I never thought I would have the chance to see Katharine Hepburn acting in a play without having to go to Broadway! A treasure. All the rest of the cast is exceptional too. Thank You!
Great movie. Read the play returning from a class trip in high school, bought the film on Ebay, loaned it to a friend who forgot to give it back when she moved out of town and then died. Great to be able to see it again!
@@abbatrouble I do not care for Hepburn opposite Scofield either. However, Hepburn can’t help her voice as she has an essential tremor. I have it too, but it is mild, and so far not affecting my voice. There is no cure and it will get worse as I age.
Stunning tour/ de- force! Superb acting. Powerful play about life! Is everything a balancing act? Does marriage mean anything? The night brings uncertainty and terror, Daybreak brings light. New possibilities! Albee probed the recesses of our souls! Unquestionably he was one of great writers of our time!
Thanks for this The scene in the early morning between Schofield and Hepburn is performed in one take **fifteen minutes long** I've always loved Schofield and Hepburn has always been my favourite actress all my life and I'm 65 She never disappoints ♥️
A wonderful play! A star studded cast. I had never seen it and I enjoyed it immensely. I'm very familiar with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", and I think both are sensational for what they are. Both are different, and I appreciate both.
Astounding. Can only imagine what would have transpired had Ingmar been able to direct, as Edward wanted, or if Kim Stanley hadn't butted up against Katharine Hepburn, yet then we wouldn't have Kate Reid, and the two Kates, Paul Scofield, Lee Remick, Joseph Cotten and Betsy Blair under Tony Richardson's direction are not exactly less than. One For The Ages.
I love Albee's "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Yet I must admit that "A Delicate Balance" is a better written play. Not a hint of cleverness anywhere. A much more deeply felt work (in my opinion)
It’s head-and-shoulders above WAoVW, and frankly above the rest of his output (in my opinion). It’s almost like Virginia Woolf 20 years later in a slightly different reality. You really need actors of this caliber, though, to untangle the linguistic and emotional density. Thank god we have this film.
I see bits of myself in both Agnes and Edna. Perhaps that is why I live alone. I recognize that no one likes the proverbial morality-policing wet blanket. I recognize that no one wants a judge to come and pass judgement in their private inner sanctum. I also recognize that living as such a one as that, within a world gone mad...could be the thing that sends one over the edge in terms of their own sanity. I hear that recognition is the first step to the solution. Perhaps there is still hope for me to change. "...knowing is half the battle.", so said the GI Joe cartoons my younger siblings watched as children.
@@brankastupar7101 There's a saying actors have "if it looks like hard work you're not working hard enough" Katharine Hepburn makes it look easy So you're paying her a massive compliment
It's really lovely you're bringing this to us in the proper aspect ratio and watchable quality. I do miss Lee's opening "@#!&" In the first few seconds, but I understand. A quietly noisy movie/play that makes us dread the quiet.
This movie directly speaks to my recollections from my youth, as I watched my parents live according to the "code of decency" they learned from their parents, while the younger sister and daughter in this movie break away from those rules to hopefully live a fuller and less empty older life. Did Albee look forward and see the future of younger generations, each one rejecting rules put upon them in order to also seek happiness in their later lives?
But it hardly seems that the sister and daughter have or are living fuller, less empty lives. They, in fact, appear less happy and have achieved very little in terms of independence, self-actualization, and deep relationships. Their lives are a pattern of self-defeating sabotage.
Possibly a few of us here saw the shift. When womens lib opened our minds n world but we had been raised by the code. Some friends n I raced toward a new way , others chose the code of early marriage and kids. Having a child, a daughter I have seen the messy world and push n pull of choice and society pressure be a big negative at time. I often feel Ive lived to long and like Agnes I have no granchildren to live longer for. The actors phenomenal. Kate Reid superb in everything she did. Ill probably need to watch it again after I recover.
