User reviews

I'm supposing that when you deal with a three character play, expanded to five for the screen, everyone is a lead. It's strange to me that Jack Albertson was not considered for Best Actor as he has as much if not more screen time than Patricia Neal. And certainly Martin Sheen as their son equals their time in The Subject Was Roses.

The Subject Was Roses was a Pulitzer Prize winning play that ran for 832 performances on Broadway starting in 1965. Albertson and Sheen recreate the roles they did on stage and Patricia Neal replaces Irene Dailey from the Broadway cast. Albertson won a Tony Award for Best Actor yet he only one for Best Supporting Actor for the film. Go figure.

Albertson and Neal are Mr.&Mrs. Cleary who have a red letter day in their lives in 1945. Their son Tim played by Martin Sheen has come home from World War II. He's been gone for several years, probably the duration of the American involvement in World War II.

Absence has made Sheen see his parents in a whole new light. As it turns out they're not the happiest of people. Albertson's totally consumed with business and making a success for himself. He's so self absorbed that he treats Neal like a doormat. And in his cultural background the woman merely acquiesces to the men.

I remember years ago a woman I knew was of Irish background and was involved politically as the female Republican State Committeewoman of her district. She was nice and popular and knew her place. When her male counterpart was getting together with some cronies to pull a power play in the party in her county of Kings, she wasn't crazy about it. When asked about whether she approved or not she wasn't sure, but since THE MEN are in favor of it, she would acquiesce.

Patricia Neal stopped acquiescing after a few ugly arguments with Albertson and Sheen. Her big act of defiance was to take $50.00 worth of accumulated change, get on a bus and have a big fling just getting out and about for several hours. For her that was tantamount to a declaration of independence.

The Subject Was Roses set in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx which is still an Irish enclave there, though not anything like it was in 1946 is author Frank D. Gilroy's bittersweet memories of the place. I'd love to know who the models for his characters were, hopefully not him and his own parents.

The only other nomination was Patricia Neal for Best Actress which makes Albertson in the Supporting Category equally strange. 1968 was the year of the tie between Katharine Hepburn for The Lion In Winter and Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl.

Maybe Albertson was right to be considered in the Supporting Category purely in terms of winning. Still he and Neal are a matched team of marrieds facing a most uncertain future when Sheen leaves the nest. The Subject Was Roses was a nice slice of Bronx life circa 1946 and holds up well today.

I was a senior in high school, or freshman in college when this film came out. My favorite female vocalist was Judy Collins and her Wildflowers album. Now in 2018,I am finally seeing this film and voila! The songs are by Judy Collins! They accompany the film well! Watching Martin Sheen in his early years of who he was to become. Wow. Excellent acting. And I have always loved Patrice O'Neal. Very poignant film, with 3 main actors/actress. Nicely done, well scripted, and no three actors could have portrayed their parts better. Timeless.

A very young MARTIN SHEEN plays a soldier returning from the war and the small apartment he shares with his parents (PATRICIA NEAL and JACK ALBERTSON). Neal is excellent as the drab housewife, somewhat embittered over her strained relationship with a husband who has never recovered from the Depression blues. Sheen finds himself caught again in the tension between his bickering parents and the film is essentially a coming of age tale for the young man who has to cope with what seems an overwhelming domestic problem.

Nothing is really resolved in the course of the story, but it's a realistic slice of life and is played earnestly and skillfully by its three main characters.

It was Patricia Neal's first film after overcoming a long illness associated with her stroke. She looks the picture of a weary housewife burdened by the sorrows of a crumbling marriage and deserved her Oscar nomination.

As was the case with the recently-viewed BUTTERFIELD 8 (1960), I repeatedly missed out on one this over the years – including a local TV broadcast; with this in mind, I was not especially looking forward to a three-parter talkfest – but the result was surprisingly compelling, perceptively written and very well-acted. The film was proudly listed as "Frank D. Gilroy's THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES", but Patricia Neal's sole above-the-title credit was misleading – as the role (which landed her a Best Actress Oscar nomination) is no bigger than those of Jack Albertson (who actually won in the Supporting Actor category) or Martin Sheen (who received a Golden Globe nomination instead)! Having said that, it was Oscar winner Neal's return to the screen after a series of strokes had almost killed her in 1965…so that could well have been the reason behind it; incidentally, both men were recreating their stage roles here.

The plot is quite simple: WWII veteran Sheen's return home opens up a can of worms as to how his parents view him. Albertson had thought Neal over-protective in his regards and, in fact, expresses amazement that he made it back without so much as a scratch; she, on the other hand, begins to worry that the boy has grown up too fast – especially since he is making his best (read: trying too hard) to fill his father's shoes, down to the excessive intake of alcohol and repeating a ditty the older man spouts whenever annoyed at something! The situation comes to a head when the two men go out and return with a bunch of roses for her: Sheen insists Albertson tell her he thought of the gift himself, which she takes as an attempt by her philandering husband to change his ways…but when, during an argument between mother and son, the latter informs her the flowers were his idea, she realizes she has lost the affection of both men (given that the boy was willing to deceive her as well)! This leads to her walking out for some 12 hours (just when they were expected at her convention-bound mother's house for the weekly Sunday dinner appointment) – during which Sheen decides it is high time for him to take charge of his own life...

While, as I said, the film is basically just three people interacting – eating, dancing, musing (about their achievements and regrets), or shouting in each other's faces (including the probing of religious faith) – what goes on is so universal that, at some point, one is bound to find something that can be related to…and therein lies its strength (to which the three performers give an exceptional ring of truth)! With respect to the TCM-sourced print, there was some cropping involved as the channel logo was barely visible and some picture freezing/imbalance half-way through (when the former occurred again at the very end, it emerged merely a stylistic trait which quickly led to a dissolve into the final credit-roll!). By the way, the soundtrack is peppered with a number of ear-friendly folk songs showcasing the voice of Judy Collins.

I never watched (much) of this movie when it was on TCM. I thought it was a Viet Nam Movie. Today the channel was on and I let it go. Patricia Neal's birthday, I think. It seemed like it was a play, and for me most plays are kind of boring. I guess I'm just a '50's action kid and that's from where our current 15 second attention spans were spawned.

Well, this one was cool. For one, my mind was muddled as I have repeatedly misread the DISH synopsis's blurb as about a Viet Nam veteran's return home to "bickering parents". Today it read "WWII Veteran" and I saw the difference.

But it was made in 1968. Seeing this flick in that light, as I remember Viet Nam and the Draft I could watch it as both a relic of the time and surprisingly, as a well written study of the timeliness of the characters we are - then, as well as today. Timothy (Sheen) had returned in remarkably good shape. His parents had little to worry about, and didn't, about how he had survived the war, "I never volunteered for anything, Dad", was one singular thing his character said. I knew guys like this that were draftees from 1968. Life for a U.S.Army draftee could be mild or hot - assignments were random. One could get drafted back then or beat the game and enlist. For me, the envied "Student Deferment" was not an option. I myself had a marginally unique skill and as the Young Moderns say, "leveraged" that to enlist in the Navy. Or maybe they don't say anymore.

If a good play could be made into a good movie, the director (Ulu Grosbard according to IMDb and I've never seen any of his other movies) should get a lot of credit. And play writer Frank D. Gilroy hit one out of the park with this one.

The very first film directed by Ulu Grosbard. Jack Albertson (best known for Willy Wonka... 1971) and Patricia Neal (Hud, Breakfast at Tiffanys) star in this argue-fest. Martin Sheen is the son, Timmy, who comes home from war, and enters another war zone... his own home, where his parents never stop arguing. This was one of Sheen's first film roles. He had done mostly TV series up until this time. It's a study of how things change... Timmy has come back to the same house, after only three years, but his parents are so much older, and having senior moments and a battle for control. It's pretty serious. Buckle your seat belts and get ready for a journey... kind of like "Virginia Wolfe". Pretty good. Pretty serious. Won awards.

