Film review

Grey Gardens

1976 · Directed by Muffie Meyer, David Maysles, Ellen Giffard, Albert Maysles · 1h 35m · MPA PG

In a sentenceTwo women in one bedroom, arguing over who ruined whose life, while the cats quietly decide the house is theirs

Documentary

Grey Gardens is a mansion in East Hampton, Long Island, and it is falling down. Inside live Edith Ewing Bouvier Beale, known as Big Edie, who spends her days in bed singing along to records of her own voice made decades earlier, and her middle-aged daughter Edith Bouvier Beale, Little Edie, who came home years ago and never left. The film opens on newspaper clippings about a health inspection that nearly had the two women evicted, then follows the brothers Albert Maysles and David Maysles through the front door. Cats sleep on the beds, raccoons are fed in the attic, the gardener Brooks Hyers cuts the grass outside, and Little Edie wants to know whether she should ever have come back.

Fi1m review

The Maysles brothers spend a summer in a rotting East Hampton mansion with a mother and daughter who have run out of everyone but each other. It has been called cruel for fifty years. We found it kind, and the Beales never once seem unaware of the camera.

Albert and David Maysles take their camera into Grey Gardens, a decaying mansion in East Hampton, Long Island, where Edith Ewing Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale, Big Edie and Little Edie, have lived for years with their cats and not much else. They are the aunt and first cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, which is why the newspapers came, and the film opens on the clippings from the inspection that nearly had them put out of the house. Then the brothers go inside and stay. For 95 minutes nobody explains anything. There is no narrator, no expert, no interview conducted from a chair. There are two women and a camera they address by name.

The brothers shoot it themselves, hand-held, in whatever light gets through the vines over the windows. Paint hangs off the walls in strips. Cats eat from paper plates on the bedroom floor and one relieves itself behind a portrait while Big Edie watches without comment. Little Edie leaves bread in the attic for the raccoons. The camera stands close and does not move away, and the Maysles are sometimes visible themselves, caught in a mirror or spoken to directly, so the film never pretends they are absent.

Little Edie is the reason people remember it. She arrives in what she calls her revolutionary costume, a skirt worn upside down and a sweater pinned round her head with a brooch, and explains the thinking behind it as if briefing a committee. She marches on the porch with a small American flag to a record. She flirts with David, plainly and cheerfully, and tells him her mother has wrecked her life. Upstairs, Big Edie stays in bed, plays the records she made as a young woman and sings over the top of herself, correcting her daughter’s memories in a voice that has never once lost an argument. The radio voice of Norman Vincent Peale preaches positive thinking to a house where nothing has gone right since the war. A young handyman, Jerry Torre, comes and goes and is treated as a visiting prince.

The editors, Ellen Giffard, Muffie Meyer and Susan Froemke, let the quarrels run their full length. A row about who should have married whom, or whether Little Edie ought to have stayed in New York, goes on well past the point where a tidier film would have cut, and the length is what makes it hurt. Both women talk at once, a record plays under them, a cat complains from somewhere, and the cut declines to sort it out. No music is added. Everything you hear, the women put there.

We laughed, often, at the costume speeches and at Big Edie’s timing. Then there is a moment, Little Edie alone on the stairs saying it is difficult to keep the line between the past and the present, and we stopped laughing and felt something close to grief. The sentence is not a performance. It is a woman noticing that the door shut on her some years ago and she did not hear it.

Most critics do not agree with us, or rather they have never agreed with each other. Since it first appeared the complaint has been that the film is voyeuristic, that the Maysles found two vulnerable women and let them make fools of themselves. We think that is wrong, and the evidence is on the screen. The Beales know exactly what a camera is. Little Edie asks whether she is being filmed and plans her entrances accordingly. Big Edie, half-dressed in bed, tells the crew to keep going. Nobody here is caught. Both women are performing, and both know that performing is the last power they have, and the film’s respect is in letting them finish every sentence.

Against the brothers’ own Salesman (1969), where the subjects had somewhere to go and something to sell, this is the film that stays in one house and finds it is enough. Watch it at home, with someone, and expect to argue afterwards about whether you were allowed to laugh. It runs 95 minutes and carries a PG, which tells you the damage is all in the words.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

66
Positive
4
Mixed
1
Negative
2
RogerEbert.com
10 November 1976 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

The critic finds the documentary haunting and praises how it expands notions of human possibility by showing two classic eccentrics who live fully on their own terms despite societal expectations.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
festival review · Charles Michener
90*

The review praises the Maysles brothers' film for triumphantly vindicating cinéma vérité through its unblinking yet compassionate portrayal of the Beales. It singles out the subjects themselves as brilliant, genuine performers who turn the film into a hypnotic exploration of their stunted lives.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
11 December 2013 · Eric Henderson
85*

The critic praises the intimacy and personal interactions of Grey Gardens that changed the course of documentary filmmaking. They single out the compelling mother-daughter dynamic between the Beales and the Maysles' decision to let the subjects' own account stand without external context.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
1 May 2015 · Kenneth Turan
50*

The critic views the restored film as voyeuristic and the unacknowledged ancestor of reality TV, noting its claustrophobic focus on the mansion and the women's lives but finding it does not enlarge understanding.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 February 1976 · Walter Goodman
40*

The critic finds the film sad but feels angry at its presentation of the subjects as grotesques and questions whether the Maysles' direct cinema approach exploits them for voyeuristic effect.

Read the full review →
Time Out
4 March 2015 · HM
20*

The review criticises the documentary as voyeuristic and offensive, exploiting the eccentric mother and daughter without warmth or empathy. It singles out intrusive shots of the subjects for particular complaint.

Read the full review →

Cast

If you liked this, try…