by Pierre de Plume
Falling in love with love is falling for make believe,
Falling in love with love is playing the fool.
Caring too much is such a juvenile fancy,
Learning to trust is just for children in school.
I fell in love with love one night when the moon was full,
I was unwise with eyes unable to see.
I fell in love with love, with love everlasting,
But love fell out with me.
— “Falling in Love With Love,” lyrics by Lorenz Hart,
from the Broadway musical “The Boys From Syracuse” (1938)
Despite the cynicism expressed in the above lyrics about romantic love, I believe most of us are nevertheless a little bit in love with love. What keeps us going, I also believe, is the hope that our lives somehow will transcend the pragmatic aspects and conjoin at some level with our idealized notions of eros and, therefore, personal fulfillment.
Picnic, the film adaptation of William Inge’s Pulitzer Prize–winning play, seems designed to encourage viewers to indulge this fantasy while at the same time showing us the dangerous pitfalls and turmoil that adventurous, even unbridled love may bring. These themes are made evident not only through the film’s central romance but also through most of its characters.
Setting and Protagonist. The action of this film is linear and takes place over a 24-hour period beginning on a Labor Day morning in the early 1950s. Handsome, charismatic drifter Hal Carter (William Holden) hops off a freight car passing through a small Kansas town. Hal, a man of humble roots who attended a university in the East on a football scholarship, has been down on his luck. During the years since he flunked out of school he has partied a lot, including plenty of booze and hot sex, but has been unable to find a successful vocation or even to stay out of trouble with the authorities. He has arrived with nothing but the well-worn boots his alcoholic father left him. Again flat broke with nowhere and nobody to turn to, Hal dreams of a white-collar job with a nice office and “pretty secretary” through the help of his college buddy Alan Seymour (Cliff Robertson), the heir to a prosperous grain elevator business.
Other Central Characters. After a life of relying mostly on good looks and an active libido, Hal has left a trail littered with turmoil and broken hearts. This time, however, he is in for a rude awakening when his magnetic, sex-charged presence alters the lives of everyone he’s about to encounter, especially buddy Alan’s love interest Madge Owens (Kim Novak), the prettiest girl in town. In fact, there’s enough love stuff going around in this film — including, of course, the pains and paradoxes of love — to provide all the characters with strong doses of not just joy but suffering. Throughout it all, Hal becomes entangled in one way or another beginning with the already attached Madge. We also learn that each of these characters, in their own way, is as desperate over love and happiness as is Hal.
As the most attractive young woman in town, Madge is a great catch even for the well-heeled Alan. Aware of her striking looks (Novak’s hair is long, loose and red here rather than her usual more stylized blonde), she seems unenthused about Alan’s attentions, much to her mother’s growing concern. Smart enough but no great intellect, Madge works at the dime store, dates Alan compliantly but laments, “What good is it just being pretty?” Her single mom, Flo (Betty Field), herself a hardened casualty of a marriage that failed long ago, urges Madge to secure her future by “doing things” for Alan — one guesses second base or maybe third — that will ensure a committment of marriage because “a pretty girl doesn’t have long . . . just a few years” before Madge’s primary attribute fades away.
Madge’s younger sister, Millie (Susan Strasberg), is a tomboy with an intellectual, artsy side. She carries a tough exterior but in reality is insecure about her identity as a girl/woman. Vowing to never marry, Millie dreams of moving to New York and write novels that vindicate herself with those in “this dirt-water town” who don’t appreciate her. It’s Millie, not the more fragile Madge, who shares more fun and excitement with Hal. She develops a teenage crush on him but ultimately must face the inevitability that Hal desires Madge.
In addition to the Holden/Novak storyline, Picnic also features a second romance involving “old maid school teacher” Rosemary Sydney (Rosalind Russell) and her longstanding sort-of-boyfriend Howard Bevans (Arthur O’Connell), who enjoys life as a bachelor living above his store. Unlike many Midwestern school teachers of the era, Rosemary is not at all reserved. Her fun-loving nature suggests she was more wild when younger and wouldn’t mind doing it again. Howard is content with himself and with his lot in life. He is good-natured and open but does not seek change. When Rosemary lashes out at Hal after he doesn’t accept her drunken advances, she breaks down and realizes her need to marry Howard before it’s “too late” for her.
