This is one of those worthy American TV half hours based on a serious short story by a major writer, in this case William Faulkner. The story is about an odd spinster in a small town in Alabama in the 1890s, and her strange tale. It is the first directorial effort of Lyndon Chubbuck, who did very well at it. The story is enough to sustain 27 minutes with the well-scripted narration of John Houseman to carry it through its exposition, and Houseman delivers this in his usual confiding but magisterial style, as if he were an old judge telling us of a case he had once presided over. I am not a William Faulkner fan, but never mind, this is an interesting film and I preferred the fact that it was short, so that I was not subjected to Faulkner's gloom for too long. The story, as one might expect, has a grisly aspect, but to avoid revealing too much, I draw back my breath and say no more about that. What is most striking about this film and makes it work is the excellent central performance of Anjelica Huston as Emily. She has to pull this off with minimal dialogue, as an exercise in sheer 'presence projection'. Despite this being a very early effort of hers, it is entirely successful, and she already seems an old pro, despite being young at the time. This is certainly an early performance to be proud of, and she need have no fear of being embarrassed by juvenilia in this case. It is a very fine film, and the sort of thing of which more should be done. All those who band together to bring classics to the screen on American TV are heroic figures deserving of our thanks. If only this kind of thing could happen more often, but alas, the unstoppable Rise of Decadence will make films like this seem in retrospect like the last flickerings of culture before the candle went out.
9 Reviews
Bitter-sweet romance horror...
OOlada7720 June 2001
I first saw this film in high school, and fell in love with it, Personally I believe it was just as good as the short story..maybe even a little better. Twisted and different for most films, many emotions overwhelmed me when I saw this film for the first time. Though this film is only 27 minutes long..it gives you the perfect feel for the character, and the story is told well. If you are able to find this movie for sale or rent..I say watch it, it is well worth your time..... 10 out of 10 stars!! great job guys!!!
A Dandelion for Emily
sberner-14 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER INCLUDED!! Though other screenwriters intentionally rejected the Faulkner story they were supposed to be adapting Chubbuck seems to have wanted to film "A Rose For Emily" but failed to understand the story. "A Rose for Emily" as written by Faulkner is efficiently told - there are no diversions or distractions. Chubbuck's attempts to flesh out a sparse tale jar: death at the table is death at the camera. More importantly, Faulkner's details matter. What happens to Emily's hair over time must - absolutely must be mentioned. It need not be trumpeted at high volume, and in fact subtly is better, but the story can not be told without that information being imparted. By keeping Huston's hair dark in the mortuary Chubbuck destroyed in the very first scene any chance he had of capturing the horror. As a consequence, those who don't know the story might not understand the ending. And those who do know it spend the next 26 minutes (out of 27) wondering what else will be not just wrong but fatally so.
I'm puzzled as to how this movie came to be made. Huston already had a name; Carradine and Houseman were already stars. Were they working for reduced pay? - if so, why? If not, how could a 27 minute movie have justified the budget? At under half an hour it was not going to make money in theaters and not much from broadcast rights. I had thought that this had been out of print since shortly after its release - I've just discovered that Pyramid is still selling it, but at $79 for VHS and $89 for DVD they can not expect to sell very many. And if this is being offered as a particularly polished product worth the money why is Lyndon Chubbuck's name misspelled on the box?
I'm puzzled as to how this movie came to be made. Huston already had a name; Carradine and Houseman were already stars. Were they working for reduced pay? - if so, why? If not, how could a 27 minute movie have justified the budget? At under half an hour it was not going to make money in theaters and not much from broadcast rights. I had thought that this had been out of print since shortly after its release - I've just discovered that Pyramid is still selling it, but at $79 for VHS and $89 for DVD they can not expect to sell very many. And if this is being offered as a particularly polished product worth the money why is Lyndon Chubbuck's name misspelled on the box?
my view of the movie
shortstuff_12122 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"A Rose for Emily", by William Faulkner, is a southern Gothic horror story that reveals the disastrous romance between Emily Grierson and Homer Baron. Despite a lifetime of repression under Emily's tyrannical father, who denied all of her would be suitors, Emily finally found Homer, a man that she wished to marry. Although many in the town felt that Emily was disgracing her family name by this affair, Emily desired this relationship enough to kill for it. While Faulkner masterfully leads the reader through this bizarre romance using glimpses of the past, the movie version of "A Rose for Emily," directed by Lyndon Chubbuck starring Angelica Houston and John Randolph, presents the story chronologically which creates a predictable ending.
