaints, and contrived clowning around with Timmy. Albertson might come off as a shade too practiced at times, but his depiction of a profoundly unhappy man who can’t bear to admit how unhappy he is, or how much of that unhappiness he brought upon himself, is certainly effective, and I can’t argue too much with his Oscar (even if I’d have voted for Wilder).

As for Sheen (who earned a Globe nomination), he too is obviously playing a part he’s played before (his screen acting would soon improve considerably), but he’s still good, especially in his scenes with Neal, which have a confused tenderness that’s highly relatable. Some of Timmy’s lines tend to be on the shticky side, but Sheen’s fundamental charisma shines through.

Grosbard’s direction and Gilroy’s script make some fairly obvious choices in trying to open up the material for the screen, but one sequence in particular, where Neal goes to the beach and wanders around to the strains of a Judy Collins song (a nice song, albeit one at odds with the 40s setting), has a lyrical poignancy specific to that era.

In the end, I waver between rating ROSES a high *** or a low ***½. I lean towards the latter because of the strength of the acting and the best parts of the script, so that’s how I’ll rate it. I won’t recommend it unreservedly (in any case, it’s too hard to find to do that), but for American theater buffs and Oscar completists, it’s definitely worth giving a shot to.

Score: 77

One last point of interest: this, along with 2001, is one of the only films which used this particular version of the MGM logo: