The Subject Was Roses is a 1968 American Metrocolor drama film directed by Ulu Grosbard.

Returning to his Bronx home following World War II, Timmy Cleary (Martin Sheen) discovers his middle class parents have drifted apart and quarrel at the least provocation.

Once closer to his mother Nettie (Patricia Neal), Timmy finds himself bonding with his salesman father, John (Jack Albertson), but tries to remain neutral when intervening in their disputes.

En route home after a day trip to the family's summer cottage with his father, Timmy purchases a bouquet of roses and suggests John present them to his wife.

When an inebriated John, whose infidelities have already been revealed, attempts to make love to his wife later that night, Nettie rejects his advances, suggesting he go to "one of his whores", and breaks the vase of flowers, provoking John to reveal it was Timmy who bought them.

The following morning, Timmy refuses to go to Mass with John, as his time in the service has made him question his faith, leading to a heated argument between them.

After John leaves, Timmy gets into an argument with his mother, in which he accuses her of trying to make him choose between his parents and vents about other past grievances.

Timmy realizes the domestic situation is not likely to improve and announces he is leaving home, a decision his parents grudgingly accept.

[2] Joining him were original cast members Jack Albertson and Martin Sheen as John and Timmy Cleary; Patricia Neal replaced Irene Dailey in the role of Nettie.

The film was a significant comeback for Neal, who was recovering from a debilitating stroke she had suffered three years earlier and hadn't appeared on screen since In Harm's Way in 1965.

(written by Sandy Denny) and "Albatross," both performed by Judy Collins (who wrote the latter song).

She holds back, she suggests more than she reveals, and when all three actors are on camera her performance makes the other two look embarrassingly theatrical.

"[5] Variety said, "The terrific writing, which top-notch performances make more magnificent, displays a wide range of human emotions, without recourse to cheap sensationalism or dialog.

"[6] TV Guide rated the film four stars, citing "the terrific acting, sharp writing, and outstanding direction from Grosbard" and adding, "Never does the emotion explode into oratory, so almost every scene has an underlying tension that continues to bubble.