avik-basu1889 'All That Heaven Allows' is the first Douglas Sirk film that I have ever seen and it only took me one viewing of this film to see how much of a master technician Sirk was. This film is a social commentary on the fickle nature and the hypocrisy of life in the suburban small towns of post war 1950s America. But Sirk critiques this society not just with the story, but also with his visuals.The film starts with the camera suspended in the air close to the tower clock of the town. Slowly the camera pans sideways to show us this supposedly idealistic version of the perfect American suburban locality. Similar to Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 'A Letter to Three Wives', 'All That Heaven Allows' explores the grim reality of the 'happy' life in post WW2 suburban America. This society is enveloped by a suffocating law of conformity. One is supposed to know his/her role and carry it out accordingly. This film shows the rigid hypocrisy that lied underneath the ideal exterior of this society which made life hell for some people and especially women. Cary, our protagonist is a widow. So she has to accept the fact that she can't have fun anymore and will have to restrict her life to what's on television and somewhat wither away. If she tries to defy these conventions and give love another chance by falling in love with a younger man, she will be on the receiving end of judgement. The way Cary's kids Ned and Kay behave actually adds a layer of complexity to the story. They are also trapped in this rigid, non-liberal society(although Kay thinks otherwise), however they don't feel the need to change. They will approve of it if their mother remarries and the new husband is nothing but a duplicate of their father and stands for everything that he stood for, but they will not accept it if Cary's lover turns out to be a younger, more liberal individual who is different to their father. The character of Ron represents the change that was on the verge of taking place in American society. He is the type of person who would have been called a hippie only about a decade later. What makes this film a masterpiece is the direction of the film and style of storytelling, more than the story. Sirk utilises technicolor in the most artistic way. The film looks vibrant. There are shots that are so beautiful to look at that they can be easily framed and hung on the wall. Sirk uses a harsh blue artificial light in the film to signify the ominous and constant presence of societal judgements and oppression. The blue light keeps appearing in the film to riddle Cary with doubts and hesitations. Red is used as the colour that signifies a sense of happiness and freedom. Sirk plays around with these and other colours quite immensely. This incessant use of vibrant colours can be easily seen as an influence on Rainer Werner Fassbinder's films. His 'Ali:Fear Eats the Soul' is a bit of a tangential remake of 'All That Heaven Allows'. There are also a number of different techniques used in 'All That Heaven Allows' to visually give the impression of characters trapped in a particular frame. Sirk uses the reflective nature of mirrors or the reflection of a character on the limited space of a television screen or in other cases window bars and grills to show characters trapped in a thematic sense in this uptight suffocating societal prison. The precise and meticulous blocking of actors is also used extensively to visually express certain changes in themes or tones.Jane Wyman gives a performance which is layered and complex. She uses her facial expressions a lot to signify a change in her mood. It is not possible for the viewer to not care for her and her plight. Rock Hudson exudes masculine charm and appeal. He is handsome, charismatic and has a commanding gentlemanly presence which makes it quite believable that Cary will be smitten by Hudson's character Ron and want to be with him.Yes an argument can be made that certain convenient adjustments are made in the screenplay to arrive at an ending which would have been acceptable for the audience of the time, but personally I didn't have a problem with these adjustments because of the way Sirk kept using artistic visual flair to execute them. This is genuinely a masterpiece rich with feelings, emotions, social commentary and visual artistry. An absolute must-watch.

vincentlynch-moonoi A little soapy. A little sudsy. But it's first class spa quality soap and suds! This is not as good as "Magnificent Obsession", which preceded it, but it's still top notch in terms of production values and acting. The one thing that the film suffers from is the different world we live in today. Small towns are still small towns, but the almost town-wide peeping into Jane Wyman's life would be so much less today than it was back in 1955. Nevertheless, it's a fairly good story if you put it in perspective of its era.For the most part, the critical players here do fairly nicely. Jane Wyman was too young for the part as the "older woman", but she actually pulls it off quite well. Rock Hudson is just fine as the younger love interest. Agnes Moorehead is sort of torn between a character with a heart, but still a town gossip...but she handles it well. Conrad Nagel does nicely as an older love interest, although it's a small (though critical part). Virginia Grey is quite good as Wyman's friend...an underestimate character actress in my view. Gloria Talbott was decent as the daughter, although most will perhaps remember her more as an early television actress. I can't quite decide if William Reynolds, as the son, was just a lousy actor or if he was directed poorly...but his performance is totally unconvincing. Donald Curtis as a letch...thumbs down.If you can only watch one, opt for "Magnificent Obsessions", but this is a fairly good film with a relatively interesting story.

