MovieChat Forums > Maurice (1987) Discussion > Siskel and Ebert review 'Maurice'

Siskel and Ebert review 'Maurice'

posted 16 years ago by Swill_Merchant
9 replies | jump to latest

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html ?sec=6&subsec=maurice

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Swill_Merchant 16 years ago

Ebert's review pretty well reflected my own feelings toward the film, but really I think most of the film's flaws arise out of Forster's original source material and not out of Ivory's direction - it's not one of the author's better works. The filmmakers have painstakingly reproduced the construction of Forster's universe and it's exceptionally well-acted - but the trap is really Maurice's blandness; he's a passive and dim-witted character.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] infinata-1 16 years ago

Siskel & Ebert fail to take into acount that Maurice takes place at a time in England when being gay was taboo ! How could an aristocrat like Maurice have a
social friendship with Scudder ?

[–] dancingjinn 15 years ago

I thought Siskel's assertion that we have been through this material "many, many times" was odd. I saw this movie a couple years after it was released and I remember thinking it was quite grounbreaking. I could see SOME comparison with Another Country (basically just that it was a love story between men, set in England) or Brideshead Revisited (although my expectations of a gay love story never materialized there. There were some vague similarities in the relationships in those 2 movies, though).

Other than those 2 very loose associations, I'm drawing a blank on the other "many, many" movies that have covered Maurice's ground. A lot of people seem to be comparing Brokeback Mountain to Maurice and I think that is because there are so few movies, even now, about homosexual lovers/homophobia that even these 2 quite dissimilar movies call for comparison. But in 1987?

It seems pretty bizarre for Siskel to suggest that gay love stories had been OVER done already in 1987 when I can hardly think of any.
How many movies have we had about 2 straight people falling in love, even if you just count the ones set in England or just the ones between different classes? (just rhetorical, don't try to count them or your fingers will fall off).

Or maybe Siskel is counting all those straight love stories in his "many, many" movies. Maybe he means too many love stories set in Edwardian England? If so, I think that's kind of disingenous. Sure love is love, but there are definite distinctions as far as the different issues faced by gay couples, as opposed to straight ones. NOt to mention, it's just a different dynamic and makes the sex/romance scenes nicely different. So hopefully Siskel wasn't implying the homosexuality in Maurice was irrelevant.

Any idea what movies Siskel was talking about because I would probably like to watch them.

[–] dancingjinn 15 years ago

OK, responding to your own post is probably a sign of obsession but I admit I've become a bit obsessed with this movie since rewatching it recently. I kept thinking about Siskel's assertion about how the ground in Maurice had been covered many, many times before (see rant above)and how this seemed to contribute heavily to his negative review of the movie.

It made me think maybe I'd missed all those similar gay love stories made before 1987. So I googled around a bit, trying to find them and came up pretty empty handed.

I did find a list of 50 best gay themed movies ever:

http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2008/9/50greatestgaymovies

Five movies on the list were released prior to Maurice and NONE of those five are similar to Maurice at all. I know the list is subjective and does not include ALL movies with gay characters ever made but it's still fairly telling about the number of high quality movies with gay characters/themes made prior to the 1980's. Would five previous movies with gay characters in the past 17 years (Boys in the Band was the oldest movie on the list and was released in 1970) mean that the subject (if dissimilar movies that happen to have gay characters could be considered a "subject") had already been played out? Weird.

As you can see, that review bothered me quite a bit. I don't care that he didn't like the movie because I'm fine with people having different opinions. It was just his reason that seemed illogical and offensive. I can't help but thinking the implication is that one gay love story (especially one with a happy ending) is one too many for some people. Ebert's fixation on Maurice and Alec not having enough in common to justify their relationship also seems to miss the point. I mean, how many straight love stories are about love at first sight or partners with little in common? It's pretty much a staple of romance movies and I thought the love story between Alec and Maurice was among the most romantic EVER.

Someone please write before I feel the need to reply to myself again :)

[–] smeth 15 years ago

I suspect that Siskel really meant to say "Enough with the gays, already". Like you pointed out, there are gazillions of movies with straight people falling in love. I doubt that Siskel ever dismissed a movie because it had a man and a woman falling in love.

Here are some pre-Maurice movies that didn't make it onto AfterElton's 50 best list(and some should have).

Another Country-already mentioned

My Beautiful Laundrette--(OK, its on the 50 best list)

I may be wrong, but I think Siskel liked both these films. I suspect he didn't mind gay type movies as long as they had BIG THEMES.

Victim(1961)

---an early(Brit) drama about a married man being blackmailed about homo dalliances.

The Killing of Sister George(1968)

---A (Brit)comedy/drama from a stage play. Sort of a lesbian "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" (and some people consider WAOVW to really be about two gay men, not a straight couple!?!)

Midnight Cowboy(1969)
---The only X rated movie to win a Best Picture Oscar. The movie has the main character Joe Buck, a male prostitute, pretty much only "working" form men when he has to. In the novel, Joe Buck likes men, as well as women.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday(1971)

---Yet another Brit drama (they don't shy away from the topic)about a middle aged man, a middle aged woman, and the young fella they both love. (Peter Finch, Glenda Jackson). Won lots of awards, got nominated for 4 Oscars.

Norman Is That You?(1976)
---Didn't like it at all, but groundbreaking in that it's a comedy about Black parents finding out their son likes guys. (Redd Foxx and Pearl Bailey!?!)

Personal Best(1982)
---Lesbian locker room love story. Never saw it.

An Early Frost(1985)
---Aids tv movie. I thought it was boring. Maybe you wouldn't

Desert Hearts(1985)
---Lesbian love blooms in the '50s. Never saw it.

There are a few movies (The Children's Hour-1961) that are about lesbian or gay characters, but during the film people just spend time hiding secrets and NOT talking about them (the topic is too terrible to TALK about). Snore.

[–] dancingjinn 15 years ago

Hi Smeth,
Thanks for the list of movies. I've seen quite a few of them and I now want to check out Sunday, Bloody Sunday which looks pretty interesting.

The list of pre-Maurice movies with prominent gay characters/themes is pretty noteworthy for its shortness (considering it covers over 25 years) and also for its lack of any movies that I would consider at all similar to Maurice (with the exception, already pointed out, of Another Country which had SOME similarity and which I didn't care for). My Beautiful Laundrette was basically similar only in that it was about a relationship between 2 gay men (which in itself made it quite cool for its time) and it was set in England. I did see An Early Frost when it was first shown on t.v. I thought it was pretty interesting at the time, mainly because I had never seen any movie about AIDS before. ZERO similarity with Maurice obviously. Midnight Cowboy was a great movie but any homosexuality mostly had to be read between the lines (unlike the book apparently).

So, yeah, it sounds like "Enough with the gays, already" is exactly what Siskel was saying. BTW, WHAT do you mean about some people thinkng Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf is about two gay men? I've never heard that before. Sounds like some pretty interesting interpretation going on there...

[–] smeth 15 years ago

Hi dancingjinn,

The rumor about Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf is probably only a rumor spread by early critics of the play who felt George and Martha were so unsympathetic that Albee (gay) couldn't possibly have based the characters on a heterosexual couple, (or a gay playwright could be capable of writing about a straight couple) therefore they must really represent a gay male couple. Albee always denied this, and even shut down a stage version in the '80s with the two leads portrayed as men.