As has been said in some of my reviews for the other twelve films making up the American Film Theatre series, the American Film Theatre series was an interesting and ambitious project but was also uneven. None of the thirteen films are terrible, one was close to though, but only three are great. 'The Man in the Glass Booth' was also seen as it was written by actor Robert Shaw and to see whether the Oscar nomination (the only performance in the American Film Theatre that was nominated for an Oscar) for Maximillian Schell was deserved.
My conclusions were that Schell's nomination was worthy, but it was a case of the performance being much better than the film itself (same with the subject matter being better than the film). Which left me intrigued but also a little cold. 'The Man in the Glass Booth' is not one of the worst of the American Film Theatre films, it's a lot better than 'Rhinoceros' and particularly 'Jaques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris'. It is also not one of the best, it's no 'The Iceman Cometh', 'The Homecoming' or 'Butley'. Would put it somewhere bang in the middle.
Schell, the heart and soul of 'The Man in the Glass Booth', is extraordinary in the lead role. All the acting in fact is very good, though the rest of the cast are never on the same level as Schell. The second half is a lot better than the first half, with most of the second half being riveting and tension filled.
'The Man in the Glass Booth' is nicely filmed and the setting is simple and intimate without being too stifling. There is some thought-provoking and sincere writing.
However, 'The Man in the Glass Booth' had potential to be a lot better, especially considering the subject and the lead performance. The first half as indicated isn't as involving as the second. Parts are on the sluggish side while the writing is not as natural and can be mannered. While liking the second half a lot, the twist is somewhat contrived.
Furthermore the action was too confined and static. Arthur Hiller's direction has moments, but tended to be undistinguished and in need of more subtlety.
Concluding, definitely worth a one time watch but didn't blow me away. 6/10.
My conclusions were that Schell's nomination was worthy, but it was a case of the performance being much better than the film itself (same with the subject matter being better than the film). Which left me intrigued but also a little cold. 'The Man in the Glass Booth' is not one of the worst of the American Film Theatre films, it's a lot better than 'Rhinoceros' and particularly 'Jaques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris'. It is also not one of the best, it's no 'The Iceman Cometh', 'The Homecoming' or 'Butley'. Would put it somewhere bang in the middle.
Schell, the heart and soul of 'The Man in the Glass Booth', is extraordinary in the lead role. All the acting in fact is very good, though the rest of the cast are never on the same level as Schell. The second half is a lot better than the first half, with most of the second half being riveting and tension filled.
'The Man in the Glass Booth' is nicely filmed and the setting is simple and intimate without being too stifling. There is some thought-provoking and sincere writing.
However, 'The Man in the Glass Booth' had potential to be a lot better, especially considering the subject and the lead performance. The first half as indicated isn't as involving as the second. Parts are on the sluggish side while the writing is not as natural and can be mannered. While liking the second half a lot, the twist is somewhat contrived.
Furthermore the action was too confined and static. Arthur Hiller's direction has moments, but tended to be undistinguished and in need of more subtlety.
Concluding, definitely worth a one time watch but didn't blow me away. 6/10.