A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

A different way of telling a story

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

NOTES: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Award, Best Actor, David Niven, defeating Tony Curtis in The Defiant Ones, Paul Newman in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Sidney Poitier in The Defiant Ones and Spencer Tracy in The Old Man and the Sea.The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Award, Best Supporting Actress, Wendy Hiller, defeating Peggy Cass in Auntie Mame, Martha Hyer in Some Came Running, Maureen Stapleton in Lonelyhearts, and Cara Williams in The Defiant Ones.Also nominated for Best Picture (won by Gigi), Best Actress, Deborah Kerr (won by Susan Hayward for I Want To Live), Best Screenplay based on material from another medium (won by Gigi), Best Black-and- white Cinematography (won by The Defiant Ones), Best Scoring of a Drama or Comedy (won by The Old Man and the Sea).With a domestic rentals gross of $2.7 million, number 20 at U.S./Canadian ticket windows for 1959. Oddly, although it took good money, the movie was nowhere near as successful in the United Kingdom. In Australia, however, the picture was a colossal success, placing no less than 7th at the national box-office in what was an extremely difficult year for cinemas with that new novelty of television finally starting to really bite into capital city revenues. David Niven, Best Actor — New York Film Critics. David Niven, Best Actor — Foreign Language Press of New York. Deborah Kerr, Best Actress — Foreign Language Press of New York. David Niven, Best Dramatic Actor — Hollywood Foreign Press. Second to The Old Man and the Sea as Best American Film of 1958 — The National Board of Review. Best Film of the Year — New York Daily News. 7th Best of the Year — Film Daily annual poll of American film critics. 5th Best of 1958 — The New York Herald Tribune. 7th Best of 1958 — The New York Post. 2nd to Gigi as the Best Film of 1958 — The New York Daily Mirror. 4th Best Movie of 1958 — Filmfacts composite list. One of the ten best films of the year on the alphabetical lists published by The News Orleans Times-Picayune, The New York Journal American, and The New York World-Telegram. The above of course is merely a sample of the numerous awards and nominations accorded to Separate Tables.COMMENT: Originally presented on the West End (London) stage with enormous critical and public support, "Separate Tables" was re- staged with even more acclaim on Broadway. In fact, both the Broadway play and Rattigan were nominated for a Tony Award. It was inevitable that such a triumph be eyed by Hollywood. No- one, however, was more aware of the problems confronting a movie version than Rattigan himself. He felt that "Separate Tables" would not make a successful, or even a feasible motion picture unless its plot could be ingeniously reconstructed into one unified narrative. Therefore, when he sold the film rights to Hecht, Hill and Lancaster, Rattigan insisted that he be engaged to write the screenplay.In making this transformation, the somewhat downbeat and noirish elements of the original play have been modified. Nonetheless, the characters themselves have been strengthened and made more interesting so that players like David Niven, Deborah Kerr, Gladys Cooper and Wendy Hiller would have a field day.However, despite the well-merited adulation for Niven, Kerr and Cooper, I thought the players in the other segment of the movie, namely the other original one-act play, equally and perhaps even more deserving. Wendy Hiller figures in both episodes, but she is at her best in these other segment scenes. At the same time, Burt Lancaster never gave a better performance, while Rita Hayworth absolutely dazzles with her brilliance.

A wonderful interplay of characters and words in this magical adaptation of a stage play, anyone unfamiliar with the material, like I was at the time, will be rewarded with all the goings-on at Hotel Beauregard. A collection of characters, both long-term and short, at the aforementioned hotel, gather at the time of this narration, at various points in their lives. There are the (for those times, at that place) illicit unmarried couple, one of whom is more intent on the romantic getaway than the other, who'd rather focus on an upcoming examination.There is a mother-daughter couple, one of whom hold dominance/sway over the other, and that dynamic is painful for all those who behold them, including this viewer.There is the boorish ex-armyman, who's fulla stories that test everyone's patience, and attention-span, and who's completely oblivious to the effect he has on his fellow-person, and keep at it anyway. And the mainstay, of course, is the return of an old flame into a milieu where the one who lit that flame has seemingly moved on, to, let's just say, stabler pastures? hardly a powder-keg waiting to go up, but go up it does, with media, whispers and gossip doing their jobs quite effectively, until it all comes to a head. Once again, as with most of the works made in this time, very economical story-telling, and powerful monologues as well as dialogues from all characters, who put in strong performances. The score though, and this is something typical for flicks made in this time and period, is very in your face, and if one learns to ignore its manipulation, one will be rewarded for said effort. Kerr is almost unrecognizable, but Lancaster and Niven do their schtick, and that's not a bad thing, since I'm still not able to visualize anyone else doing what they've done here. Definitely their A-game. Worth repeat viewings.

What surprised me in this movie is how much things have changed since 1958. It is hard to believe I was alive at the time. However, I remember well how a divorced person was something hushed like having cancer---or being dear God! an alcoholic---so yes this movie is believable. What an uptight nightmare. My second surprise is that 2 of the actors won Oscars--David Niven and Wendy Hiller--Niven best leading actor and Hiller supporting. But Niven's role was tiny! Just proves my feeling that Oscars mean absolutely nothing except who has connections or what new PC theme is being covered. (in this case frigidity)That said I found this talky movie a provenance of later talky boring adult themed intense about nothing movies with famous stars. It reminded me of Who is afraid of Virginia Wolf.This is an actors movies where the actors think they are finally being used for serious topics.The story is about a dozen guests in a hotel over a period of a couple days as various sub plots circle around a center plot of a man who inappropriately elbows women in movie theaters and what to do about such a guest. Topics include frigid wives--vicious gossips--losers who make up their pasts and an alcoholic writer. It is filmed in about 2 rooms.I would avoid it unless nothing else is available. It is not terrible in the way other movies are terrible it is just dull.

About as far removed from his American playwright contemporary Tennessee Williams as you could get, yet there's a place in my heart for English dramatist Terence Rattigan and his perhaps subtler expositions of motive, need, weakness and ultimately dignity in the human condition.Interestingly, this movie adaptation of his mid 50's play, slightly improbably makes prominent use of American actors, although fortuitously possibly, this helps to elevates its status to a wider and higher level and almost certainly helped it to get noticed by the Academy at the awards round.Director Mann doesn't try too hard to "open out" the play for the cinema, realising its strength lies in depicting the enclosed stultifying world of the not-quite "Grand Hotel", it acting as a metaphor for the trapped existences of its various inhabitants. That said, none of the main characters hardly seem drawn from reality, but once you concede the writer's dramatic licence, you have to admire his skill in their interplay and the well-managed conclusion which works too as an indictment against narrow-minded intolerance as the fellow-guests at last react against flinty old Lady Matheson (Cathleen Nesbitt) and her petty-minded outrage at and desired expulsion of David Niven's disgraced "Major" character. Niven won the Oscar for his performance and you can see why, moving from blustery, caddish bonhomie (his "what what" refrain really gets on your nerves as he himself honestly admits) to his awkward embarrassed demeanour at the end. In support, I also enjoyed the playing of Wendy Hiller as the school-marmy hotelier, Deborah Kerr as Nesbitt's sexually repressed daughter and Gladys Cooper as her put-upon friend who like the daughter rises up but gently to overturn the Major's victimisation and rehabilitate him.It doesn't all work, Lancaster and Hayworth's story seems to belong in a different play / film and the minor parts are too sketchily drawn (Rod Taylor and his randy girlfriend too obviously counterpointing the sexual gaucheness of Kerr's Sibyl) and a too obvious Margaret Rutherford type inserted no doubt to add some humour.I'm pretty sure it would have made for a better night out at the theatre than the cinema, but I wouldn't deny the play's elevation to a wider audience and certainly didn't regret checking in on this occasion.