"Playhouse 90" Days of Wine and Roses (TV Episode 1958) - "Playhouse 90" Days of Wine and Roses (TV Episode 1958) - User Reviews - IMDb
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
One of The Finest Dramas Ever Filmed! Superior To the Film Version!
caribeno2 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I got the opportunity to see the "Playhouse 90" version of "The Days of Wine and Roses" when I was a teenager on my local PBS station in Los Angeles. I had no idea, then, that there'd been any other version than the 1962 film. Not taking anything away from the film but the "Playhouse 90" version stunned me with the honesty of the portrayals of alcoholism by Cliff Robertson and Piper Laurie. Unlike Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick, Robertson and Laurie seemed all too honest in their portrayals of the damage that alcoholism wreaks on themselves and loved ones. The vulnerability with which Cliff Robertson played the scene in the greenhouse leaves chills in me every time I see it. I was shocked (pleasantly) at how frank the script gets in revealing Kristen's resorting to prostitution to get her drinks. This frankness for a television drama, in 1958! Unbelievable! The production values beautifully fit the increasing economic and emotional limitations of the husband and wife as their disease progresses. Although the music used in the episode came from stock music in the CBS music library, it somehow feels as if it had been written for this episode, so right it seems. The photography is noir-like, very effective, as in film noir, to document the progress of alcoholism. Robertson and Laurie now seem ideal for their roles. Of course, they were not box-office names at the time the film was made.

I hope this version of "The Days of Wine and Roses" gets wider exposure and assumes its rightful place as one of the very best examples of American television programming ever.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the finest TV dramas--not superior to the movie.
planktonrules27 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The 1950s were a wild time on television. Shows such as "Playhouse 90" and the "The United States Steel Hour" brought original plays to television by some of the top writers, directed by top directors and starring amazing talent. And, to top it all off, it was all broadcast LIVE!! Some of these teleplays were so good that Hollywood took notice and made later made film versions of productions such as "Marty", "Requiem for a Heavyweight" and "Days of Wine and Roses"--to great success.

This production is the original "Days of Wine and Roses". And, while it's obviously was changed a bit to bring the story to the big screen, the original production is still very powerful today--albeit not quite as polished. Oddly, however, neither the accomplished actors (Cliff Robertson and Piper Laurie) nor the amazingly talented director (John Frankenheimer) were given a chance to be involved with the film--even though they sure proved themselves with the teleplay! I noticed that one reviewer thought the teleplay was better. While I admit that it was certainly more original, the movie was much more polished and the acting a bit more subdued--making the story seem more realistic. Plus the ending had a much greater impact in the film--seeing Lee Remmick destroying herself at the end really hit me hard. Piper Laurie's descent into alcoholism was also terrible--but didn't quite seem as horrible. Still, BOTH the play AND movie make great viewing and I advise you to try to see them both. And, when it comes to alcoholism, this portrayal is far better and far more realistic than other famous films like "The Lost Weekend"--especially since it does not feature a happy ending where the problems just magically disappear. Truly one of the best TV projects of the decade--and because of that, even without all the polish, this deserves a 10.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sobering Drama
DKosty12322 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Cliff Robertson, & Piper Laurie give fine performances in this drama. It is the terrific story of two alcoholics who fine each other through the bottle at the party. Through some miracle they manage to have a baby girl despite the drinking. Then the tale tells its story of the toll the bottle would take on both of them.

In a way, John Frankenheimer tells the story in classic Hollywood flashback style by starting off with a sober Clay (Robertson) getting up to speak at an AA meeting. The meeting sequences are the only ones filmed as the rest is done live. At least it appears this is the way the story is going and for most of the time it does.

Both leads get great support acting from Malcom Atterby & Charles Bickford as the AA Leader & Kirstens dad. The story shows how AA works and at the same time the pitfalls to alcoholism in classic dramatic fashion. After seeing this, it is a shame Frankeheimer did not direct the movie.

One thing that indicates the difference between eras is the fact that once Joe got sober and stayed that way, he was able to get a job and pull him & his daughter out of despair. The story then stops being flashback and goes into Kirsten's rejection of help from Joe (her husband) or to do it for her daughter. The drama ends on a strong note as she comes to her husband & daughters house one more time, sober, and pleads for him to join her back drunk & he turns her down.

When you compare this with other dramas done live in the 1950's, it holds up well but is just a notch below Requirem For A Heavyweight, & Patterns which are in the same set of DVDS. Still, this is the type of drama that is no longer made, and the AA message still applies.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Which version is better...
Asura_H4 October 2021
Ok, reader, you'll find this review in both versions.

1958 uses a flashback to join the story timeline, because as a tv show, there are pauses for commercials. Some people like this, some other do not.

1962 is lineal, no flashbacks, no loops. Better camera technology, better photography.

Both versions have great performances, making version 1958 a little more raw, but version 1962 had more production on it. I sugget to watch both and love one or both. My heart goes to 1962.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed