Raetsonwe
Redundant and unnecessary.
Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
Paynbob
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Justina
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
calvinnme
... such as what happened to the Bouvier/Beale money that bought the 28 room mansion that mother and daughter live in and is in disrepair? I know that Big Edie was divorced in 1931, and it sounded like "little Edie" had the advantages of an expensive education through college, which would have been right before WWII. What changed? There is no narration here, nor do the documentary makers ask questions. They just let the cameras roll and record whatever happens. Big Edie is in her late 70s yet retains a kind of beauty. However, she talks over little Edie whenever they are in the same room, making it difficult to understand either woman.What is clear visually is that they are both living in squalor. A cat defecates behind a very old portrait of Big Edie and both Edies laugh about being glad somebody gets to do what they want? Nobody tries to clean it up. Big Edie spends her time on a filthy mattress with stuff she might need stacked on top, yet seems to have no trouble with mobility. They make food for the cameramen including pate on crackers that looks like cat food on crackers. I would want a tetanus shot first.Little Edie has a mountain of regret. She talks about how she wanted to be a dancer, how somebody wanted to marry her but her mother drove him away, and how she has been taking care of her mother due to her health on and off since the second world war. She mentions how much she hates the country and misses the noise of the city. Little Edie is remarkably well preserved. When this film was made she was 56 but she could pass for forty. She color coordinates all of her wardrobes including her scarves and headdresses that hide her alopecia, yet she won't mop the floor. Shades of faded feelings of being aristocracy perhaps? Another question I had that went unanswered was where were big Edie's sons? Both lived into the 1990's, yet they are nowhere to be found. Maybe they had the sense to get out of Dodge.Why are these recluses the subject of a documentary in the first place? Because big and little Edie are Jackie Kennedy Onnasis' aunt and cousin, respectively, and because Suffolk County was trying to evict them based on the condition of the house and grounds - there was no running water at one point - until Jackie supplied the funds to get the estate up to snuff.Don't look for lots of answers here, because there are really none. It is just a fascinating portrait of two recluses who have slipped into their own form of normality although it looks horrifying to outsiders.
poe426
In SALESMAN, we saw traveling salesmen going door to door peddling copies of The Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales (as comedians Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Lewis Black call the bible); in GREY GARDENS, we see the Rich as they slowly rot away in their crumbling castles. This is rot as seen from the Inside. No, not "rot," per se; rather, DECOMPOSITION: slow dissolution. Slow decay, on full display. "You shouldn't have a contact with The Outside World," "Big Edie" warns her mostly bed-ridden mother before pirouetting around the house like the young child she proclaims herself to be (her obsession with her looks and her weight aren't necessarily strange, but this self-proclaimed "eternal youth" is). GREY GARDENS is often difficult to watch, simply because there's not a lot going on- and, if not for the family name, it's unlikely anyone would've EVER heard of these two recluses. I wasn't particularly moved by it, but I'm sure the late Shirley Jackson would've understood.
kelly-schultz001
My film review is on the documentary Grey Gardens. It is set in East Hampton, New York, in a once beautiful mansion with spectacular ocean views. This is the true story of Mrs. Edith Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edie. Our film makers Albert and David Maysles shot the film in 1975, but time seems to stand still for the Beale women who are living in the days of yester year. They film the mother/daughter duo who are wary of their intentions at first, but relent upon learning that they will be in the movies! The once beautiful mansion is falling down around them, but they don't seem to notice that they are living amid squalor. The surroundings are overgrown and choked by vegetation that seems to have swallowed the property and the contents and life within. They spend their time arguing and entertaining each other and our film makers with singing and dancing and stories of days gone by.They share their home with their beloved cats which number in the hundreds and raccoons who make their home inside the walls and come out at night to scavenger on the cat food and bread that Little Edie leaves out for them. Both women share a room and everything together almost as if the umbilical cord was never severed, although Little Edie goes back and forth between a feeling of contentment and bitterness for a life she was denied.The film maker's narrative was very informative and concise and their gentle coaxing and prompting of the two women provided many entertaining stories during the filming. The film makers were subjected to the stench and filth every day during filming as they followed the women around as they gave tours of the home. The women were constantly changing their "costumes" for the men, especially Little Edie who took great care to explain why a "costume" was appropriate for the day.The documentary is both unique and intriguing and the women will keep us entertained with their outlandish ways and views of the world and their scenario. It will leave you in astonishment how with dogged determination the women survived and flourished when all they had was each other. You will walk away with an appreciation of life and family and the special relationships that develop within.
angry127
The review title is offensive? Well, you might have the same opinion if you view the film with an analytical mind. I know and have read about all the fans of this film that are fans of the Beale's as well. That is all well and good, but its beside the point.The Mayles Bros are not slouches and have a very good nack for cinematography and documentation (otherwise they would have not been involved in so many major documentaries). This film does itself justice by showing off that gift. What it doesn't do itself justice with is its exploitation of its subjects.I know I won't get a lot of fans for saying such (true) statements, but it has to be said. Perhaps you'll understand my rational and frame of mind for my two controversial statements thus far by considering a few questions.Why did the Maysles take footage of little Edie prancing around the house like a child? Why were these shots often in extreme close ups? Did these shots make you feel uncomfortable? Did the Beales seem in a clear frame of mind? Would you claim the Beales to be in a healthy mental condition? Were there shots of the Beales getting close to undressing or undressing? If the questions didn't get you thinking, my basic point is the Maysles knew better than to exploit a psychologically troubled mother and child. Framing it as an empathetic slice of life is a cover for compassion trolling and humiliation porn.