Although the story "A Rose for Emily" is widely read and loved, the movie fails to bring about the same attached feeling. The beauty of Faulkner's version is that it is not until the resolution that the reader realizes the true crime of Emily revealing a classic Gothic horror story. Placing the plot in chronological order makes the ending expected thus nullifying the dramatic surprise, as well as, a feeling that something terribly wrong is happening that the viewers cannot discover. What would possess Lyndon Chubbuck to tell the story in chronological order that Faulkner purposely wrote out of order, is beyond my comprehension. Chubbuck has yet to direct a successful feature film but has had some acclaim as a director of a few television series. The performance of John Randolph leaves the viewer running to the ticket booth or rental store to attempt to obtain a refund. The scene which shows him dying by choking on his food, which is not in the short story, was suppose to alarm and strike fear into the viewers, when it actually made them laugh hysterically. Although Angelica Houston is a great actress and will win many awards, she delivers a lack luster performance and fails to ever bring the viewers deep into her characters twisted almost psychotic mind. In the short story, the character of Emily makes a drastic change in age, which the movie fails to convey. The only scene which somewhat salvages the movie is the final scene in which the cousins discover the body of Homer in a locked up room in a bed. They soon find out that Emily has been sleeping next to him for many years, despite that he is dead. When the screenwriter changed this final scene from the townspeople finding Homer to the cousins, he loses one of the underlying themes Faulkner hopes to convey that nosy neighbors often corrupt small towns by influencing the behaviors of its inhabitants. This theme is completely missing in the movie version diminishing the overall horrific tone.
To those who enjoy classical literature and well-crafted film-making, this movie is not worth viewing. Time would be better spent rereading the original Faulkner tale. Hopefully, some day a screenwriter, director and some skilled actors will create a new movie that reflects the genius of Faulkner and the universal appeal of Gothic literature. Until that time, reading is better than watching.
Although the story "A Rose for Emily" is widely read and loved, the movie fails to bring about the same attached feeling. The beauty of Faulkner's version is that it is not until the resolution that the reader realizes the true crime of Emily revealing a classic Gothic horror story. Placing the plot in chronological order makes the ending expected thus nullifying the dramatic surprise, as well as, a feeling that something terribly wrong is happening that the viewers cannot discover. What would possess Lyndon Chubbuck to tell the story in chronological order that Faulkner purposely wrote out of order, is beyond my comprehension. Chubbuck has yet to direct a successful feature film but has had some acclaim as a director of a few television series. The performance of John Randolph leaves the viewer running to the ticket booth or rental store to attempt to obtain a refund. The scene which shows him dying by choking on his food, which is not in the short story, was suppose to alarm and strike fear into the viewers, when it actually made them laugh hysterically. Although Angelica Houston is a great actress and will win many awards, she delivers a lack luster performance and fails to ever bring the viewers deep into her characters twisted almost psychotic mind. In the short story, the character of Emily makes a drastic change in age, which the movie fails to convey. The only scene which somewhat salvages the movie is the final scene in which the cousins discover the body of Homer in a locked up room in a bed. They soon find out that Emily has been sleeping next to him for many years, despite that he is dead. When the screenwriter changed this final scene from the townspeople finding Homer to the cousins, he loses one of the underlying themes Faulkner hopes to convey that nosy neighbors often corrupt small towns by influencing the behaviors of its inhabitants. This theme is completely missing in the movie version diminishing the overall horrific tone.
To those who enjoy classical literature and well-crafted film-making, this movie is not worth viewing. Time would be better spent rereading the original Faulkner tale. Hopefully, some day a screenwriter, director and some skilled actors will create a new movie that reflects the genius of Faulkner and the universal appeal of Gothic literature. Until that time, reading is better than watching.
Are You Kidding Me?
cumberpanda21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was a poor excuse for an adaption. "A Rose for Emily" is a wonderfully spun tale with an enchantingly twisted plot. Unfortunately, this film did it zero justice. I've got nearly thirty Honors English students and my teacher behind me on this one, too.
SPOILERS from HERE ON OUT.
1.) What was with the scene with the whole "Let's pass the razor as a sign of my attraction to you!" between Emily and Homer? Is that just a Southern Gothic thing? It was completely unnecessary and added no substance to their relationship or plot.
2.) The acting was of the utmost mediocrity. There was no feeling in any of the dialogue. Example: Emily: "That's my father. He died."
Homer: "Let's go." What?? Way to be sympathetic, Homer. Emily should have dumped his sorry (or in this case, not-so-sorry) behind right then and there.
3.) The events are not in sequential order, as in the story. However, with the way the filmmakers put it, they might as well have Tarantino'ed the whole thing and started at the end.
4.) When Emily is in the drugstore buying her anthrax, the druggist asks her what she plans on using it for, as required by law. In the story, she stares him down until he quails and gets her the anthrax. In the movie, she looks away. NO, NO, NO. The stare is essential because it shows that despite Emily's vuneralbility and questionable sanity, she is not one to be reckoned with. It is a subtle, but powerful action.
5.) Speaking of which, the archetypes, which were the only satisfactory parts of the film, were way too obvious. Archetyple elements are unobvious foreshadowing. The only thing that was there was the foreshadowing. Captain Obvious was definitely directing this film.
6.) Faulkner is brilliant with detail and is not shy about using it. Emily is supposed to be fat, with 'iron grey hair' in the beginning and the end. So, someone please explain to me why Emily is thin and attractive throughout the ENTIRE movie? And the streak of pathetic grey hair does not cut it. Nor does the cobweb masquerading as a strand of hair at the end.
