THE ACCUSED
1988 111mins. Director: Jonathan Kaplan
Rated: R
Cast:
Jodie Foster…………………………………..Sarah Tobias
Kelly McGillis……………………………….D.A. Kathryn Murphy
Bernie Coulson………………………………Kenneth Joyce
Leo Rossi…………………………………….Cliff Albrect
Ann Hearn……………………………………Sally Fraser
Carmen Argenziano………………………….D.A. Paul Rudolph
The saddest thing about The Accused, a harrowing movie about a female rape victim’s crusade to bring her attackers to justice, is not only that it was based on a real case, but that the lessons of the ensuing trial have yet to be learned. In 1983, twenty-two-year-old Cheryl Araujo was raped by four men at a bar in New Bedford, MA. Although the four attackers were eventually convicted of rape, the treatment of Araujo by the defendants’ attorney brought overdue scrutiny to the all-too-common tendency to blame female victims of assault. There was more than a little prejudice thrown on Araujo when claims about her promiscuous behavior began circulating. Tragically, Araujo was killed in a road accident in Miami two years before the release of The Accused. The film, however, is a potent one that helps to keep Araujo’s subsequent activism for the rights of rape victims alive.
Wisely and justly, The Accused doesn’t begin by showing us what happened in the bar. Few people actually know exactly what happened and the film is too responsible to make conjectures. It simply begins with the rape victim, here named Sarah Tobias, running out of the bar screaming and takes off with the known facts.
Still, this is a film with a strong warning to make. The case of Cheryl Araujo was a landmark in the struggle to end the blame-the-victim mentality. That battle is far from over but that case was the first major breakthrough.
Ever since she proved herself in Taxi Driver at 14, Jodie Foster was honored with roles that not even some adult actors could handle. Her Oscar-winning performance as Sarah Tobias was one of the hardest to pull off. Director Jonathan Kaplan had hoped to cast Sigourney Weaver, then Kim Basinger, and finally Molly Ringwald until finally giving Foster a shot. Seeing the film, Kaplan’s initial hesitation is hard to comprehend. Foster’s performance here is one of her best.
Sarah is a troubled young lady. She speaks through bottled-up emotions and only starts to open up after her attack. For the first time in her life, people are trying to help her. An inspection of her home life is revealing of the neglect she has faced all her life. Her live-in boyfriend is a moocher that never listens to her. She guzzles down alcohol for breakfast and smokes pot regularity. Her life is so reckless that even her attorney (Kelly McGillis) is worried at first.
As D.A. Kathryn Murphy, Kelly McGillis embodies the strength of an independent woman. She is a crusader for justice and seems to make a point of not being married. Despite her stumble into legal games, she is sincere about helping Sarah.
Sarah has to learn to be independent too and is off to a good start when she kicks her good-for-nothing boyfriend out of the house. But she hasn’t any good role models. Her mother, it is hinted during a phone conversation, has never learned to be independent and has led a life of suffering as a result. Sarah can either go in the direction of her mother or that of D.A. Murphy.
The Accused also gives insight into the strains that the case brought into the community but it keeps ethnicity out. This is unfortunate because the friction that the Araujo trial created in the mostly Portuguese-American community where she lived is of relevant social significance. The film’s one shortcoming is the anglicizing of her attackers, a move that robs the film of a second layer of profundity.
The locals’ response to the trial is mixed. The film avoids the cliché in which the whole town is hushed or set against Sarah. But neither are the witnesses eager to help her. Their main interest is protecting the business and bar that employs them. Inevitably, some are unsympathetic to Sarah while others were simply too drunk to remember.
The case of Cheryl Araujo was distinct from that of Kitty Genovese in that while there were ample witnesses to both attacks, the witnesses in the Araujo case did not fail to react because of diffusion of responsibility, but because of a conscious lack of concern. The real villains of the story, however, are the witnesses who cheered on Araujo’s attackers.
For Sarah, the real horror begins after the first trial when she becomes the target of harassment by her attackers’ friends. A truly frightening confrontation occurring at a record store demonstrates how the mismanaged trial not only failed to deliver a just sentence to Sarah’s attacker but also sealed her already tainted reputation in town.
At times, The Accused follows the familiar formula of courtroom dramas, complete with a well-meaning attorney selling their soul. For once, however, this matters little. This is an intense and emotionally gripping story that needs to be told. There are plenty of powerful movies about the legal system, but The Accused has a unique angle that isn’t addressed nearly enough.
Jodie Foster’s performance, of course, is enough to keep us attached to Sarah’s ordeal. Her heartbreaking testimony during the second trial is Foster’s single best moment on the screen, and only the coldest of viewers can resist being moved to tears. What’s really unique about Foster’s performance is that by the end of the movie, we don’t feel as if we’ve seen a performance (even though we have seen a monumental one), but, rather, that we’ve come to know Sarah Tobias really well and that, despite her mistakes in life, we care enough about her to demand justice on her behalf. Almost single-handedly, Foster creates an exciting and compelling film that ranks among the best of the often white-washed 80s.
Even during the flashback based on a witness’s memory, The Accused strays from the known facts very little. Even when it does venture a little further from them than it should, the movie remains honest about their presentation and that is the key to why The Accused is so effective. The brutality of the assault is presented without glossy camera tricks or manipulation. Everything in the film is a sincere representation of a true case that brought attention to a leak in our judicial system that we still haven’t finished repairing.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST
THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST
1988 121mins. Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Rated: PG
Cast:
William Hurt…………………………………….Macon Leary
Geena Davis……………………………………..Muriel Pritchett
Kathleen Turner…………………………………Sarah Leary
Bill Pullman……………………………………..Julian
Amy Wright……………………………………..Rose Leary
David Ogden Stiers……………………………...Porter Leary
Ed Begley, Jerk…………………………………Charles Leary
Although praised and nominated as the Best Picture of 1988, The Accidental Tourist has never been cited as the influential movie that it is. More than twenty years later, it’s fascinating to see how many future movies copied from The Accidental Tourist. There are connections here to movies as remote as The Sixth Sense, but The Accidental Tourist is most obviously the definite precursor to Up in the Air. On one level it covers much the same ground as that movie, opening with William Hurt’s narration encompassing the many qualms of business travel. It’s also interesting to see how the issue of a business career as an emotionally deadening life, which would come full force in the late 90s with American Beauty and Fight Club, was starting to emerge a decade earlier.
But there are bigger problems in the life of Macon Leary (Hurt). The death of his son wedges between himself and his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner). It’s especially rough as the boy did not die of an accident but was murdered. The Accidental Tourist is the inverse of Ordinary People. Sarah, the wife, is capable of showing her emotions over the loss more openly than her husband Macon and this is what drives them apart.
The Accidental Tourist is a powerful story about a man burying himself in solitude as a means of hiding his grief and the outstanding performances gives it its heart. Kathleen Turner is phenomenal in the way that Katharine Hepburn was phenomenal playing strong women faced with tragedy. In a devastating moment when Macon has to identify his son’s body, William Hurt’s performance as a man struggling to maintain his composure is understated and effective.
Macon is the author of travel guidebooks. He writes for businessmen who don’t like to be where they are, just like Macon doesn’t like where he is in life. His travel tips are glum reflections of his own status. Then, unexpectedly, balance comes into his life when he is at his lowest. This comes in the form of Muriel, a dog trainer played by Geena Davis.
She is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, quirky and upbeat, and quickly realizes that she needs to reach out to this depressed man and teach him to appreciate life. Muriel represents a very common stock character, but also a hard one to pull off well. Davis is mesmerizing in the role. She is much welcome in this movie because her confidence, sarcasm, and optimism stand for everything that Macon and his insular family do not.