A Romantically Ideal Centerpiece. Certainly the central appeal of this film emanates from scenes where sexual tension between Hal and Madge begins to take fire, leading to dazzlingly sensual sequences as the picnic festivities reach their climax. When Madge floats to shore wearing her beauty queen crown and robe, Hal realizes, no doubt for the first time ever, that Madge is the real thing for him — different from the others and maybe his last chance. Soon after, when Madge gazes intently from a footbridge as Hal and Millie dance, she too seems to realize that Hal is the man she has been waiting for. We soon learn she intends to let him know it.
For those who haven’t seen Picnic, one scene that got 1950s audiences talking is, of course, the erotically powerful dance that Holden and Novak perform to the song “Moonglow.” When Novak, dressed in billowy pink, descends a few stairs, claps her hands to the syncopated jazz beat, and swivels her hips toward the mesmerized Holden, filmgoers were entranced. As the two inch toward one another, looking deeply into the other’s eyes throughout an intimate embrace, their sexually frank playfulness turns soul-baringly serious. One may sense the heat from the couple’s bodies and breath as they acknowledge the visceral attraction each feels toward the other. Framed by colored lanterns and reflections from the river near the dock, Hal and Madge fall helplessly and hopelessly into love before our eyes and we too fall with them.
The following video clip shows not only the “Moonglow” dance (at the 1:30 mark) but also features noteworthy moments occurring before and after the dance:
Perpetuation of the Romantic Ideal. As noted above, the romantic bliss experienced by Hal and Madge after her “coronation” is short-lived. Rosemary (Russell), in a drunken, vengeful rage, attacks Hal’s masculine identity when he spurns her sexually aggressive attempt to dance with him. (“You’re a fake — the gutter is where you came from and the gutter is where you belong!”) After Millie becomes sick from dipping into Howard’s secret liquor supply, Sturm and Drang ensues when Rosemary rips off Hal’s borrowed shirt and Alan bitterly condemns him as the instigator of the entire embarrassing incident. (“Same old Hal!”)
Police are called in by Alan when Hal flees in his convertible, but Hal eludes them and realizes he must leave town, a “solution” he no doubt has used in the past. With Howard’s help, the next morning Hal begs Madge to go with him to Tulsa as her mom looks on in horror. (“Baby, you’re the only real thing I ever wanted.”) When a conflicted Madge demurs, Hal runs to board a passing train as he calls out to her, “You love me — you know it!” Later an empathetic Millie tells Madge, “Just because I’m a dope doesn’t mean you have to be. Go with him, Madge. For once in your life do something bright.”
And this is exactly what Madge does when she packs a bag and boards a bus to Tulsa over mother Flo’s desperate objections: “He’s no good — he’ll spend it all on drink. And after that there’ll be other women.” The kind, elderly neighbor, Mrs. Potts, consoles Flo, suggesting she believes in Hal’s innate goodness: “Then he walked in and it was different. He clomped around like it was still outdoors. There was a man in the house, and it seemed good.”
By following Hal to Tulsa, Madge abandons a materially secure if loveless life with Alan. Instead she opts for the dangerously visceral temptations of life with Hal, who has told her, “What’s the use, Baby, I’m a bumb.” Implicit in Madge’s decision is her assurance that she will play the role of supportive wife “for better or for worse.” We are assured of this during the closing credits when an aerial shot depicts Madge’s bus and Hal’s train on intersecting paths as they cut through the fields of South Central Kansas.
In the end, the filmmakers appear to reject the defeatist sentiments of Madge’s mother, which echo Lorenz Hart’s “Falling in Love With Love” quoted at the top of this article. Instead, the film’s point of view apears to favor the dreamier sentiments expressed in the lyrics to the movie’s love theme, written by TV personality Steve Allen but not used for the film:
On a picnic morning without a warning,
I looked at you
and somehow I knew.
On a day for singing my heart went winging,
A picnic grove
was our rendezvous.
