The Subject Was Roses

by Frank D. Gilroy

Stated first edition. A bright, clean, unmarked and unclipped copy with a tiny spine corner and foreedge corner nick, protected by the Mylar jacket cover.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Historical Fiction, Relationships, Family, Fiction

210 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1965

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 1 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، این نمایشنامه از 73 صفحه و چهار پرده تشکیل شده است ... داستان در موردِ زن و مردی به نامِ <جان> و <نتی> میباشد... جان مردی مقرراتی با رفتاری ارتشی و نتی زنی خانه دار و زودرنج است... پسرِ آنها <تیمی> نام دارد و سربازی 23ساله است ... تیمی پس از مدتها از جنگ به خانه برگشته و تمامی این نمایشنامه در موردِ جر و بحثها و گفتگوهایِ این خانوادهٔ کوچک است.... جان از زمانی که حس کرده پسرش بزرگ شده، با او مشروب میخورد و وقتِ بیشتری برایِ او میگذارد. ولی آنها بر سرِ موضوعی مشکل دارند و آن موضوع مذهب و دین است... جان دیندار است و به کلیسا میرود. ولی پسرش تیمی خزعبلات و موهوماتِ دینی و مذهبی همچون بهشت و جهنم را قبول ندارد و این موضوع سبب شده تا جان که خود را رئیسِ خانه میداند با پسرش مشکل پیدا کند
‎عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ شناختِ این نمایشنامه، مفید و کافی بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Marsha · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a bitter play, about a marriage barely held together by the son neither parent wants to relinquish. Mr. Gilroy accurately penned what goes on behind the closed doors of a house when men, women and children struggle for dominance and independence within the bounds of routine, marriage and family. In harsh simple language, only occasionally tempered by kindness, we see what happens when a man and a woman fall out of love with each other and the adult son who is unfortunately caught in the middle.

[Honah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gotta sit with this one a little bit. Are we doomed fr?

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This play has quite a story attached to it. I read a version I can't seem to find on Goodreads. It's a hardcover and before the playscript text there is a long section of journal entries that Gilroy kept about the process of not writing, but getting The Subject Was Roses produced on the stage, which seemed to be a daunting task, worthy of a play itself. It was very fascinating to read the excerpts from it. Of course, Gilroy mentioned that he excluded the bits about swearing and anger and things that might get him sued, and we're left reading a fairy tale version of the experience. No matter. It's still a wonderful edition and very insightful into the arduous process of getting a play up and running after it's been written. A play, I might add, who's producer had never produced, a director who had never directed, and a virtually unknown cast.

But beyond that wonderful essay, which is titled, "About Those Roses; or, How Not to do a Play and Succeed", the real play is called The Subject Was Roses, by Frank D. Gilroy. First produced on Broadway in 1964 and won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama a year later.

This is a truly beautifully written play. I know that the dysfunctional family scenario has probably been done to death in the theatre, but this one is done with such subtlety that, for me, sets it slightly apart from all the others.

It's a three character play. Timmy has just returned home from serving in the army during WWII. His father and mother have a very tempestuous relationship. Things don't seem to be right. Or, maybe they're right, but Timmy is has changed since being away for two years. It's a house with no real love in it and kindness doesn't seem to exist. It's always two against one in some way or another.

I don't really know what else to say about it. Not that there's nothing to say about it, but for the fact that it all seemed so naturalistic in style and tone. I think many people will connect with its story if you've ever been away from home and then return to find that everything remained the same, except you.

This play was made into a film, which starred Jack Albertson (who reprised his stage role on film, and won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor), Patricia Neal (this was her first time back in film after she suffered a stoke and was afraid she'd never act again, fearing she'd never be able to memorize the lines), and Martin Sheen (also reprising his stage role). It's a good film and a wonderful play. It doesn't have bells and whistles attached to it like many plays that are written and produced today. It's one of those plays that have three wonderful parts in it, two of which are for performers over a certain age, which we always say there aren't enough of. The Subject Was Roses by Frank D. Gilroy. My rating - 5/5

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe it’s because, fifty years after this play premiered, dysfunctional family drama is de rigueur for theatre, but, for me, The Subject was Roses was just blah. The storyline is pretty much “families are dysfunctional.” It’s a bunch of scenes with people arguing or crying or being passive aggressive. Maybe it was groundbreaking when it premiered, but in 2014, it doesn’t stand out amidst the sea of dramatic plays about messed-up families who like to argue. Not recommended.

[Anna Muthalaly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Actual rating like 3.75

Genuinely good! This play is very line with works like a long days journey into night or death of a salesmen, works that expertly mine the dynamics of a broken or breaking family— in this case, a mother and father who hope their son, freshly returned from ww2, will keep their failing marriage together.

Ultimately it doesn’t hold up to my two previously named examples, which are obvs titans of American theater history, but gilroy did genuinely impress me with his subtle depiction of all too common, all too tragic family dynamics.

Namely, this play was an excellent depiction of the child as glue. Child as mother’s therapist, child’s as father’s friend and also foil. How leaving such a family feels both destructive and necessary.

This play thrives on its specificity. The deadening nature of the father’s desire, how it pushes away his wife while further rendering him impotent. How women feel forced, enlivened by, and chained by caregiving dynamics. The way the war created a new generation of boys turned quickly into men

I would also like to point out this play premiered in like 1964 and is, as I’ve seen through my Pulitzer project, the FIRST play to even allude to the holocaust other than the adaption of Anne frank’s diary. The father throws some derogatory language around and (incorrectly) suggests America wouldn’t have entered the war if not for “the Jews,” and it’s mentioned that the son liberated a concentration camp. It’s really a minor discussion, but it is crazy that we’re like 20 years past ww2 and a) few Pulitzer winning plays address it and b) literally NONE address the holocaust other than the token win early on.

Overall, this was a play that was worth a read for its depiction and honest regarding universal and yet isolating family dynamics and an audio performance with the entire original cast was made and saved on the internet archive, which certainly added to my experience.

This was the 38th play I read in my quest to conquer the Pulitzer Prize

[Martin Denton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sons leaving home, setting off to find themselves, away from their families: that's the Great American Story, isn't it? We're a country founded and built by people who left home and created a New World, after all; and when the wagon trains had nowhere new to roll, the American Dream started, little by little, to fall apart. This, I think, is a lot of what Frank D. Gilroy's The Subject Was Roses is about; it certainly informs the play, which tells the story of Timmy, a young soldier who returns home--after serving three years in World War II--to a family that has both changed and stayed exactly the same while he was gone.

This is a play about relationships among three very ordinary sorts of people. Timmy, careless and undirected before the War, has found purpose after seeing and doing things he'd never imagined. The long-term plan is to go to college and become a writer, but it is his immediate objective that interests Gilroy here: to try to understand--and perhaps even mend--the hole in his parents' lives. His father, John, is a successful businessman, emotionally distant from the family; his mother, Nettie, is a devoted homemaker and mom, silently licking the wounds inflicted by her seemingly indifferent, philandering husband. The pivotal moment in the play comes when Timmy understands that he can't fix any of this: like them, he will move on and find his own way; and--also like them--he may discover that there's nowhere to go.

[Shannon Geier · Rating 5 out of 5]

I went to the library to read this play. I found it interesting and similar to the style of the British cultural movement called Kitchen Sink Drama. A piece about working class people, often "angry young men" angry with society. "Domestic Realism" the internet calls it and I would agree. Since I only had limited time, I only read it once.
Parents whose son has returned from the war. Prior to the war, the son was so close to his mother and now seems to be working to be on his father's side since returning from the war. The son returning and the family of three back together rips the band-aid off the act they all put on to appear normal and happy.
I found it interesting that the father is the religious one and the mother isn't. There are signs that become more apparent as the play goes on that the parents aren't your typical middle class married couple. They are very disillusioned with their marriage, and life itself in many cases. Some of the ending is left up in the air, which I never mind. I like ambiguous. I would read it again, to get a better handle on it.

[Barbara Kochick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Playwriting at its best. A young man is caught in the crossfire of his parent’s troubled marriage. What was once love has deteriorated to squabbling over money, parenting, fidelity, religion and how to make the coffee. The confines of the stages reflects the trapped status of their relationships. Well deserved Pulitzer.

[William Harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This has been compared to LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT… which is beyond me. That play is masterful. This one was underwhelming. It’s the mildest, most dialed back conflict kind of stuff. Even for the 60s, this is mild dysfunction.

The play won a Pulitzer and a Tony—head scratch. Huh

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautifully written, with exquisite dialogue but very, very sad.

I see why it won the Pulitzer, the writing is so clear and lyrical. But the play itself is now so dated.

[Magda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that if I were to see this play on stage, I would cry, it's that powerful.

[Michelle Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: John and Nettie Cleary have just welcomed their son Timmy home from World War II. As such, there are feelings of happiness, relief and the awkwardness that accompanies the return of a third person to a two-party household. As the play progresses, the troubled nature of each relationship in the play (John and Nettie, Nettie and Timmy, John and Timmy) is illuminated.

Thoughts: Again, a play where not much happens outside of the small New York apartment where it is set over the course of one weekend. This family doesn’t have horrendous problems, but they have clearly never talked openly about the interpersonal issues that they do have. Upon his return from war, Timmy is drinking perhaps too much, making grown-up decisions about his faith and future…and his parents are clearly not ready to let him go after just getting him back.

"[The Subject was Roses] is my signature play, for which I am grateful. But my dream is some day to be introduced as the author of something other. So far no cigar, but it ain’t over.
The Pulitzer guarantees the first line of my obituary.
I wouldn’t give it back. But it screwed me up for several years as you’ll see."
-Gilroy’s introduction to this play in Frank Gilroy Volume 1 (Smith and Kraus).

[Cecilia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is like All My Sons, but I liked it better. Sure you don't have the dead people and the downed planes. Instead you have alcoholism, punching and roses! What's not fun about that? Most of this edition is actually the playwrite's diary about getting the production of the play to Broadway. Great for all you arts admin nerds out there. He also put in the budget for the show, so I know how much the LD made and how much they paid the stage hands. It's kind of interesting.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok. I did not hate it, but I did not love it. It is of it's time. By that I mean this probably resonated a lot more with the people that lived in the time period it was written. It does not have much relevance today as far as to the modern actor or for consideration for being produced today. But it's still readable. If you are interested it's not that painful to read (unlike some other older plays).

[Chris Gager · Rating 4 out of 5]

I worked for a while as an unpaid volunteer tech. assistant at Theater By the Sea in Portsmouth, NH back in the fall of 1969. This was the play I worked on and I'm pretty sure I read it. Saw the movie too which was pretty good. Date read is approximate.

[Brittany Petruzzi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent pacing, moving towards the tragic, but with an abrupt, happyish ending.

[Bobby Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play is almost half a century old, but it's not really dated at all. It could easily be staged today. Three really rich characters, all of whom would be very satisfying to perform.

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not my favorite play at all.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent play portraying the difficult relationships and allegiances in a bitterly divided family.