Duet for One (1986) User Reviews (15)

This is proof enough that Julie Andrews can act; again, she rises above this uneven work ...

[philip-ct · 8/10 · 30 October 2004]

"I'm in this chair because I've got multiple sclerosis," thunders Julie Andrews (as Stephanie) to her shrink - rather a caricature - Max von Sydow. There is anger, there is bitterness, there is a resignation, there is a sense of loss, a sense of frustration and an understated (and unstated) acknowledgement that we all die alone...

In one line, Ms Andrews displays a depth to her dramatic performance not yet seen by viewers. I remember some rather disparaging comments being made about this casting (as well as for 84 Charing Cross Road, released in the same time frame as Duet for One). Most of these were aimed at the casting of Julie Andrews in a pivotal dramatic role.

Understandable, perhaps, as Julie Andrews *is* better known as a musical star (though cannot make any more musical films)and is seen as either Mary Poppins or Maria von Trapp. In reality, Ms Andrews has made more non-musical films than musical films.

Duet for One, though, was a departure from other roles: this film is kept alive only by the performance of Julie Andrews -- the other characters are merely 'supporting' characters. Julie Andrews does what she has done in previous musical films: she takes centre stage.

Her performance is absolutely brilliant -- she received two Golden Globe nominations as Lead Actress in one year (1986): For drama, 'Duet for One'; for comedy/musical, 'That's Life.'

I saw both in London in 1987. Julie Andrews, it seemed by overwhelming critical responses, had 'come of age'. Her performances were measured, realistic and gritty: and even with the subject matter of Duet for One, never diminishes into audience-pleasing wallowing sympathy.

I do think that Julie Andrews has been a much-cheated actress: audiences do not seem to *want* her to be more than a musical star. She has great comic timing (such a pity that there never was a vehicle to exploit this talent). In 'Duet for One', she convinces that she can act: she is in control, but a weighty script, uneven directing and blurred focus helped this movie to sink.

And again, an excellent performance is not seen by a large number of people. There is gritty, gutsy work and Julie Andrews *should* have been nominated for an Academy Award (rather than a strange nomination to Jane Fonda for 'The Morning After'.

This film is not good ('Hilary and Jacky' is much better) but the lead performance is outstanding. If you get a chance, see it. For Julie Andrews' work and some fine classical music, outstandingly weaved into the soundtrack in background and foreground, it's stunning.

And there are interesting supporting cast vignettes too, notably those of Liam Neeson and Cathryn Harrison.

A great pity that this film has diluted its original play so much, but it's still worth seeing.

Depressive Story of Self-Destruction

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 22 January 2016]

In London, the famous violinist Stephanie Anderson (Julie Andrews) is unexpectedly struck with multiple sclerosis while playing with her student Constantine Kassanis (Rupert Everett) in a concert. She becomes bitter and depressed with the abrupt end of her career and seeks help with the psychiatrist Dr. Louis Feldman (Max von Sydow). Meanwhile, her husband David Cornwallis (Alan Bates) is distant from her and confesses that he has a love affair with his secretary Penny Smallwood (Cathryn Harrison). Further, he travels in a tour to America with Penny. Then her favorite pupil finds a job in Las Vegas and decides to travel to America. Stephanie begins a journey to self-destruction and gets rid of her trophies, long-play records and her expensive violin and has a love affair with the junk collector Totter (Liam Neeson). When she reaches the rock bottom, she tries to commit suicide. Will Stephanie overcome her depression?

"Duet for One" is a depressive story of self-destruction of a famous violin player. The performances are top-notch, highlighting Julie Andrews in the lead role. It is difficult to understand her relationship with her ex-husband David and Pennie in the end. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Sede de Amar" ("Thirsty of Love")

Julie Andrews is wonderful in this!!

[hennystruijk · 8/10 · 19 December 2018]

Very little seen film that has a great performance by Andrews. Not a happy film--but very real. Surely worth seeing!

Wonderfully acted, really moving, Julie Andrews' best performance.

[jimnz · 6 April 1999]

I was surprised this disappeared the way it did and that Julie Andrews did not receive an Academy Award nomination. It's a tough uncompromising depiction of what it's like for someone who is losing control physically and starts to lose it emotionally as well. The scene in the back of the car where Andrews and Alan Bates argue and he goes that one step too far is unlike any personal altercation I can recall seeing on film. I found the film totally engrossing and very moving.

Interesting responses to her crippling illness

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 20 June 2022]

I knew watching Duet for One would be difficult, because it focused on a woman's struggle with Multiple Sclerosis, but there was an added realism that made it especially tough. Julie Andrews, who had a terrible tragedy with her vocal cords, put an eerie touch of denial in her performance. When she first started stumbling and dropping glasses from her weak hands, her immediate (and I mean absolute immediate, without a beat for surprise, shame, or sorrow) reaction was to start giggling. It was so chilling to see Julie Andrews, poised to perfection, use a knee-jerk reaction of laughter when confronted with her symptoms of MS. Her front was un-breakable, and in those early scenes, she never cracked.

Of course, the story continues, and she runs the gamut of all the emotions you'd expect. Her character is a famous violinist whose career, of course, comes to a screeching halt. Her star pupil, Rupert Everett, is heartbroken, and her conductor husband, Alan Bates, pulls away from their marriage. Her therapist, Max von Sydow, is a sounding board for when she travels through all her moods. She's angry, ashamed, and hates that she has to go through the rest of her life as a cripple. She baits Alan into fighting with her, and she tries to shock Max with her "life is short" revelation. The biggest problem I had with the story was the character of Julie's housekeeper. She judges Julie's behavior and literally prays that she'll stop, which I thought was heartless. Julie's life, as she knew it, is over, and in my opinion, she's entitled to grab any happiness she can find.

If you just love Julie Andrews in her musicals, you might not want to watch this depressing drama. It's very dark, she uses language that Mary Poppins would be ashamed of, and she acts in ways that would shock Maria Von Trapp. But if you like her heavier work, like That's Life! And On Golden Pond, you'll appreciate this very fine piece of acting.

This is not the nice Julie audiences expect.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 25 May 2022]

Her character maybe dying, suffering from multiple sclerosis and confined to a wheelchair all of a sudden, but that doesn't stop her from being a real nasty piece of work sometimes, instantly regretting it, especially after telling her husband Alan Bates off that he's nothing getting an emotional slap in the face when he tells her that she'll be dead and he'll still be alive. And that's on a Mountaintop overlooking a cliff where he may be tempted to jump and she won't be doing any twirling and breaking into song. Julie is Stephanie Anderson, a world renowned violinist who's world is shattered by her medical diagnosis, something she finds out before the film begins. She goes to see analyst Max von Sydow and tells him about her health situation, then finds out that her husband is having an affair with his assistant. What does Julie do? She turns to junk man Liam Neeson for sexual comfort.

To add to her not so nice moments is her telling solo violinist protege Rupert Everett that is he leaves her to take a position elsewhere, he can count on her never agreeing to see him again. With tantrums like this, it's easy to not really like her very much even though it's easy to sympathize with her character for the medical issues she's going through and the psychiatric issues she's facing because of all the drama in her life. When she slapped Bates' assistant Cathryn Harrison across the face out of the blue, that's seemingly after she's come to accept the fact that he's having an affair with her, and later on, she says it's her in her bedroom to gently apologize. So she's a woman of many conflicts, and after a while, it's very difficult for all the people around her to be near her.

This film, based on a successful two character play from both the West End and Broadway, is expanded to include all these other characters, would probably have ended up as a cable TV movie if made later or with a lesser leading star. Andrews is certainly a commanding even if her character is rather demanding, and I can see why she got a Golden Globe nomination. It's all so admirable to see why she wanted to stretch her acting muscles and play a less noble character. She dealt with a similar plot line in the same year's "That's Life!", but her character was not as abrasive even as she wasn't the happiest woman in the world. Bates and von Sydow really don't get to play well developed characters, but the minor characters played by Neeson, Everett and Harrison are surprisingly drawn out. Worth it to see Julie to see Julie in a different type of role, but not one that most audiences will want to revisit.

High underrated

[shamsiarefin · 9/10 · 5 June 2020]

Just an incredible dramatic performance by coloratura soprano dame Julie Andrews. I dont think this film was given the credit it has so long deserved, perhaps because of how depressing it can be. However, if for just two hours, we can remove ourselves from what we want Julie Andrews to be, and let her act and give us the story, would we be wowed. I highly recommend people to watch this incredible film.

Duet for One

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 21 March 2022]

Duet for One is based on the life of conductor Daniel Barenboim and his wife, cellist Jacqueline du Pré, and Cannon originally bought this back when they made The Wicked Lady, as it was a movie that Faye Dunaway and her husband Terry O'Neill had wanted to make.

A stage play by Tom Kempinski, who also wrote the screenplay, this movie was directed by Andrei Konchalovsky, who also made Maria's Lovers and Runaway Train for Cannon, so he had good luck at making highly regarded films for the lowy regarded studio.

Stephanie Anderson (Julie Andrews) is a world-famous violinist who has lost the ability to play and must redefine her reationships with her husband David (Alan Bates), her accompanist Leonid Lefimov (Sigfrit Steiner), her star pupil Constantine Kassanis (Rupert Everett) and her manager Sonia Randvich (Margaret Courtenay).