At the last light of evening,
I held you in my arms.
Now when days grow stormy and lonely for me
,
I just recall
picnic time with you.
Original trailer to Picnic:
Torn shirt scene at the dance:
That’s a major piece of work, Pierre! Many thanks for such a great analysis.
Thanks, realthog! I would’ve liked to say a lot more, but who has time? 🙂
After many years of seeing bits and pieces of the film, I finally had the opportunity to watch it fully, intently and with purpose.
For years I thought it all a bit corning and contrived. Do audiances today understand the symbols of sexuallity so nuanuced in this film?
The color choices, the lackadaisical attitudes in performances, especially Kim Novack. Of she almost always acted like she could care less, as in sleep state.
There are great performances in this film Rosalind Russell’s, Lonely frustrated school teacher, Susan Strasberg’s, Tomboy finding herself as a desirable young woman. Just to mention a few.
Thank you Pierre for your thoughtful intelligent review!
Thank you Jeff. I must confess I share to some extent some of your reservations about the film even though it’s a sentimental favorite of mine. I didn’t get into this in my piece, choosing instead to focus on the film’s effective romantic qualities. I think some of the problems lie in the direction. Logan doesn’t seem to exercise much nuance. Even though the main theme is beautiful and the Moonglow sequence is mesmerizing, elsewhere in the film the music is synced too heavy-handedly with the action for my taste. I ac tually feel Novak is well cast. And Rosalind Russell is good, but she, too, overindulges herself at times in my view. Logan should’ve reigned her in — if that’s possible. I think we have to remember that the 1950s was the era of hard-hitting drama with an underbelly that points us toward things like sexual repression and other, “unseemly” stuff. Audiences today may find it a bit dated and, as you suggest, may not pick up on the sexual symbols because they’re accustomed to seeing sex acted much more explicitly.
Well after reading Sammy’s praise of your review Pierre I stand to revise my thoughts about the film.
I understand what you are saying…
Thank you for your reply
Jeff, you might want to take a moment to search for Roger Ebert’s review of this film. His appraisal was uncomplimentary though he does make some cogent points. It can be helpful to get an alternate perspective, I’d say.
Here is the link to Ebert’s review:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/picnic-1996
Thanks for the link, Sam. I’ve read most of Ebert’s reactions to Picnic before but reading his review again I do have some qualms:
Alan takes him up atop one of his family’s grain elevators, and Hal explains what he has in mind: “A nice little office where I can have a sweet little secretary and talk over the telephone about enterprises and things.” He’s promised the job. Actually, Roger, Hal was offered a job shoveling grain.
Holden, who spends much of the film stripped to the waist and much of the rest with his shirt torn, stands behind the trash can so that the flames wrinkle the air in front of him, and looks like a Chippendale boy on yard duty. Actually, Roger, Holden was closer in age to a Chippendale boy’s father.
Director Joshua Logan, among the worst filmmakers of his time, spends so much footage on the picnic, you’d think this was a documentary: There are crying babies, laughing babies, frowning babies, three-legged races, pie-eating competitions, balloon drops, concerts and boy-girl contests. “Among the worst” is a bit of overstatement. And I actually thought the picnic footage enhanced the film and its themes.
As night falls, Madge and Hal begin to dance together sensually, in the movie’s famous sexy scene. Madge, dizzy with passion, tells him, and I quote, “You remind me of one of those statues–one of those old Roman gladiators. All he had on was a shield.” Roger, you’re being sloppy: It wasn’t Madge who said this but old maid schoolteacher Roz Russell. Sheesh. Get your facts straight; it affects your conclusions.
Yep Pierre, our dear friend Roger was definitely guilty of sloppiness and most importantly of overkill. I’d wager if he were still with us and watched PICNIC again some of his perceptions would be substantially altered. All your responses here are fascinating.
I need to watch this again. Have not seen it since I was kid and I am sure I missed reading a lot of what was going on. A truly superb review!!!
