Stanley & Iris

February. 09,1990      PG-13
Rating:
6.3
Subscription
Rent / Buy
Subscription
Trailer Synopsis Cast

An illiterate cook at a company cafeteria tries for the attention of a newly widowed woman. As they get to know one another, she discovers his inability to read. When he is fired, she takes on trying to teach him to read in her kitchen each night.

Jane Fonda as  Iris Estelle King
Robert De Niro as  Stanley Everett Cox
Swoosie Kurtz as  Sharon
Martha Plimpton as  Kelly King
Jamey Sheridan as  Joe
Feodor Chaliapin Jr. as  Leonides Cox
Zohra Lampert as  Elaine
Loretta Devine as  Bertha
Kathy Kinney as  Bernice
Harley Cross as  Richard King

Similar titles

Harry's Big Birthday Countdown
Harry's Big Birthday Countdown
Harry the bunny, a happy, funny and very friendly bunny, decides to celebrate his mommy's birthday and throw a big surprise birthday party for her. With his friends' help he goes through many challenges, bakes mommy a cake and arranges everything while counting from 1 to 10, playing, singing, and having lots of fun.
Harry's Big Birthday Countdown 1
A Walk in the Clouds
Starz
A Walk in the Clouds
World War II vet Paul Sutton falls for a pregnant and unwed woman who persuades him -- during their first encounter -- to pose as her husband so she can face her family.
A Walk in the Clouds 1995
Tootsie
Paramount+
Tootsie
When struggling, out of work actor Michael Dorsey secretly adopts a female alter ego - Dorothy Michaels - in order to land a part in a daytime drama, he unwittingly becomes a feminist icon and ends up in a romantic pickle.
Tootsie 1982
Butcher the Bakers
Prime Video
Butcher the Bakers
Recently fired, a grim reaper with anger issues terrorizes a small town, killing and collecting souls for a purpose only he knows. Sam and Martin, slackers who work at the local bakery, are hired by a mysterious stranger to stop him from killing again. Now they are the only ones who can take out Death before it's too late, but these idiots have no idea what they've walked into.
Butcher the Bakers 2017
The Man Without a Face
The Man Without a Face
Justin McLeod is a former teacher who lives as a recluse on the edge of town after his face is disfigured from an automobile accident ten years earlier, in which a boy was incinerated--and for which he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Also suspected of being a paedophile, he is befriended by Chuck, causing the town's suspicions and hostility to be ignited.
The Man Without a Face 1993
Autumn in New York
Prime Video
Autumn in New York
Autumn in New York follows the sexual exploits of Will Keane - New York restaurateur, infamous verging-on-50 playboy, master of the no-commitment seduction - until he runs into an unexpected dead end when he meets Charlotte Fielding. Charlotte is half Will's age and twice his match, a 21 year-old free spirit yearning to get out and taste the excitement of adult life.
Autumn in New York 2000
Hampstead
Paramount+
Hampstead
Emily Walters is an American widow living a peaceful, uneventful existence in the idyllic Hampstead Village of London, when she meets local recluse, Donald Horner. For 17 years, Donald has lived—wildly yet peacefully—in a ramshackle hut near the edge of the forest. When Emily learns his home is the target of developers who will stop at nothing to remove him, saving Donald and his property becomes her personal mission. Despite his gruff exterior and polite refusals for help, Emily is drawn to him—as he is to her—and what begins as a charitable cause evolves into a relationship that will grow even as the bulldozers close in.
Hampstead 2019

Reviews

Chatverock
1990/02/09

Takes itself way too seriously

... more
Senteur
1990/02/10

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

... more
Lidia Draper
1990/02/11

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

... more
Candida
1990/02/12

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

... more
Rachel Wood
1990/02/13

If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.

... more
erik-185
1990/02/14

This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake. This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period. Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.

... more
petyank
1990/02/15

I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good movie—just imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

... more
SHAWFAN
1990/02/16

I came in in the middle of this film so I had no idea about any credits or even its title till I looked it up here, where I see that it has received a mixed reception by your commentators. I'm on the positive side regarding this film but one thing really caught my attention as I watched: the beautiful and sensitive score written in a Coplandesque Americana style. My surprise was great when I discovered the score to have been written by none other than John Williams himself. True he has written sensitive and poignant scores such as Schindler's List but one usually associates his name with such bombasticities as Star Wars. But in my opinion what Williams has written for this movie surpasses anything I've ever heard of his for tenderness, sensitivity and beauty, fully in keeping with the tender and lovely plot of the movie. And another recent score of his, for Catch Me if You Can, shows still more wit and sophistication. As to Stanley and Iris, I like education movies like How Green was my Valley and Konrack, that one with John Voigt and his young African American charges in South Carolina, and Danny deVito's Renaissance Man, etc. They tell a necessary story of intellectual and spiritual awakening, a story which can't be told often enough. This one is an excellent addition to that genre.

... more