MovieChat Forums > A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Discussion > Thematically rich and great cast, but to...

Thematically rich and great cast, but too many eye-rolling elements


The story is thematically rich and I enjoy evaluating and interpreting it. For instance, Blanche represents the dying Southern aristocracy, its airs of sophistication, its morality and delusions of superiority, whereas Stanley Kowalski represents the simple primal world of working class immigrants and the moral decay of modern society or, at least, its veneer of morality. But the way the conflict between Blanche and Stanley plays out shows that Tennessee Williams doesn't advocate either side, which leaves the audience uncertain on who to support. While Blanche's initial arrogance shouldn't be condoned and deserved rebuked, I squarely side with Blanche as Stanley's ongoing (and increasing) assaults become less and less justifiable.

What Blanche did or didn't do with the Dubois estate is a legitimate issue of contention and the truth needed to be pursued, aggressively if necessary; but most of the other issues Stanley has with Blanche are basically none of his business. After all, everyone has shameful skeletons in their closets, even Stanley, but he's too oafish to likely ever admit it. One critic erroneously criticized Blanche for being a "pedophile," but he obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. Pedophilia refers to a persistent sexual fascination with pre-pubescent kids. The worst Blanche can be accused of is ephebophilia, which is an attraction to those in their later teens, roughly 16 and up. This condition is balanced out by her serious romantic interest in Mitch (Malden).

People rave about Brando's acting in "Streetcar," but there are far better examples of his genius, such as "The Young Lions" (1958), "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "The Missouri Breaks" (1976) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979), to name a handful. Marlon's portrayal of Kowalski is undermined by the needlessly antagonistic nature of the character. In other words, the performance might be excellent, but the character is so distasteful it's hard to appreciate.

This is one of the main eye-rolling problems with the story and the movie: The characters are too one-dimensional and unbelievable. Blanche is the drama mama with airs of sophistication, Stanley is the animalistic brute, Stella is the blindly loyal wife and Mitch is the infatuated dumbaxx. Leigh's depiction of Blanche is so over-the-top and artificial it would've received a Razzie if the film were released a mere decade later. And I'm not blaming Vivien; she did the best she could with the melodramatic script.

Even worse, you have ridiculous elements, like the idea that Mitch was never able to see Blanche in the full light of day, so to speak, even though he took her on a date to the pier. The whole "dimming the lights" component is absurd and poorly executed, especially in light of Vivien's obvious beauty, whatever her age. In reality, pug-nosed Mitch would (and should) be worshipping at her feet for eternity, regardless of any skeletons of her past.

Then there's the preposterous explanation of the suicide of an off-screen character. In the play the reason was that he was caught in a homosexual affair, which is interesting and works (particularly considering the time period), but they changed this for the movie due to the moral codes and they failed to pull it off, to be nice.

reply

Leigh is over the top, but Brando is fascinating as a brute and boor with a brain. The more I see him in this, the more I realize there is more to Stanley than just an a-hole in a beer-stained wife-beater. That's largely owing to Williams, but also owes a lot to Brando. I agree with you on "The Young Lions" and "One-Eyed Jacks", but his Fletcher Christian is pure ham and Dick Van Dyke school of bad accents.

reply

I thought Brando was captivating in "Mutiny on the Bounty," questionable accent or not.

Then again, I don't pay much attention to accents in historically-based movies since, if the film in question really depicted them talking the way Brits did back in the late 1700s, viewers wouldn't be able to understand them.

reply

Leigh is playing a woman who is over the top, it is her defense both against the world and herself. The characterization Leigh gives to Blanche is, I feel, completely suitable, and is actually an interesting foil for Brando.

reply

I know this is a very old thread, but I didn't see this mentioned anywhere else on the board and I wanted to put it out there.

I don't think Blanche had a "serious romantic interest in Mitch." My sense was that she was using Mitch's attraction to her to obtain security.

reply

Security through what would be a serious romantic relationship with Mitch.

reply

But I don't think she loved him, nor thought she ever would. She just needed a man to protect and care for her because she was no good on her own.