funkyfry Director Douglas Sirk takes a story by the obscure writing team of Edna and Harry Lee, puts it together with two big stars in Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson, and emerges with a first-rate critique of the class prejudices and soul-crushing expectations in Country Club America. There aren't many surprises along the way, really, but the thing doesn't just sit there either.... if we, the audience, are allowed to come up for air, then we would lose some of our identification with the superficially "unimportant" tribulations of the heroine, Cary (Wyman). As for Hudson's character (Ron), he doesn't just read, but lives, Thoreau... yes, a character in the movie actually says that. Let's not pretend the movie is any more subtle than any of Sirk's other work.We could pick it apart for all its "unreality", but in my opinion the film was never designed to be real. It's a sort of expressionist take on American culture, one which Sirk would follow up with even more broad strokes on the subject in following years. I do think that the film's discussion on class division would have more weight if, for example, Ron's supposedly rustic hideaway didn't look like something out of Woman's Home Companion's winter guidebook. The Ron Kirby character is a bit too far out of the realm of reality, perhaps because his persona had to be twisted in such a way to make him totally acceptable to the types of people in the audience who might, in their day to day lives, represent the characters in the film who reject him on social grounds. So, it's all very harmless, and when we meet Ron's working class friends they come complete with the friendly Greek fisherman, bird-watching old lady, etc. One wonders what the effect would have been, for example, if one of Marlon Brando's early 50s characters had walked through the door.But again, let's never mind "reality", and let Sirk have his own little pretensions. My main real criticism along those lines is that the film did not show any kind of social pressure coming from Ron's friends against his settling with Cary. Indeed, Ron's best friends (played by Virginia Grey and William Reynolds) are practically gurus of philosophy and tolerance. In actuality, it is not just the rich who perpetuate class division in America. Not to mention, the fact that she was obviously approaching 40 and already had children would have made her an unacceptable wife to many of his young friends, or so we might imagine. The film steers clear of any such criticism and as a result it's take on class (and age-ism) in America is lop-sided.The most cunning and memorable shot in the film is, of course, the one with the TV set turned into a mirror of Cary's loneliness, after she has succumbed to social/family pressure and ended her relationship with Ron. It deserves praise, but Sirk does not just fashion memorable images, but convincing scenes: often, from the most conventional and predictable situations. For example, the big party thrown by Cary's friend Sara (a fire-redhead Agnes Moorehead) -- everything about the scene is already known to the audience; we've seen it in a dozen films. What makes this one memorable is the depth of sleaze to which Donald Curtis' character descends, and his drunken self-conviction. Cary was a tramp all along, he figures, and it's his male prerogative to assume that he can now take her whenever he pleases. As Ron and Cary leave, we hear a voice from amongst the crowd telling us that poor Harvey (Curtis) was fortunate to survive an encounter with such a beast as Ron! It's a better film than it deserves to be, and credit can go to a very solid cast being directed with purpose and intelligence by Sirk.

gavin6942 An upper-class widow (Jane Wyman) falls in love with a much younger, down-to-earth nurseryman (Rock Hudson), much to the disapproval of her children and criticism of her country club peers.Today (2013) we live in the world of cougars and a very laissez-faire attitude to relationships and sexuality. For the most part we do not care who sleeps with who, who lives with who, and whatnot. Of course, not long ago, it was taboo to be openly gay or sometimes even to embrace cohabitation.In 1955, what were the standards? Apparently even to date a younger man was frowned upon. They did not live together or have an intimate relationship... and yet Cary's children practically disown her. Why? Perhaps it could be more the class issue than the age issue, but regardless it comes across as silly by today's standards, considering the children are grown and this is not their business.The film's use of color is impressive. In some ways it reminds one of "Black Narcissus" (1947), though the color palette makes the characters and backgrounds seem almost like stained glass. Cinematographer Russell Metty had a long career, dating back to the 1920s and earning an Oscar in 1960 for "Spartacus". Perhaps he should have received an award here.In this film, Rock Hudson is shown as "an object" or "a spectacle", somewhat reversing traditional gender roles. This, of course, is quite intentional, as it would hardly be taboo for an older man to pursue a younger woman. But in some ways it is more than age, with his very body being something to admire, not a common male trait. (Cary's son flatly says that he is nothing but "muscles".)Much can be said about the replacement of a lost love with television and what the film was trying to say with this. Television was still a relatively new medium at the time, so in some ways this is prescient in how it suggests that we could fill our lives with such a thing.The Criterion commentary discusses whether or not Sirk's approach was "Brechtian" and how his shots were largely claustrophobic. Much of the discussion is helpful, though they do tend to get a bit too academic at times, seeing symbolism where it likely is not. And there is a long tangent on trying to define "melodrama" and whether or not it is a gendered term.