This film version of Frank Gilroy's unforgettable play should be considered a classic. Patricia Neal, Jack Albertson & Martin Sheen deliver outstanding performances as the parents & young adult son in an Irish-American, lower middle class family living in the Bronx at the end of World War 2.

The story centers on the son, Timmy, who has just returned home from the Army after fighting in combat as an infantryman in Europe. He returns to a home in which the relationship of his parents is undergoing strain, due primarily to discreet but nevertheless damaging extra marital affairs occasionally indulged in by the father, who is a kind of loquacious, traveling salesman type who meets lots of people in his work. The mother is played as a suffering in silence housewife who, although she loves her husband, has been deeply hurt by his infidelities.

Timmy, now changed by the war & his experiences away from home must come to terms with things as they now are. He loves both of his parents deeply but comes to realize that in order to live his life fully he will have to leave his parent's house which is now no longer what it used to be for him. His parents, while dealing with their own problems, want Timmy to stay but on another level realize that he has to leave. You will have to watch to see how things are resolved.

Timmy Cleary (Martin Sheen) returns home in the Bronx from the war after three years. He finds his parents Nettie (Patricia Neal) and John (Jack Albertson) constantly at odds. Their marriage is falling apart.

This is adapted from a popular award-winning play. It has three top level actors. Sheen is still in his early TV days. He's just starting his movie career. Patricia Neal is destroying. Director Ulu Grosbard keeps the settings simple and flat. This is not cinematic. The colors are dull. The cinematography is simple. It's a three person play translated without flair onto the big screen. Even their big night out is shot simply. All the power is generated by the actors. The camera work is not really helping. As a movie, it gets a pass and I have to give an extra star for Patricia Neal's performance.

I saw this film at 3am on Bravo and couldn't turn it off. For some reason both the play and the film adaptation never came across my radar. What a wonderful surprise to discover this gem. It is a fine example, like "The Odd Couple," of how to stage a Broadway play for the big screen. Though I haven't seen the play to make a comparison, the director is faithful to the pacing and staging of a play, while using the camera skillfully to enhance the meaning and drama. And the performances! All three actors were stellar; they owned these characters. They were exceptionally nuanced; not once did they play over the top or to the balcony, where other actors might have been tempted to chew the scenery to show the depth of the emotional drama of this play. Though filmed in 1968, it doesn't feel a bit dated, it holds up beautifully as a relevant, poignant and very meaningful drama of an American family.

Martin Sheen returns home from the war to the New York apartment of his parents Patricia Neal and Jack Albertson. The return of the soldier brings to the head unspoken hurts and slights that have flamed within this family circle for years. Neal's first role after recovering from several strokes finds her shaky yet determined as the long-suffering wife/mother, while Jack Albertson is full of spit and vinegar as the husband/father who longs to be king of his 2-bedroom castle. Sheen finds himself used as a weapon by each of the parents against each other, yet he sees that deeper than the sparring and disappointments is a deep love between Neal and Albertson. There is a truly moving section of the film, when Neal leaves the family for a day with no explanation and wanders along the beach while the soundtrack plays Judy Collins' haunting "Who Knows Where the Time Goes". I saw this film for the first time last year on TCM, and it has become one of my favorites, due primarily to the emotional performances of Neal, Albertson, and Sheen.

Difficult to like any of these characters. Therefore film hard to stay with. Very literary. Very little relief. Sometimes inconsistent. Old-fashioned, maybe because characters are from another era. Playwright is no Tennessee Williams! Could have included Nettie's mother and Willard as characters and cut out some of the intense dialogue. Probably autobiographical. Whatever happened to Timmy's curtains?

