In general, it seems that most big name actresses are loathe to admit that time has caught up with them. Too often, as they get older, the become vain about their age and often portray women MUCH younger than they really are. However, in the case of "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone", Vivian Leigh does something rather brave--she plays a woman who is about 50 (just like Leigh was at the time) and who can no longer play these young woman parts. And I can really respect her for playing a character who hits close to home, so to speak.
When the film begins, Karen Stone (Leigh) is starring in a play. The problem is that her character is just too young for this aging actress to play. Not surprisingly, the audience members think the same and instead of continuing, she decides to quit and take her husband to Italy. He's been ill and this is the perfect excuse to allow her to gracefully pull out of the play. However, on the flight to Rome, he has a heart attack and the credits begin. Soon you learn that he died on the flight and Karen is in this strange city...alone and grieving for her husband.
Because Mrs. Stone is so vulnerable, a horrid old lady has been grooming her--grooming her to be taken by a handsome young gigolo, Paulo (Warren Beatty). Slowly, Paolo insinuates herself into Karen's life and after a while, they become lovers. However, some possible problems occur--Paolo MAY be falling for her for real and Karen soon learns that Paolo has taken advantage of other women and is planning on doing this to her as well. Oddly, however, the relationship continues--even though his prey knows what she's getting into with him.
As I watched this movie, I kept wondering why they cast the characters like they did. Although Beatty did a good job as an Italian, why not just get a handsome young Italian actor?! Also, while Leigh was very good, why have her play an American actress--why not change the story to make her a Brit? I just cannot understand the producer's thinking in both these cases.
So is the movie any good? Well, yes. But you also have to have a very high tolerance for seeing a woman in pain and not mind how unrelentingly grim the story is. This isn't surprising, since it's a story from Tennessee Williams.
When the film begins, Karen Stone (Leigh) is starring in a play. The problem is that her character is just too young for this aging actress to play. Not surprisingly, the audience members think the same and instead of continuing, she decides to quit and take her husband to Italy. He's been ill and this is the perfect excuse to allow her to gracefully pull out of the play. However, on the flight to Rome, he has a heart attack and the credits begin. Soon you learn that he died on the flight and Karen is in this strange city...alone and grieving for her husband.
Because Mrs. Stone is so vulnerable, a horrid old lady has been grooming her--grooming her to be taken by a handsome young gigolo, Paulo (Warren Beatty). Slowly, Paolo insinuates herself into Karen's life and after a while, they become lovers. However, some possible problems occur--Paolo MAY be falling for her for real and Karen soon learns that Paolo has taken advantage of other women and is planning on doing this to her as well. Oddly, however, the relationship continues--even though his prey knows what she's getting into with him.
As I watched this movie, I kept wondering why they cast the characters like they did. Although Beatty did a good job as an Italian, why not just get a handsome young Italian actor?! Also, while Leigh was very good, why have her play an American actress--why not change the story to make her a Brit? I just cannot understand the producer's thinking in both these cases.
So is the movie any good? Well, yes. But you also have to have a very high tolerance for seeing a woman in pain and not mind how unrelentingly grim the story is. This isn't surprising, since it's a story from Tennessee Williams.