In other words, serious relationship yes, romantic no. Not on her part anyway.

reply

Blanche needed a meal ticket, that was all she saw in Mitch. If he'd been fool enough to marry her she'd have spent the duration of their marriage making him feel inferior for being an honest working man, and fucking the local high school boys behind his back. Mitch really dodged a bullet!

And no, I'm not one of the sexist nutters on this site who think that all women are money-leeching vampires, I'm a leftie and a feminist. I'm just aware that Blanche wasn't a real woman, she's a character created by a man, a gay man (who liked rough guys like Stanley). She and the play are memorable, but not exactly realistic. There's a reason Williams's plays have fallen out of fashion.



reply

I'm a leftie and a feminist.


Leftists are usually only "feminist" in virtue-signaling pretense. For instance, the ludicrous Lib advice to woman who are threatened by rape is to piss themselves in order to spoil the rapist's mood/libido (which will naturally tick him off and he may very well seriously injure or kill her). The Conservative advice, by contrast, is to pull out a Glock and make the thug scum piss himself.

You see, the Leftist ideology -- despite their blustering claims -- disempowers women and makes them victims whereas the Conservative position empowers them and makes them victors. A plus with the latter position is that you won't hear Conservatives constantly bloviating on how virtuous they (supposedly) are.

Another good example is how Lefties celebrate biological males winning beauty contests or female sports competitions and socially pressure everyone else to do the same, like here https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/biological-male-wins-miss-greater-derry-beauty-pageant-america-transgender. Obviously you can't be truly "feminist" if you encourage and celebrate males taking over a decidedly female competition. Imagine being the best female swimmer in a competition and having a glaring male win over you, not to mention ludicrously awarded & honored by the blind masses for it? Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R53f7l-Ye2Q.

reply

Her goal was hooking up with Mitch and the benefits thereof. Assuming she didn't have romantic feelings for the man, she would at least put up the pretense; and having regular sex with someone in a committed relationship certainly suggests a romantic relationship. Meanwhile Mitch would have romantic feelings toward her. As such, it's a romantic relationship.

Sure, the ideal is to have romantic feelings both ways, but that's not always the case. And some women, like Blanche, are more than willing to give up hot romance for security. Another thing to consider is that romantic feelings can develop over time in a committed relationship and often do. (Maybe not with Blanche though, lol).

reply

"...but too many eye-rolling elements"

The older I get, the more I think that you've summed up Tennessee Williams's career in one short phrase! He's really fallen out of fashion as a playwright, which I suppose was inevitable, as he did write for shock value, all shock value diminishes with time. Part of the reason that he's no longer taken seriously is that all the gay issues he addressed with context or sex-changing characters or used for shock value, are now accepted as totally normal or are discussed openly. Time and progress left him behind, nothing he has to say about gay issues or genteel pretensions of the South he grew up in have any relevance today, and if you take away the shock value and gay issues and regional relevance in his work... what's left for modern audiences?

Not nothing, God knows the class issues that underly "ASND" are still around, and who can't identify with the tensions in the Kowalski home with the housing crunch we have now? And the dynamics of families like the Pollitts are still with us, there relationship in his best plays are still strong. But really, most of what the audiences of the 1940s and 1950s enjoyed in his work, has lost relevance.

reply

He wrote some worthwhile movies that hold up despite their natural datedness, like "The Fugitive Kind" and "Night of the Iguana." I have yet to see "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."

reply

You comment is so out of touch. The moral code at the time... They did the best they could, given the circumstances. You may as well lament that lack of CGI at the time, so that they could have situated it on another planet to be more interesting to you.

You can't compare an actor's performance to future ones that are yet to happen - at the time it was mind blowing - not to mention that the role itself is constrained in range.

Most of the actors in the film were practicing "method acting", but Leigh didn't, which made her look more of a drama queen than she was. Also, her character was mentally disturbed and overly emotional, which is clear from the start. She did a superb job and it is fun to watch a method actor and a classical actor trying to outdo each other.

