User Reviews

Not everyone can make four films in an entire movie career and win an Oscar for one of them. Shirley Booth was already a 3-time Tony-winning actress when she repeated her stage success in the film "Come Back, Little Sheba," and she would go on to win two Emmy Awards as the title character in the long-running TV series, "Hazel." Shirley Booth was born to play Lola Delaney, and deserved every accolade that came her way for her performance.

The secret to playing Lola Delaney is something that we don't see enough of in contemporary American movies, and that is great acting, pure and simple. Shirley Booth simply becomes Lola. She isn't playing a real-life character, so there are no models by which to judge her skill at mimicry. She isn't playing a monster, or a woman triumphing over crippling adversity; she isn't a tragic figure or a powerful woman.

The Lola Delaneys of this world are so ordinary they practically fade into the wallpaper. They live their lives through and for other people. Lola is composed of bits of all such women. She is lonely in a childless marriage, desperate in her desire to please, overly sentimental, naive, guilt-ridden and utterly lacking in self-esteem. She and her husband, Doc (Burt Lancaster) have a marriage that consists mostly of tolerance of each other's foibles and occasional forced gaiety.

William Inge, the last century's most unjustly forgotten playwright, probably knew a great many Lolas growing up in Kansas. But many of Inge's female characters are stronger than they realize, including Lola. Madge in "Picnic" and Cherie in "Bus Stop" also come to mind. Many of them know what they want from life and have a clearer, more pragmatic idea of how to get it than the men around them.

Most of Inge's plays are deceptively simple not only in the characters they depict, but in setting and structure as well. "Little Sheba" derives a lot of its power from its author's constraints, and it's a bit more true to its source than some other movies adapted from his plays. As with most Inge plays, this one "starts in the middle", and as the story plays out we see how the characters got to where they are, and whether they will stick with what they've got or make a break for an unknown future.

In "Come Back, Little Sheba," we meet Lola and Doc at a time when their marriage has become purely an exercise. It was the product of teenage lust, lived in shame and out of a sense of convention its first year. Gradually the couple lapsed into codependency --- not a word that Lola and Doc would have known- -- but appropriate to describe their existence as she made excuses for his alcoholism. He has been sober for a year, but he's on a slippery rope.

And now, Lola and Doc are in a holding pattern, that is, until they take in a college student, Marie (Terry Moore), as a boarder. Her mere presence, her youth and vitality -- -not to mention the overt sexuality that she represents -- -forces the Delaney house into crisis. It is likely that Marie leaves the Delaney home under the same cloud the Delaneys came into it, but her brief stay and sudden departure have grave lessons to teach both Lola and Doc.

Lola learns to stop dwelling in the past and yearning to undo past mistakes. Marie's smoldering affect- (although to be fair she really does not try to lead Doc on) -sends him reaching for the bottle again. In the end, Marie may never know that she has forced the Delaneys to re-examine their marriage. The final scene ends on an optimistic note, brighter than anything Lola has ever said in an effort to be a lively conversationalist or to feign happiness. It rings quite true, just as does everything in Shirley Booth's brilliant performance.

I found this a very interesting and watchable film. Burt Lancaster's character was an interesting enigma and I felt engaged throughout, feeling like he was going to do something unexpected and possibly horrific. There were lots of mysteries at first, which slowly revealed themselves throughout the film. I really enjoyed it up until the end where it suddenly seemed to get wrapped up very quickly in a clean, nice and happy way, which was out of kilter with the pace and tone of the film up until that point. It really let it down.

A very gloomy Hal Wallis production based on the play by William Inge. The focus being on a couple of less glamorous people; Doc Delanely(Burt Lancaster) is a recovering alcoholic sharing a mundane life with his frumpy and unkempt wife Lola(Shirley Booth), who lives in anticipation of her runaway little puppy Sheba returning home. She also holds herself guilty for their troubled wedding twenty years ago. When Lola rents out a room to an attractive college student Marie(Terry Moore) Doc becomes bothered by her youth and her activities with a boyfriend(Richard Jaeckel).

The household already in stress changes its dynamic and the emotional disturbance causes Doc to wobble off the road of sobriety. Lola, precariously needy and a bit backward, all but completely comes unhinged. Doc and Lola in the need of each other suffer their nagging feelings of failure. This movie still packs a wallop. The characters draw you in rather quickly then hang your emotions out to dry. The role earned Booth an Oscar. Lancaster seems rather young for the role, but believable as Doc. Also in the cast: Philip Ober, Edwin Max and Walter Kelley.

"Come Back, Little Sheba" is a picture that will sneak up on you as you watch it. At first, it seems a bit mundane---perhaps even a bit dull. And, you'll most likely become annoyed with the wife. However, as the film slowly unfolds you suddenly see that it is brilliant--brilliantly written as well as acted.

Shirley Booth received an Oscar for her performance of a dowdy and not particularly interesting or effective housewife. In essence, she is a sloppy and particularly unattractive woman. The handsome Burt Lancaster (wearing makeup and playing a much older man than he really was) is married to this woman--and down deep this loveless marriage to a sad and rather annoying woman is eating him alive. He maintains a placid demeanor--stuffing his anger and resentment down deep as he consumes antacids and complains of stomachaches. He also is a recovering alcoholic who is on edge--and appears setting himself up to drink again. It's a living hell for him, as he is silently bitter about being forced to marry Booth decades before when she became pregnant. The fact that she subsequently lost the baby and is unable to have more doesn't make things any better. Booth's way to cope with this sad marriage is through her dog, Sheba, but since the dog has disappeared, the loneliness of their marriage has become more apparent. It also becomes more apparent when they take in a young boarder (Terry Moore), as she's young, vivacious and has an active and happy love life. All these factors (and more) work together to create a very sad and realistic portrait.

It's obvious that the writers knew a lot about psychology and alcoholism--and this is why I love this film. Not only are the characters wonderfully real, but they are realized correctly--and they definitely get the little details right. For example, it's one of the best films when it comes to alcoholism. Why this man drinks is fascinating--it's not just because he likes the booze, but it's to temporarily escape this awful life--something rarely talked about in films. It's also very interesting how all his hidden rage is released when he drinks--a year of pent-up anger comes exploding from him. Also, the way his sobriety and AA are shown is exceptional--it's a lot more realistic than the more famous (and overrated) "Lost Weekend" (which has a ridiculously upbeat ending). They show an open meeting, talk about the 12 Steps, the Serenity Prayer and the job of AA sponsors.

What's more fascinating for me are the psychological elements--and the writers clearly were putting in a lot of analytic psychology and symbolism. The juxtaposition of Moore's happy life to theirs is symbolic of the emptiness of the couple. It's also creepy and symbolic how this sick couple refer to each other as 'Baby' and 'Daddy'--especially since they cannot have kids. But what really made me excited was listening to Booth's dream at the end of the film--it was chocked full of Freudian symbolism and showed they knew a lot about the psyche. Booth's dream was symbolic of so much--you could listen to it and interpret the meanings at great, great length.

Aside from the exceptional writing, there are some other things to note. Moore is very sexual throughout the film--she is not some stereotypically nice college student but seethes with sexual desires--something very rare in 1950s films and not really seen much until the late 1960s. This helps the story a lot since Booth and Lancaster completely lack this element in their marriage. Also, I loved the acting of Booth and Lancaster. She is able to express so much with her face and body language--you really have to see it. Also, while Lancaster's performance is much more subdued, I loved how he walked through the house when he was intoxicated--slightly touching things to steady himself as he slowly makes his way though the house. It was a little thing--but the director did a fine job as did the actors as lots of little things were used to give the film a rich texture.

So is the film worth seeing? Of course--it is magnificent. But be forewarned that it isn't exactly fun viewing. Often you'll find yourself cringing and by the end there is a pervasive sense of sadness and emptiness that many will find disturbing. Plus I could imagine that the film could kick up a lot of baggage in some viewers.

She talks too much, she's sloppy, she spends her days longing for her lost puppy, her lost youth, and the fantasy worlds portrayed on daytime radio. Why is it, then, that my heart aches for Lola Delaney? In part, because playwright William Inge understands the loneliness and repression that afflict many ordinary lives, but mostly because Shirley Booth brings Lola so vividly to life.

There is much not to like in this film, starting with the miscasting (widely noted by reviewers) of Burt Lancaster as Lola's husband Doc. In spite of the gray touch-up at his temples, Lancaster looks too young, strong, and vigorous to be Lola's husband, let alone a recovering alcoholic.

Also out of place in this story are the young people, played by Terry Moore and Richard Jaeckel, who get a lot of screen time. While Lola and Doc are complex characters that one takes seriously, Marie and Turk are stereotypical older teens. Terry Moore's character is, however, something of a tease, which may be why she was nominated for a supporting actress Oscar.

Another problem is the ending, with its abrupt shift to a more hopeful outlook, with Lola changing her ways and Doc suddenly tender--this after chasing after her with a kitchen knife a few weeks earlier.

Nevertheless, the film is well worth seeing--for Shirley Booth.

First, to deal with the reputed greatness of Shirley Booth's performance. While acknowledging that this is a fine performance, subtle and expressive, Ms. Booth registering an incredible array of nuances, it should also be pointed out that she portrays the wife as a very annoying character, somewhat difficult for the audience to fully sympathize with. Of course, it is the scriptwriter who has her apologizing in every direction, ceaselessly trying to placate her husband, but Ms. Booth employs a whiny voice that diminishes the character and alienates the audience. It reminded me very much of the Shelley Winters whine, which sounds to me like fingernails scratching of a blackboard.

Burt Lancaster is badly miscast as her husband. Almost the first time he walks in front of the camera, striding across the living room, his athleticism looks completely out of place. A vigorous, handsome, young-looking man like him, married to such a frumpy wife? This stretches credibility to the breaking point. The mismatch is especially highlighted in the closing scene, where it is not possible to believe that he cannot live without her, in fact, that he can't find a better mate than her (he never wanted to marry her in the first place).

The script is very good but crashes and burns in the closing scenes, which seem so easy, so Hollywood. He goes on a terrible binge and comes close to murdering his wife, telling her terrible, cruel truths, but after a little time to dry out, he's good as new, says that he never meant what he said, and begs her never to leave him. It has all the marks of a Hollywood happy ending. Why are we to believe he won't go on another binge, perhaps killing her the next time? Why are we to believe that his resentments against his wife aren't still smouldering in his heart, waiting for another occasion to erupt? In fact, we can't believe any of this, and the ending seems easy and implausible.

It's a very good movie, well worth watching, but I wish we could reserve our highest praise, our unconditional praise for movies that are better than this.