Parents Patricia Neal (Oscar-nominated) and Jack Albertson (Oscar-winning) welcome back son Martin Sheen from World War II and the event leads to emotional fireworks for all involved in this intense and sometimes difficult-to-sit-through drama from 1968. Albertson has ruled with an iron-fist for years and basically done whatever he has wanted to do, while Neal has been stuck in a loveless and heartless marriage. Sheen has always been somewhat unaware of all that had transpired due to being physically sick for much of his youth. Sheen brings roses to his mother and say they are from Albertson and this small, kind gesture starts an almost unending string of events that will affect all three of the key players and in the end happiness is not a certainty by a long-shot. The film is an intense character study in the tradition of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". Albertson, known for comedy and sometimes uninspired performances, gives the performance of his lifetime and easily one of the best performances of the 1960s. 4 stars out of 5.

Coming back from World War II, Martin Sheen is greeted by his parents as they really are and not the adult pretenses they orchestrated to bring up a child...It is a crash course in growing up, between fighting in the war and now being an adult and seeing things for what they truly are..His parents (Patricia Neal and Jack Albertson) fought all their lives to be one notch better than most people who experienced the Depression, they are proud of their summer home and their apartment in New York City...They detest the term "Shanty Irish" because it serves as a resentful motivation due to what it represents. The parents realize the price they paid for assimilation into American culture!! Both of them gave up in life a long time ago, and they will remain cynical in their outlook in life because they are tired of disappointments winning out!!...Suddenly disillusionment is as visible as the kitchen wallpaper!!! The roses Martin Sheen bring home to his mother (supposedly from his father) symbolize an uplifting emotion that never prevailed in the Cleary household!! (The parent's love and marital bond was constantly in question!!!) This coupled with the fifty dollars in quarters that Patricia Neal had been saving all of her adult life which she decides to take and spend in one weekend, creates a spark for a family always bludgeoned by mediocrity...The patronizing demeanor to the mother, the placatory concessions to the father, and the wry and sanctimonious disenchantment with the son, indicates an anger all three of them have for the fact that the entire household situation has dramatically changed without warning!! Martin Sheen has now become thoroughly aware of the fact that his parents' happiness has abrupt and desultory conclusions!! The important bond at the end of the movie is the fact that they all love each other, and all three of them are willing to prove this to each other the hard way!!..What they truly had ambitions for will never happen, even probably for the son (Martin Sheen) because failure in terms of egotistical accomplishment in this household is handwriting on the wall. Adulthood is not about success nor sophistication, it is about acceptance..This movie is a superb character portrayal...It encompasses a 360 degree perspective on what family members go through to fully understand one another, this includes a very distasteful compromising forgiveness by way of accepting the frustration of unanswered questions and deliberate unexplainable shortcomings!! Human inadequacies of this nature are often times neglected in a movie because the characters in a lot of movies are totally flat!!. "The Subject was Roses" was a film which was tremendously bolstered by well accomplished actors who thoroughly comprehended their roles, thus doing an excellent job of depicting a situation that deals with emotional failure being the norm, rather than the exception to the rule!!! EXCELLENT!!!...I GIVE IT A 10!!!!

Frank Gilroy adapted his Broadway triumph for the screen, apparently freezing every original line and action in its place until the results nearly resemble an assembly-line production. Jack Albertson won a Supporting Actor Oscar for recreating his stage role of sad, anxious father welcoming son Martin Sheen home from the war after three years. Talky, melodramatic, but superbly-acted family reunion featuring lovely Patricia Neal as Sheen's mother (her first role after recuperating from a series of strokes). Gilroy's dialogue doesn't always flow naturally, and some of the give-and-take is puzzling and/or awkward (something a looser direction might have helped to avoid), but the characters are interesting and the film is occasionally moving. ** from ****

This is a movie I've seen before but never really took time to take in. Thanks to TCM for giving me the opportunity to do just that. Seeing Martin Sheen, as young Timmy Cleary, a soldier returning from WW II, in a great dramatic role and in one of his earliest movies was a treat. He is an actor I have great respect for, professionally and personally. Sheen is paired with the great Patricia Neal and Jack Albertson in two powerful roles, as Nettie and John Cleary.

The movie takes place in the Bronx (a borough of New York City) with Sheen back home after his war service. His parents are tremendously grateful at how their soft-spoken and good natured son has survived the war so well. However, we soon see that all is not well with their relationship. I suspect that young Timmy learned to adapt to that conflict early in life. The father has made a great deal of money over the years through his nefarious business contacts. Nettie's knight in shining armour was a man who did what he felt was necessary after the crash of 1929 and the deep depression that followed. However, on an outing with the family, it's clear he is a man about town. The Irish culture that Tim's dad is so dependent on, is his foundation and support. He insists that Tim go to Sunday mass and falls back on cliché expressions as if he just landed from the Emerald Isle.

Tim and his dad take a drive through the rugged countryside outside the city and visit the summer home that they are so fond of. They share a lot of conversation and clearly enjoy each others' company. They visit a village bar and enjoy a few whiskies. Tim knows the deep rift in his family but is very good at covering up. This is also true of his war service, not unusual for someone of his generation. But he has learned for the most part to bury his feelings. Tim is well aware of his Dad's shortcomings and buys his mother roses which he says comes from his dad. Nettie is touched to the core but it turns out even this gesture is a trick, which leads to more conflict. Nettie escapes the home life she is trapped in and visits her own side of the family. She is seen walking on the seashore taking in the air away from her flat in the city. On her outing, she is approached by a gentleman who she turns aside, no doubt because she has remained faithful to her marriage vows.

There is no resolution to this story but we don't really expect it. What I like about TCM is the fact that I get to see old movies I would never see on TV anymore. This is a perfect example of a very good movie that could easily be overlooked.

A powerful adaptation of Frank D. Gilroy's Pulitzer Prize-winning play. Timmy Cleary has just returned home to the Bronx after fighting in World War II. It doesn't take long, however, before he finds himself in the middle of his parents' bickering. His mother and father, Nettie and John, are stuck in an unhappy marriage that only seems to get worse with the passage of time. John has never rebounded from the Depression, when his business failed, and, as a result, the couple has only barely scraped by over the years. But being away at war has made Timmy grow up and, for the first time, he starts coming to terms with his troubled parents...

Basically a stage play set to film, Roses showcases some real acting talent. The talent referred to belongs to Jack Albertson (who one the Oscar for Best Actor), Patricia Neal, and a young Martin Sheen. Aside from two minor roles, these are the only actors in the play/film. So are they good enough to hold your attention? You bet. This film just clips right along.

Reminiscent of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", Roses is about the cold relationship between a husband, his wife, and, to a lesser degree, their son. There is no laughter, no touching, no warmth. There is plenty of anger, denial, and despair. These people are pretty much total dysfunctional. Do their conflicts end up being resolved? You tell me.

Add me to the list of people who feel like this movie (and the play it's based on) may have resonated with a generation coming out of WWII but feels dated and inconsequential now.

Near the end of the film, during yet another tedious argument Martin Sheen's character is having with his father, played by Jack Albertson, Sheen says something like "we're talking in circles." Boy is that an apt description of this entire movie. It's just a non-stop barrage of petty bickering that picks at the same topics over and over again, without the topics themselves being meaty enough to feel dramatically satisfying. Sheen isn't once convincing as the son of Albertson and his wife, played by Patricia Neal. There's a certain chemistry that exists between family members, even dysfunctional ones, that is missing here. Albertson picked up a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance, but his overbearing father is nearly intolerable by the time the movie's over.

Neal also received an Oscar nod, in the Best Actress category, despite the fact that Albertson is on screen as much as she is, but I can understand why the filmmakers felt like she could compete in the lead while Albertson didn't have a chance. That kind of category fraud still happens all the time now.

Grade: C+