Though I disagree the 'tedious' themes of alcoholism and repressed homosexuality are the bones of this piece (and are subjects, not themes), rather the skeleton and musculature is existential terror - not the nauseating nothingness of the French socialist, but the hollowness of American bourgeois life, of the very class (and its attendant moralities and philosophies) which is the superstructure of American being (which alcoholism and historically suppressed homosexuality offered counterpoint).
so I tried to watch this twice. Never made it farther than 5 minutes each. There are some people who appreciate this, I know this, and I do not understand. If the point is to reach into a realm of despise for the human being there are other ways
The comment below about Albee's characters talking too much is apt - but I don't think Ed would ever have claimed to dramatic naturalism, indeed would have embraced a descriptor such as 'hysterical intellectualism' (his characters are rabidly intelligent and possess a preternatural knack fro self-reflection and a kind of self-conscious staging of their narratives) - for a long time I really liked Albee, and 'Balance' which I read about thirty+ years ago, remained a favourite, now, watching this, there is - and I HATE saying such things - a 'datedness' to the piece, not so much in the material but in the very aura set by the language and situation - it is a work, historically lodged in the mid twentieth century, and by that, fascinating, but I doubt a contemporary remounting would be taken as reflective of present sensibility...the pity is there doesn't seem to be a major playwright in english who IS writing in the sensibility of our present.
Do you think the interiors are intentionally ugly? Did you notice how Julia's pants nearly matched the hideous wallpaper? All the dreary browns? Like tobacco stains. Drapes like iron bars.
Joseph cotten and Betty Blair, , lovely unmannered acting. Once you learned of the repeated mannerisms of Hepburn and Scholfield it could come a little expected. One of the most difficulties of theatre,is the craft of movement across the set, only much schooling and rehearsing can make it seem natural. We will never know first hand of the greatness of the likes of Irving, or Bernhart, yet future actors will have a catalogue of great actors to learn from, or reference to , .
Katharine Hepburn is a strong personality so she makes an indelible impression but in no way is she just repeating mannerisms She understands the material probably better than Edward Albee When you've watched a lot of her films you start to realise she's actually totally different in every one But framed like you say within the Hepburn style She's at her best in the small intense scenes you really get to see her soul - and her genius ♥️
I think an honest conversation about this Albee work and the bulk of Tennessee Williams output would reveal that this stuff just doesn't/didn't age well. So much of the angst is unrelatable these days. Sorry but its past its sell by date.
@@sd67b Do you realize that you try to explain literature, that is art, by an average middle class way of life? Separate these two or stick to other forms of entertainment
@@sd67b do yourself a favour and watch the scene in the morning between Schofield and Hepburn *performed in one take* You see why Hepburn was considered the greatest actress of her time
It's not the angst, all periods suffer angst in some form, it's the heavy literary contrivance, inaccurate psychology and ultimately pedestrian impact. Of course, these plays are put on because the acting roles are delicious, but when you see a truly great work from the past, comparative relief is remarkable.
He didn’t. Williams was one of the few playwrights Albee admired, but I don’t see how he ever even tried to emulate him. Albee’s career was much more successful than TW’s, taken as a whole.
Sure it's trying and disappointing but we're stuck with it, existence, and so muddle through. Point of play but not very revolutionary. Still, well-done.
I love the actors, and I generally love Edward Albee’s stories. But I find this dialogue too heavy with attempts at profundity and witticisms. People really don’t talk this way; either then or now. It begins to sound stiff and stilted when each and every sentence is masterly crafted of careful irony, wit, or regret. It bogs itself down and drowns out the truly impactful statements. Hepburn’s movements became repetitious, and do she and her sister really have nothing other than caftans or silk, flowing garments to wear?
I am watching because of Paul Schofield but have discovered this is poor Albee trying to knock your socks off with his intellect, but not true to life, all the actors overacting to try and showcase their inteect too, as well as some of the commentators here. Oh dear, all of them so pretentious, and the arts world outdoing each other with fulsome praise. Sorry Albee, you really don't have any idea of how to add to the world's treasures.
I find "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? " a much better play. Emotions were more realistic in it. Besides, this is too long and only gets interesting in the last 45 minutes.
