The story itself was unbelievable, the dialog was ridiculous ("redic" ....give me a break, no one ever talked like that) and the score, annoying. Even Ray Milland's acting was over the top. How did this win a best picture when "Spellbound" and "Mildred Pierce" were both up against it? It reminded me of an alcoholic version of "Reefer Madnesss."
shareI just watched it again after a few years and it is very dated but this was 1945. Compare it to a more enlightened portrayal in "Come Back, Little Sheba" later in the 50's especially with the connection to AA.
shareThis film was excellent. Even today I thought it was a very realistic portrayal of a chronic alcoholic. Having a father who was an alcoholic and being one myself, I could really relate to this poor bastards suffering and the woman who could stand by him throughout. The acting was superb by Milland and Phillip Terry who played his brother. Just my opinion.
shareI just thought it was just propaganda... Really preachy with characters I didn't care much about. I'm not saying it was bad, just wasn't my cup of tea (or brand of scotch).
share
I feels ya' bro.
Written like a true alcoholic in love with his cup, and bound to die in it. There is no propaganda regarding the disease of alcoholism. It just is. There's no "opinion" on its destructiveness, and the only people who act like there is are absolutely drunks. I've been to so many thousands of meetings in those rooms that I know from what I speak. I'm a sober drunk all right, and I've put in the work on both sides of the issue. In sobriety and in my disease. You're wrong, sir. Very wrong. But it doesn't matter that you are. And you know why.
shareValuable opinion from someone who has 'been there'.
shareLet's put this in perspective, shall we? It was the 1940's. No one talked about alcoholism. There was a lot of talk about "drunks".
Fast forward to the 1960's. "The Boys In The Band" hit Broadway. The acting was over the top, lots of 70's colloquial phrases were used, and all of a sudden gay people were no longer "fruits" or *beep* or "homos".
For its time, "The Lost Weekend" was a very powerful film, and a great many people still find it so.
"Mildred Pierce"? Don't be ridic!
Actually, AA goes back to 1935.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous
There's a silly tendency to think people "back then", whenever "then" was, were radically different from people today. It's not true. Human nature hasn't changed. People drank too much, many of them, in 1935, or '45, or '95, for the same reasons as they do today.
"This is our hill, and these are our beans!" Lt. Frank Drebin
I disagree. The time AND the way people thought was way different than now. I was born in the mid 50's and attitudes towards most everything was very different than today.
share[deleted]
You are basically right, but the times have changed so much that people 'back then' seem downright alien to us now. Values are way different, the way somen were expected to act was different and almost every aspect of society was different. And you're right that there were alcoholics back then, but they weren't called that. They had a 'drinking problem' and could quit if they just wanted to. With that being said, TLW was a great and relevant movie then and today.
shareThere have been drug abusers as long as there have been drugs. The thing is, not until very recently have we developed a good understanding of addiction.
share> There's a silly tendency to think people "back then", whenever "then" was,
> were radically different from people today. It's not true. Human nature
> hasn't changed.
No, but people's views have, and that's what we're discussing. Yes, AA was founded in 1935, but it took a long time for its perspective on alcoholism to gain public acceptance. The AMA didn't recognize alcoholism as a disease until 1956, more than a decade after "Lost Weekend" was made.
The context in which a film is made is key to appreciating the film. If you don't understand these things then you're going to misinterpret a *lot* of movie history.
You are very wise, indeed, jbsalmonnc.
share"The lost weekend" is a great movie. One of the best ever dealing with addiction.
share[deleted]
is it bad that this movie made me crave hard liquor?
www.myspace.com/scumbalinascinema
don't be ridic! this film is excellent. alcoholism wasn't as flashy as it is today. and it portrayed very realistically of what alcoholics go through (not so much the ending, in some cases). and IMHO, Milland was amazing. also, so what if Gloria talked with "lonesome abbreviations", it's not like every character did. it's highly unlikely the producers were trying to say "Hey, everyone talks like this!"
btw, Mildred Pierce is another favorite of mine. but i'm happy to know The Lost Weekend had won best picture as it truly deserved it.
I don't for a second buy this it was the 50s so it was edgy for its time junk. You couldn't show breasts or have four letter words, but those old movies could be just as creative, subversive, and downright disturbing as anything today. If not more so. Can you imagine the alley scene from "The Hustler" in any movie today? How much scummier and scarier could Mitchum be than "Cape Fear"? And he got under my skin better than any modern psycho in "Night of the Hunter." Can you imagine any film made in the last twenty years being as cynical about the good war and the greatest generation as "Stalag 17"? Nope.
"Lost Weekend" is a lousy movie; it's easily the worst thing I've seen of Wilder's. The DT scene is scary but everything else is silly. I've known my share of alcoholics and there've been times in my own life where my consumption probably licensed a bit of worry, and still I can't get into this. It doesn't show, instead it tells and tells and tells. It's the movie equivalent of that drunk who pigeonholes you and tells you his life story when all you want is to down your pint, read your book, and maybe chat with any cute girl who happens to be there. Which more or less sums up its main character too. Forgive me for saying so, but if he wrote like he talked drink had not exactly deprived the world of a major talent.
slduncan I agree with how much the film beats into the head alcoholism without really diving deeper. This is also my least favorite Billy Wilder and I like him a lot as a writer and director, but this just wasn't that great. I mean with Wilder at least I have to compare this to Sunset Blvd., Some Like it Hot, The Apartment, and Witness for the Prosecution all much better films.
share[deleted]
This movie is not from the '50s, it's from 1945.
share[deleted]
Having lived with an alcoholic, I thought it was pretty darn accurate. Incredibly perceptive for its time.
shareIt was accurate. Anybody who thinks the movie is fake obviously doesn't know about alcoholism. I knew an alcoholic myself. The movie and Milland nailed it.
shareI agree. And who the hell knows, they probably did say "ridic" back then. It's not any sillier than "ridonculous"
The movie is dated, sure, but it was ahead of its time in 1945. Ray Milland was a fine actor, serious or funny. I lived with an alcoholic too, its a miserable existance for the drinker and the loved ones. I love it when 20-year-olds judge films made 60-some years ago.