It is a play and the rules about how you write it are a bit different. Realism and dimensionality often are of a secondary importance. I really liked how she was trying to hide herself under makeup, by dimming the lights and staying in shadows, because she was ashamed and because she was afraid that somebody may read her face. And you are trying to rationalize it... Jeez.

reply

The moral code at the time... They did the best they could


The Hays Code wasn't rigidly enforced until late 1934, which was the year "Tarzan and His Mate" came out, a flick that featured overt nudity. That was a mere 15 years earlier, so let's not act like the producers of "Streetcar" were clueless puritans. With a little imagination, they could've pulled off the suicide of an off-screen character; as it is, it was preposterous. This has zero to do with the Hays Code being in effect and everything to do with simple creativity & competence, regardless of production constraints.

You may as well lament the lack of CGI, so that they could have situated it on another planet to be more interesting to you.


This is totally irrelevant to the discussion and therefore hollow bluster. I like old, stagey dramas just fine, as long as they're effectively done and not needlessly burdened by eye-rolling bits.

You can't compare an actor's performance to future ones that are yet to happen


It was the movie that put Brando on the map (only his second film), so the masses were impressed with his charisma & method acting. But that doesn't change the fact that his character is unjustly distasteful, which makes it hard to appreciate the performance. His portrayal of Napoleon in "Désirée" just 3 years later and a disillusioned German officer in "The Young Lions" 7 years later are more impressive. All of these came out in the 50s, so it's perfectly reasonable to compare them.

Speaking of which, who says I can't compare an actor's performances from different points in his (or her) career? Who makes-up these non-existent rules? It's the same person, just different decades.

I really liked how she was trying to hide herself under makeup, dimming the lights and staying in shadows, because she was ashamed and... afraid somebody may read her face.


That's a good defense. Nevertheless, I found the whole "dimming the lights" component ludicrous and weakly executed, especially in light of Vivien's glaring beauty. I'm pretty sure Mitch got a good look at her during their date to the pier (wherein the whole point is to examine a person inside & out to see if you want to commit to them romantically, even possibly marry in due time). The producers needed a less-attractive, possibly older actress to pull it off. As it was, homely Mitch would be ecstatic to land such a whoa-man, regardless of her age or questionable past.

I'm not saying, by the way, that "Streetcar" doesn't have its points of interest. Both you and I detailed most of 'em. I was just pointing out some notable flaws from my perspective, which are valid whether it's 1951 or 2023.

If I'm going to enjoy a stagey B&W Brando drama made in the 50s and written by Tennessee Williams, I'll go with "The Fugitive Kind" any day.

Let me add that I respect your evaluation of the film; so don't take me in the wrong spirit. It's a piece of art open to the individual viewer's estimation; you just appreciate it more than me and so give it a pass concerning some dubious elements.

reply

I'm not sure what you mean about the suicide. It was pretty clear that the guy killed himself. What was censored is that he had a homosexual relationship. Showing the suicide itself would have required a flashback, and I like it better that they made Blanche hallucinate the gun shot. Suicide was still problematic at the time. Just watched "The Asphalt Jungle ", made around the same time, and they gave John Huston a hard time because of the suicide of one of the characters.

At that time this was the best Brando and he deserved the praise. It is easy to judge today in retrospect that he did better job in later roles. His character is a one-dimensional brute, but Brando did a great job in balancing it. Sometime Kowalski is menacing, sometimes a man deeply in love, sometimes likeable and funny. We get to hate him toward the end because of what we did to Blanche and this is actually what annoyed me about the censorship: it was not clear to me that he raped her, which would have better explained why she went completely bonkers.

reply

I forgot to respond to your comment on realism. If the story takes place in the real world -- as opposed to, say, the fantasy of Star Wars -- then it's reasonable to criticize it based on realism.

In any case, you do a good job of defending the movie. I need to see it again to remember the particulars.

reply