Content deleted Content added
Grammar, diction, orthography, removed actor names from plot section according to article guidelines, added NYT review |
Update Rotten Tomatoes |
||
Line 50:
In a contemporary review for ''[[The New York Times]]'', critic [[Renata Adler]] called ''Rachel, Rachel'' "the best written, most seriously acted American movie in a long time" and wrote: "The direction is mainly sensitive and discreet, but now and then the whole thing goes awash in excess of sentimentality or even ambition. You cannot convey the quality of life in this sort of town, through Rachel's perspective, without losing proportion in melodrama and glop. Petty tragedies, faithfully portrayed, are a little embarrassing. ... If this were a less ironic age, it might work seriously and completely—like a kind of American cinema [[Honoré de Balzac|Balzac]]."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Adler |first=Renata |date=1968-08-27 |title=The Screen: 'Rachel, Rachel,' Portrait of a Spinster |page=36 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>
[[Time (magazine)|''Time'' magazine]] wrote: "Stewart Stern often gets too close to the novel, adopting where he should adapt. Rachel is shackled with prosy monologues that should have been given visual form. Despite its failings, ''Rachel, Rachel'' has several unassailable assets...It is in the transcendent strength of Joanne Woodward that the film achieves a classic stature. There is no gesture too minor for her to master. She peers out at the world with the washed-out eyes of a hunted animal. Her walk is a ladylike retreat, a sign of a losing battle with time and diets and fashion. Her drab voice quavers with a brittle strength that can command a student but break before a parent's will. By any reckoning, it is [her] best performance."<ref>{{
''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' called ''Rachel, Rachel'' an "offbeat film" that "moves too slowly" and added: "There is very little dialog—most of which is very good—but this asset makes a liability out of the predominantly visual nature of the development, which in time seems to become redundant, padded and tiring. ... Direction is awkward. Were Woodward not there film could have been a shambles."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/rachel-rachel-1200421575/|title=Rachel, Rachel|work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |date=December 31, 1967}}</ref>
==Awards and nominations==
| |||