She sees Dr. Louis Feldman (Max von Sydow) for help, but he can't help her with the rage she feels. Her husband will turn to drink, her accompanist will die, her student will leave and she'll eventually give away all of her music possessions to a man (Liam Neeson) who can only give her physical affection.

As she finally gives in to the pain and attempts to overdose, only her maid remains to try to save her. And by the end, in what may be a dream, she's grown closer to the doctor, Constantine returns and Leonid comes back from the dead as a ghost.

Duet for One is a hard watch in a good way, as it's loaded with emotional darkness. I'm always amazed by the movies that Cannon was part of and the fact that they could make both this movie and Going Bananas.

Powerful duet

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 6 December 2019]

Have loved Julie Andrews from an early age, having grown up on 'Mary Poppins' and 'The Sound of Music'. Both of which are still favourites. Max Von Sydow has always struck me as an amazing actor, his acting intense but also understated when needed which is some of my favourite type of acting. Am a lover of classical music and having seen what multiple schlerosis does to people the story on paper struck a chord with me (pardon the pun).

While 'Duet for One' is not my definition of a masterpiece or a film exempt from flaws, to me it is a very good film deserving of more credit, rather than being deserving of its near-obscure status. Also consider it a quite brave and powerful film and it is easily one of Andrews' best forays into more dramatic repertoire. If it is not everybody's cup of tea though, that is fine by me. It is not an easy watch by any stretch and anybody who watches a film expecting likeable characters all the time are best looking elsewhere.

Part of me really does wish that Feldman's character was a more interesting character than a callous caricature. Von Sydow does do a great job with what he was given, which is indicative of a true professional and a justly esteemed actor.

Although the music on the most part is great, some of it is a little on the saccharine side. MS is portrayed hard-hittingly and movingly, but it is also not the most balanced or most sympathetic portrayal at the same time.

On the other hand, 'Duet for One' has many fine things. It is not filmed in an overblown way, nor does it look static or too filmed play-like, with it being a film adaptation of a play. While not all the music completely worked, the music itself is great and will be a treat for classical music lovers. Andrei Konchalovsky's direction is sympathetic while not being stagy, some of his best work in one of his better films but sadly it is direction and a film that isn't appreciated enough. The script is thoughtful and doesn't get too sentimental or patronising.

'Duet for One's' story is in no way easy to get one's head round emotionally, it's quite harrowing but it is also very powerful and poignant. Just prepare for a non-easy watch. The back of the car confrontation is as hard-hitting a confrontation as one can get on film. The characters are purposefully not likeable ones and some are more interesting than others, while Stephanie is a very meaty characters others like Feldman are caricatures, but they don't ever bore or annoy as such. Von Sydow does fine with what he has and Alan Bates manages to achieve the difficult feat of making surly affecting. The film though belongs to Andrews, in the best easily of her dramatic performances in a gripping and incredibly moving, without being melodramatic, turn.

Summing up, not flawless but very good on the whole and hits one hard emotionally. 7.5/10

Self-debasement in the face of illness...

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 7 September 2010]

Virtuoso violinist Julie Andrews loses the flexibility of her fingers and hands due to the "creeping paralysis" of multiple sclerosis, relating the loss of making music to a loss of life; she gives away her possessions, her prospects, even her husband (to the hand of his adoring, bespectacled secretary with the great knees). It isn't enough to call "Duet For One" a lousy movie...it is a mesmerizingly wrong-headed movie, and its general stupidity appears entirely intentional. Tom Kempinski adapted his own play with help from Jeremy Lipp and the film's director, Andrei Konchalovsky, and what was an intimate exercise in melodrama has been blown-up into a solipsistic vehicle for the star-lead. Andrews goes through the expected stages of grief, lashing out in her angry-phase at anyone who pities her--but just as quickly tempering her frustration with a second layer of pity for the friend who feels her pain. She tells everyone their business, including her psychoanalyst (whom she 'teaches' in much the same way as the married stud she has picked-up from the streets). Andrews probably felt this role would enable her to give a multi-shaded portrayal of a woman at the end of her tether, yet the film is so condescending to the audience in its view of MS that we never even meet any of the protagonist's doctors; she appears to suffer in a vacuum. According to the writers, the best way to combat the disease is to play matchmaker and then make a clean exit. There is a dream sequence twenty minutes in that is an unfair trick to play on the viewer, while the supporting cast looks drained and drawn by the hard-edged sentimentality (which is relentless). The filmmakers don't appear to know anything about multiple sclerosis, the disease being used as a theme for a study in character. Since that character is viewed as having a monopoly on personal suffering, the picture quickly congeals into the worst kind of pity party--one with crocodile tears. *1/2 from ****

Julie Andrews in a wheel-chair: "I will continue to play until I drop."

[clanciai · 10/10 · 1 October 2021]

That's what they all say, any musician of any instrument, while they all have to face the ultimate moment when they will not be able to play any more, which is the most painful and difficult moment in their lives, because that makes them even more aware of the fact that they will never be able to stop, even when they can't play any more. This problem is brought to some acuteness in this film, where Julie Andrews is a world famous top violinist and married to an almost equally successful conductor, and of course there are parallels to Jacqueline du Près and Daniel Barenboim, and the play is certainly inspired by their story and her fate, but this film makes the case more universal. It begins by Julie Andrews visiting her doctor, the psycho-analyst Max von Sydow, and tells him straight that she is suffering from multiple-sclerosis, which is a deadly incurable illness turning her into an invalid in a wheel-chair before killing her, in a prolonged race against time to make choices about handling the situation, leaving for death or for the gutter, as doctor Sydow bluntly tells her. She chooses the gutter and makes the best of it. The film leaves her like that - we are left hanging without knowing the end of the story, but it is still an accomplished treatment of the case, the discussions have reached their end, the arguments have wasted themselves, and what is left? An old lonely tree that appears to be dead but is still living. This is a masterpiece of art and philosophy and equal to any of Konchalovsky's other masterpieces and those of his brother Nikita Mikhalkov.

unpleasant and unnecessary

[nomorefog · 4/10 · 30 April 2011]

My least favourite approach to a movie is when, either through the writing, the direction or the acting, there is no character (or in the case of this film only one) in the cast who is either a)remotely likable, or b)displays any features that could be described as 'morally redeemable'. I find it a waste of time spending 100 minutes in a darkened cinema (or even in my living room) only to be pummelled with unpleasant people and/or horrible situations.

The problem with this movie is that the dilemma of the main character in this film (Julie Andrews) is unpleasant, and she is surrounded by three extremely unpleasant men, who unfortunately have absolutely no intention of helping her in any kind of humane or civilised manner precisely because she is suffering from a terminal illness. This kind of scenario to me is tantamount to cinematic suicide – why bother watching something as heartless as this and pretending that it is entertainment? Julie Andrews plays a famous concert violinist with everything to live for, but she is struck down with multiple sclerosis. The three (useless) men in her life are in varying degrees, charming, bloody minded, selfish or just infuriatingly ignorant. And this is even before they have found out that she's sick! Alan Bates is Julie's charming rogue of a husband who has no intention of staying with her. Rupert Everett is her favourite pupil, but he has found his own wings after spending years under her tutelage and has no intention of letting his brilliant career be sacrificed because of her illness. Finally, (and mercifully), Max von Sydow plays Andrews' psychiatrist, and why she needs advice from a sociopath like this guy is a complete mystery.

Some reviews have praised this to the sky, but I cannot find it within my critical faculties to say anything positive at all about 'Duet for One'. Much like its supporting characters, it is self aggrandizing, boring and mean spirited, and why poor Julie Andrews is supposed to put up with these reprehensible assholes is anyone's guess. Despite the presence of Alan Bates who is always welcome (even when he is playing an asshole), this film does not have anything going for it, and I found it to be a particularly unpleasant, unnecessary and unedifying experience.

Magnificent Performance

[tazzzzzzs · 4 June 2002]

Julie Andrews did a remarkable job playing the character of Stephanie Anderson in this movie. She did a great job of expressing the trial and tribulations that stephanie anderson goes through as she copes with MS. Great Job Julie! You deserved an Oscar for your performance!

beautiful

[Kirpianuscus · 6 January 2018]

Beautiful performances,, beautiful story, splendid Julie Andrews and one of films who could be more than useful. because it is a simple story about life. about art, fall,, fear, love, insecurity and fictional options. because it is a pledge for discover yourself in the other. because the story is familiar. but different from this perspective. and this does it beautiful. and useful. and so bitter.

How to rip the guts out of your own work...

[Clive-Silas · 24 February 2003]

...and also make a nonsense of your title. The film is based on a stage play, which is so called because, although a two-hander, it is much closer to being a one-woman show. The stage version was produced for BBC Television with Frances De La Tour, the original star, and is much more worth watching than this sentimentalised claptrap. For one thing, when in a magnificent outburst she attempts to shock the psychiatrist by admitting that she has been "f***ing a totter", part of the power of this is by your wondering what is going on in the head of this refined and cultural woman, for her to be taking a dirty Steptoe-like rag and bone man into her bed. The point is completely lost if you *show* the totter, and what is more cast Liam Neeson in the part!

Kempinski remained on the credits as the screenwriter, so it seems he only has himself to blame for this utter emasculation of what was really an excellent play, loosely based on the shattering loss of Jacqueline Du Pré's art, career and normal life to multiple sclerosis.