MartinHafer "The Dresser" was nominated for several Oscars--including Best Picture and Best Actor for both leads (Tom Courtenay and Albert Finney)--so obvious, it was a well-respected film when it debuted. However, I wasn't quite as bowled over by it for a variety of reasons. It's not a bad film but I can't help but think that there MUST have been a lot of other films of the day that I would have chosen instead for such honors. I have two major complaints--BOTH leads had a tendency to over-act and their parts seemed overly broad and the other is that the film, while very original, is quite unpleasant.The film is set during WWII and follows a touring Shakespearean company in Britain. Because of the war, it's hard to get good actors, they are constantly in danger of being blown up by German bombers and their lead (Finney) is emotionally exhausted and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. So, it's up to his dresser (Courtenay) to massage this fragile soul through his next performance. Time and time again, folks expect the show to be canceled since Finney is incoherent and appears to be cracking up--and time and time again, the dresser tells them that he'll be fine! A HUGE portion of the film consists of Courtenay and Finney in the dressing room--and Finney is slowly transformed into a competent and accomplished actor once again. Another HUGE portion is the performance itself--which is GREAT if you adore Shakespeare. And, following the performance comes a shock--and Courtenay gets to have a very strange monologue himself.The film is interesting in some ways. Seeing the obvious parallel between the actor balancing between insanity and greatness and his playing the lead in "King Lear" is pretty clever--as Lear, himself, was much like Finney's character. It also was interesting at the end--Courtenay's character shows a darker side and there is a strong homo-erotic aspect of this that makes the performance one you cannot just dismiss. However, and this is what bothered me, I thought Courtenay's gay character was too campy--too flamboyant and too difficult to believe to be true. Making the character less stereotypical would have made him much more believable and universal. As for Finney, his was a maddening performance. At times, he was mesmerizing and other times he seemed like a bellowing water buffalo in the throes of a bleeding ulcer! Subtlety also would have helped with this character. And, combined with the unpleasantness of the plot, it was a chore to finish this one. Not bad, but it could have been so much better.By the way, Finney looks amazingly old yet he was only about 47--he looked at least 65! Also, read through the reviews for this film--it's rare to see such divergent views on a film--folks loved it and folks hated it!

DesbUK Directed by Peter Yates and shot at Pinewood studios, THE DRESSER is an English drama from 1983 which picked up a quintet of Oscar nominations for Picture, Director, two Actors and Screenplay. The world of THE DRESSER is the drab world of touring theatre folk doing their best to keep Northern England's mind off the 1940s Blitz by occupying it with the Bard. Sir (a near unrecognisable Albert Finney) is about to embark on his 227th performance as King Lear in a career spent too long on the road and too often in character. The strain of feigning insanity for a living has resulted in the on-stage madness becoming a characteristic of his off-stage personality. Sir's homosexual dresser Norman (Tom Courtenay) is only concerned with getting the old ham ready and onto the stage and excludes most other members of the company from entering their dressing room domain.In the preliminary scenes, screenwriter Ronald Harwood does expand his own 1980 play beyond it's theatrical boundaries, especially in a sequence at a provincial railway station where Sir shouts a missed connecting train to a halt. Other than this, THE DRESSER is relentlessly a talking picture rather than a moving one (no bad thing). Here is the observance of theatrical behaviour, lives and ethics in a gloomy world a long way from the glamour of London's West End. Sir is is a haunted thespian who has been reduced to "old men, cripples and nancy boys" for his company. Finney's performance is one of unnerving agony, with a face suggesting a man who is near physical and mental collapse. He's backed up by some wonderful theatrical anecdotes, such as the recollection of seeing a rival's Lear: "I was pleasantly disappointed".I found Courtenay's Norman too unrestrained, too overtly camp, but he is harrowing when grieving over the dead body of Sir - who has gone a performance too many. Norman's grief is that he's been omitted from Sir's memoirs.

moonspinner55 A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear"--during an Air Raid!--yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit (whose dresser was Mr. Harwood), this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****

cigardener This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers.