Separate Tables
Separate Tables
NR | 18 December 1958 (USA)
Separate Tables Trailers

Boarders at an English resort struggle with emotional problems.

Reviews
Catangro

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

... View More
Ogosmith

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

... View More
Stephanie

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

... View More
Fleur

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

... View More
marcslope

She plays a shy virgin saddled with an awful mother (Gladys Cooper, essentially reprising her turn in "Now, Voyager") and obsessed with the glad-handing, deceiving military man living in the same residential hotel (David Niven, who deserved his Oscar), and she drives me nuts. It's like Deborah Kerr playing Carol Burnett playing Deborah Kerr, so overplaying the shyness and awkwardness and terror over sex that it crosses over into parody. The rest of this opus, cooked up from some short Terence Rattigan plays, is quite good. It's a starry hotel, with Burt Lancaster planning to marry hotel manager Wendy Hiller (another deserved Oscar) but distracted by the return of ex-wife Rita Hayworth, and a young Rod Taylor as a medical student we tend to forget about, and Cathleen Nesbitt as an old biddy a good deal more sympathetic than Ms. Cooper. The short stories are skillfully interwoven, and it's franker about sex than much 1958 product. But just as you're settling into it, along comes Deb stammering and gurgling and getting hysterical over nothing. She's such a brilliant actress, I don't know who steered her wrong on this one.

... View More
HotToastyRag

Based off of Terence Rattigan's plays, Separate Tables is one of the few stage adaptations that transfers extremely well to the big screen. Most play-to-film adaptations are woody and wordy, and the dialogue is extremely artificial. If you've seen a Tennessee Williams movie, you know what I mean. William Inge's plays usually translate well, as does this film, which was nominated for seven Oscars and won two in the 1959 ceremony.The entire film takes place in an English hotel that's like a permanent bed and breakfast. Wendy Hiller, who won Best Supporting Actress, gives an excellent strong, subdued, and conflicted performance as the hotel proprietress. She's romantically involved with one of her tenants, Burt Lancaster, a tortured soul with a violent temper who drowns his sorrows in alcohol. What will happen when Rita Hayworth, Burt's old flame, comes to town? Gladys Cooper virtually reprises her role from Now, Voyager and plays a controlling, judgmental mother to Deborah Kerr. Deborah gives one of her finest performances; on the surface she's frightened, meek, and obedient, but underneath it all is a ticking time bomb, ready to explode with hatred of her life.David Niven is another resident, an old, retired Major, always full of entertaining war stories and a kind word for the sheltered Deborah Kerr. Niven won Best Actor for his performance, and while I am probably one of his biggest fans, it always seemed odd to me that he was up for Best Actor rather than Best Supporting Actor. His character is the central crux of the plot, but the screen time is pretty equally split among the main characters. It's hard to pick out one actor or actress as "the lead". Niven is aged up for the role, and puts on a blustering persona to fit his character. He ends his sentences with a "what, what?" as a proverbial English Major would, but it's clear from the first scene he's hiding something. His constant covering is subtle and layered superbly. He doesn't act like he's "acting", and his performance certainly couldn't have been seen from the back row of the theater, but if you're on the lookout for every flinch on his face and slight pause of his words, you'll see a remarkable performance.The worst part of the movie is Rita Hayworth. I've never been a fan of hers, and she brings nothing special to this role. Her mediocrity might not have been felt on its own, but she was surrounded by such fantastic performances and was showed up constantly. Still, Rita aside, this movie is definitely worth watching. It's a fantastic classic, with a tense, judgmental plot, but one that will keep you on the edge of your seat all the same. For a great double feature, rent Come Back, Little Sheba and Separate Tables-and don't be surprised if you get a lump in your throat more than once.

... View More
TheLittleSongbird

After watching the Terence Rattigan DVD collection (with most of the adaptations being from the 70s and 80s) when staying with family friends last year, Rattigan very quickly became one of my favourite playwrights and he still is. His dialogue is so intelligent, witty and meaty, his characterisation so dynamic, complex and real and the storytelling so beautifully constructed.'Separate Tables' for all those reasons and how Rattigan brings emotional and psychological complexities to real life situations is classic Rattigan, to me one of his best. This 1958 film does it justice. Other adaptations of Rattigan did better jobs at opening out the source material, notable examples being 1951's 'The Browning Version' and 1948's 'The Winslow Boy', but keeping things confined here in 'Separate Tables' was in keeping with the characters' situations without being too stagy.The weakest element of 'Separate Tables' is that while Rod Taylor and Audrey Dalton are appealing their material isn't as interesting or as meaty as that for the rest of the characters. Otherwise there is little to complain about.Rattigan's writing shines brilliantly in 'Separate Tables', to me he was one of the great playwrights/writers of the 20th century who didn't deserve to go out of fashion (or so that seems to be the case). It has so much intelligence, insight, meaty complexity, emotional impact and the odd bit of humour (though much of the play bases itself around a serious subject). Is the film talky? Sure. Then again as was said for 1948's 'The Winslow Boy', the play is talky and Rattigan in general is talky.As well as clever, consummate storytelling, it's melodramatic but in an incredibly insightful, intricately intimate, honest and poignant way that tells so much about the characters and their situations, the film doesn't get overwrought or overheated and the ending is one particularly powerful scene.Production values are handsome, and wisely kept simple rather than going for big, grand, lavish spectacle that would most likely have been overblown and swamped the drama and characterisation which would have wrecked things completely. Didn't think that Delbert Mann's direction was bland at all, it's restrained and low-key but always assured.One cannot not mention the wonderful casting. Although not having the strongest characters, Taylor and Dalton are still good, but the more well-known names in more interesting roles dominate. David Niven received an Oscar for his performance here, despite his screen time not being long judging from his moving performance of a seemingly blustery character who darkens vastly in demeanour it was deserved. Deborah Kerr's performance as a meek, mousy character is deeply felt, she avoids too being too meek to be bland. Wendy Hiller is understated and sympathetic.Burt Lancaster has fun while also bringing intensity and vulnerability. Rita Hayworth, one of Hollywood's most glamorous beauties, has rarely been more heart-wrenching. One can't forget the superbly domineering Gladys Cooper either.Overall, a beautiful film and as good a film adaptation of 'Separate Tables' as one would find anywhere. 9/10 Bethany Cox

... View More
urbisoler-1

Actually, I would rate this film a bit higher than 8 if I knew how to do so. You wouldn't think that a film where the action takes place in virtually one room would qualify for greatness but the character studies alone make this film outstanding. One of the best ever. Fortunately, there is sufficient variety in character to keep one's interest at a high level. You don't have time for your mind to question why one behaves thus before the story is already involved with another character's dilemma. And, you don't have time to critique how well a character displays an emotion before the impact is felt elsewhere. If you are a collector of fine films, this one belongs in your collection.

... View More