Thanks, John. If you do see the film I have no doubt your reaction will be different. Although many mature-themed novels and plays by certain American writers have been adapted for film, many did not succeed. I’m thinking, for example, of writers like Tennessee Williams, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck and, of course, William Inge. My view is that Picnic, despite some flaws, is a respectable and affecting interpretation.
In fact, there’s enough love stuff going around in this film — including, of course, the pains and paradoxes of love — to provide all the characters with strong doses of not just joy but suffering.
Pierre, I will not purport to call your post today a “review,” rather it is a presentation, and an extraordinary one at that. If this were turned in to a college professor for a film course, you would receive an A+ and a footnote asserting your work as a model of its kind. But this presentation is too lively, too vivid, too passionate and too independently-crafted to quality for a term paper submission. Your examination of the way romance serves as the film’s profound underpinning is brilliant, and your careful re-creation of the plot contains all kinds of insightful commentary along the way. As you know I happen to love the entire score -not just the iconic main theme and the renowned Moonglow dance, but the wistful Coplanesque-inspired music that serves as a superlative aural accompaniment of the scenes that exude the various sexual tensions. The story is an alluring one – an outsider moves into town and alters the fates of the characters he comes into contact with. Logan also caught some flack for his direction of SOUTH PACIFIC, and sad to say he is not here the most imaginative guy. But he is more than rescued by the performances -Holden, Novak and Russell (I did not have a problem with Russell myself), Duning’s magnificent score and the acclaimed cinemascope cinematography of camera master James Wong Howe.
Beautiful incorporation of screen caps and profound captions, key scenes and trailers.
This is a real PICNIC of a post, quite definitive I must say, and surely one of the banner submissions of this countdown.
Sam, you have a unique way of making people feel appreciated and bringing out the best in them. Thank you for being such a great “development editor” on this and other occasions.
One point I’d like to add about the film are the interspersed scenes of the picnic festivities — I’m referring to the “slice-of-life,” near-documentary portrayals of real Midwesterners attending a Labor Day festival. Virtually of all the actors used were extras hired on location in Kansas. Roger Ebert for one disliked this aspect of the film. I disagree strongly with that assessment because the scenes involving the central characters, when artfully edited into the “verité” footage, adds levels of immediacy, believability, irony and therefore depth and meaning to the story.
One point I’d like to add about the film are the interspersed scenes of the picnic festivities — I’m referring to the “slice-of-life,” near-documentary portrayals of real Midwesterners attending a Labor Day festival.
Pierre, do you think I’m off base to be thinking of BOYHOOD?
That association would not have occurred to me, Sam, but there are similarities as you imply. With Boyhood fresh in your mind, knowing your high regard for it, I see your point even thogh the films are decades apart in time and in cultural context.
Very thorough examination of a film that I’ve seen once and probably will need to see again after reading this splendid essay. Pierre this is a great piece and very convincing all around. I certainly liked it on first viewing but it appears there may be more here than I thought. Great job.
Thank you Jon. It’s difficult for me to not delve deeply into any subject I’m researching or writing about. This one has the added appeal of an emotional attachment to it. Finishing the job is quite gratifying, especially when the work is well received.
Special Note: I can’t help but notice that all of the comments so far have been made by males. I’m curious to know whether this is merely a coincidence. When my essay refers to the “romantic ideal” represented in the film, implicit in that characterization is that the ideal I’m talking about is a sexist one.
Certainly Kim Novak’s popularity as a 1950s screen goddess reflected support from both men and women of the era. Her popularity faded fairly quickly, however, when feminism began to emerge in the 1960s and romantic ideals underwent change. It would be interesting to hear from commenters about this — especially the females.
Sorry to say I don’t quite fit the bill, but I’d like to commend you on an excellent essay. I saw this film about 20 years ago, but the characters and setting remain vivid. Novak is exquisite.
Oh Peter you fit the bill all right. 🙂 As you perhaps know, Novak’s acting skill was not highly regarded during the most successful period of her career. Maybe you recall the contrast behind her intuitive, low-key style and that of veteran Rosalind Russell. She may not have been the best actress around, but Novak’s natural talent is getting better marks now it did back then. I think she deserves it and, yes, she is exquisite.