END SPOILERS
If you have read the story, do not bother watching the film. It will only ruin it for you.
SPOILERS from HERE ON OUT.
1.) What was with the scene with the whole "Let's pass the razor as a sign of my attraction to you!" between Emily and Homer? Is that just a Southern Gothic thing? It was completely unnecessary and added no substance to their relationship or plot.
2.) The acting was of the utmost mediocrity. There was no feeling in any of the dialogue. Example: Emily: "That's my father. He died."
Homer: "Let's go." What?? Way to be sympathetic, Homer. Emily should have dumped his sorry (or in this case, not-so-sorry) behind right then and there.
3.) The events are not in sequential order, as in the story. However, with the way the filmmakers put it, they might as well have Tarantino'ed the whole thing and started at the end.
4.) When Emily is in the drugstore buying her anthrax, the druggist asks her what she plans on using it for, as required by law. In the story, she stares him down until he quails and gets her the anthrax. In the movie, she looks away. NO, NO, NO. The stare is essential because it shows that despite Emily's vuneralbility and questionable sanity, she is not one to be reckoned with. It is a subtle, but powerful action.
5.) Speaking of which, the archetypes, which were the only satisfactory parts of the film, were way too obvious. Archetyple elements are unobvious foreshadowing. The only thing that was there was the foreshadowing. Captain Obvious was definitely directing this film.
6.) Faulkner is brilliant with detail and is not shy about using it. Emily is supposed to be fat, with 'iron grey hair' in the beginning and the end. So, someone please explain to me why Emily is thin and attractive throughout the ENTIRE movie? And the streak of pathetic grey hair does not cut it. Nor does the cobweb masquerading as a strand of hair at the end.
END SPOILERS
If you have read the story, do not bother watching the film. It will only ruin it for you.
A Rose for Emily
fallenangel33697 May 2007
This movie was wonderfully done. I'm not surprised it went from writings to a play to a movie. I haven't seen it as a play yet, but from an actors point of view this would be either completely different on a stage, or it's meant for film. It had a lot of recognizable actors which was a pleasant surprise. Angelica Houston was elegant yet creepy at the same time. This was her ultimate prequel performance to the Adam's Family Movies. And of course, William Faulkner gives this story a Gothic, and dark feeling that is ahead of its time. I'm writing a final on it for my Civil War in Memory class. It's a must see for all future horror film makers!!
Has some lengths
Horst_In_Translation16 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"A Rose for Emily" is an American English-language live action short film from 1983, so next year it will have its 35th anniversary. This is based on a story by William Faulkner and it got adapted by H. Kaye Dyal. The director is Lyndon Chubbuck and this is actually his very first career work. he is still making movies today. I personally felt at times that this one looked a bit British, but it is not. The biggest name in the cast is Anjelica Huston and it's not too common I guess that you have an Oscar winner in a 30-minute movie and there are more Oscar nominees in here. It is a drama with a bit of a dark background, so calling it a bit of a mystery movie, maybe even a horror film is also not too absurd. Now for the story, I thought it was okay, even if I never found it too interesting or developed great interest in the character of Emily Grierson, which certainly was a negative deal breaker in my very case. But I also must say I did not know about this Faulkner work before seeing this one. If you know it perhaps, then you will enjoy it more, so I guess I'd only recommend it to those that like or even love Faulkner's work. Everybody else can skip it.
Great Movie...
DandAproducts1 July 2001
I wish this mpovie was more avialable for others who enjoy a movie with a twist. This is a short film but follows the story (A rose for emily by william faulkner) quite well. Truelly a cult classic...get it if you can. Good spookey twisted movie! 10 out 10 stars
I'm a big fan of the story and Anjelica Houston but...
HankyP15 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
... but not this movie The story is of a Southern Spinster who has been clearly ostracized by her town, but not to the point where she has to leave in order to live. This means she has done something wrong, but there must be enough curiosity to make the people want to keep her around. Why?? In the short story it is a mystery up until the very end when suddenly everything makes sense.
*** Here there be spoilers, although not if you have read the short story *** The beauty of the short story is that it was told out of chronological order and it is not until the end that you realize it is a SOuthern Gothic horror story! This adaptation told the story in pure chronological order which destroyed the ending. The sets, costumes, acting were wonderful, but what were they thinking??? The surprise is lost, the feeling that something is terribly wrong, and you feel you should know what it is, is itself lost. And, everything makes sense.
*** Here there be spoilers, although not if you have read the short story *** The beauty of the short story is that it was told out of chronological order and it is not until the end that you realize it is a SOuthern Gothic horror story! This adaptation told the story in pure chronological order which destroyed the ending. The sets, costumes, acting were wonderful, but what were they thinking??? The surprise is lost, the feeling that something is terribly wrong, and you feel you should know what it is, is itself lost. And, everything makes sense.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