Amen to all your points here Pierre in response to Peter. As you note there is much higher regard for Novak’s work today than back in the 50’s. And deservedly so.
Must confess I haven’t seen this one, Pierre, but hope to do so very soon. I’ve been getting into 1950s dramas lately, and am wondering from this review if there are some similarities between this and ‘Some Came Running’. Anyway, I’ll hope to see it soon and return to this thread!
Judy I wish I could answer that question but I haven’t seen enough of Some Came Running to make a comparison. Seems to me that film is grittier and has a cold, violent ending. Anyone?
Aye Pierre, agreed. Absolutely.
Judy is probably the only blogger I have ever known – and I include myself in this mix – who always comes back to threads when she has seen the film in question!!! 🙂
Mr. de Plume has plucked this movie clean. I saw it many years ago and have remembered much of what is related in this colossal essay. There was an unnerving mood that pervaded over the proceedings, and oddly enough I remember it more than anything else.
Thank you for the wonderful compliment, David. That unnerving mood you speak of has much to do with the story and script (this is William Inge after all) but also I think the acting of many of the principals – especially Novak. Thanks for coming back to this piece
That’s a telling point about Inge as a proponent of that kind of mood Pierre! This was certainly true of THE DARK AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS and COME BACK LITTLE SHEBA. In any case I’d love to have seen his Broadway re-working of PICNIC, titled SUMMER BRAVE which was first staged in 1975. Inge reportedly injected more comedic elements into it.
Reading through this brilliant and gargantuan essay again this morning after pondering and subsequently endorsing David’s observations and Pierre’s agreement I started to think of the rich period of the 1950’s and early 60’s when a slew of successful Broadway shows were made into generally fine films. First and foremost is the name of the incomparable icon Tennessee Williams.
Here in New York City the Film Forum will be conducted an 11 day Tennessee Williams retrospective from September 26 till October 6 that (comprehensively) will include:
A Streetcar Named Desire
The Fugitive Kind
Baby Doll
The Glass Menagerie
Night of the Iguana
The Rose Tattoo
The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone
This Property is Condemned
Summer and Smoke
Boom
Suddenly, Last Summer
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Senso (Williams served here as “dialogue collaborator)
Sweet Bird of Youth
I dare say I will be spending some time here.
That would be a whole lotta Sturm and Drang to sit through, Sam, even for you. 😉 As you probably know, Williams wasn’t satisfied with most of the screen adaptations of his works. As I recall, Suddenly Last Summer was the one he thought was the best done, and he liked Kate Hepburn’s interpretation of Violet Venable — and of course Magnani in Rose Tattoo. That said, All of these, including Boom, are worth seeing for the first time or even a repeat viewing.
Aye Pierre. I will be limiting my appearances but it seems there is some serious interest in a few by some friends. BABY DOLL for one is definite. I know Williams was not all too thrilled with some of the adaptations. But hard to find fault with classics like STREETCAR, IGUANA, and ROSE TATTOO. BOON is another I want to see–never saw it!
I’m very late in returning to this thread, since I saw this film a few months ago now – just want to say that I did enjoy it and thought William Holden and Rosalind Russell in particular were great.
I didn’t really want to see Madge go after Hal, as there seemed to be no future for them – couldn’t she have decided not to marry Alan and to wait and see re Hal? But of course that would have been less romantic. Anyway, thanks again for this review, Pierre.
Thanks, Judy! Better late than never I always say. 🙂 Your suggestion of Madge leaving Alan and adopting a wait-and-see attitude with Hal would seem to be the more sensible choice. My guess is that, first of all, Madge would see that, with Hal, it would be “now or never.” I think also that the “solution” for Madge here is twofold and is accompanied by author Inge’s notion that it’s not just about following love but also about leaving the restrictive small-town culture and getting out into the bigger world — which is where true fulfillment and realization of one’s broader dreams may have a better chance. Better to take that big leap sooner rather than risk losing one’s chance later. Coming from a small Midwestern town myself, perhaps my interpretation is biased. But this seems to be a theme that runs through Inge’s work. Any additional thoughts are encouraged, and thanks again, Judy.