In contrast, Macon’s siblings (who start visiting more often after Sarah leaves) bring a sense of discomfort upon each visit. His sister Rose (Amy Wright) tries too hard to be chipper and perfect. Her brothers (played by David Ogden Stiers and Ed Begley Jr.) are such insensitive deadbeats, however, that it’s hard to resist the pep up when she stands up to them after a Thanksgiving dinner fiasco. Rose’s romantic troubles with her lover Julian (Bill Pullman) act as a mirror to Macon’s case.
Macon starts to come out of his shell of pain, however, thanks to Muriel’s arrival. Muriel is not afraid to take the lead in the relationship, realizing that things wouldn’t go anywhere if she waited for Macon. It’s not a sex-based relationship, but one that fulfills an even deeper longing. Through her and her son Alexander, Macon has a chance to become a father again, something Sarah didn’t allow to happen.
Of course, Sarah shows up again and complicates things. On one hand, Sarah is the mother of Macon’s son. He never wanted to divorce her. On the other hand, Macon has now found Muriel and they love each other. Perhaps Macon never stopped loving Sarah as he seems to try rekindling their relationship.
At this point, The Accidental Tourist loses some of the terse focus it had during its glorious beginning. Tellingly, the less we see of Muriel the less interesting the film becomes. Macon’s decision feels sincere on his part but manipulative on the filmmakers’. It simplifies his healing process by implying that all he needed to cure himself was a wacky girlfriend. Still, it’s nice to seem him returning to Muriel as she brings life into the film.
This story about a self-centered man with two flames that keep bumping into each other would be farcical were it not for the tragic back-story that created the situation. Indeed, that is the sort of movie that The Accidental Tourist was promoted as. This is a common Hollywood strategy for comedies with a darker angle like The Cable Guy and Ghost Town. They are often mismarketed as goofy funfests. Watching The Accidental Tourist for the first time, one is bound to be shocked that the movie puts real love at stake. Macon depends on Muriel to keep him from falling apart but it is Muriel that we feel the most sympathy for. She is the only person in this film who is motivated simply by pure love.
1988 121mins. Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Rated: PG
Cast:
William Hurt…………………………………….Macon Leary
Geena Davis……………………………………..Muriel Pritchett
Kathleen Turner…………………………………Sarah Leary
Bill Pullman……………………………………..Julian
Amy Wright……………………………………..Rose Leary
David Ogden Stiers……………………………...Porter Leary
Ed Begley, Jerk…………………………………Charles Leary
Although praised and nominated as the Best Picture of 1988, The Accidental Tourist has never been cited as the influential movie that it is. More than twenty years later, it’s fascinating to see how many future movies copied from The Accidental Tourist. There are connections here to movies as remote as The Sixth Sense, but The Accidental Tourist is most obviously the definite precursor to Up in the Air. On one level it covers much the same ground as that movie, opening with William Hurt’s narration encompassing the many qualms of business travel. It’s also interesting to see how the issue of a business career as an emotionally deadening life, which would come full force in the late 90s with American Beauty and Fight Club, was starting to emerge a decade earlier.
But there are bigger problems in the life of Macon Leary (Hurt). The death of his son wedges between himself and his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner). It’s especially rough as the boy did not die of an accident but was murdered. The Accidental Tourist is the inverse of Ordinary People. Sarah, the wife, is capable of showing her emotions over the loss more openly than her husband Macon and this is what drives them apart.
The Accidental Tourist is a powerful story about a man burying himself in solitude as a means of hiding his grief and the outstanding performances gives it its heart. Kathleen Turner is phenomenal in the way that Katharine Hepburn was phenomenal playing strong women faced with tragedy. In a devastating moment when Macon has to identify his son’s body, William Hurt’s performance as a man struggling to maintain his composure is understated and effective.
Macon is the author of travel guidebooks. He writes for businessmen who don’t like to be where they are, just like Macon doesn’t like where he is in life. His travel tips are glum reflections of his own status. Then, unexpectedly, balance comes into his life when he is at his lowest. This comes in the form of Muriel, a dog trainer played by Geena Davis.
She is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, quirky and upbeat, and quickly realizes that she needs to reach out to this depressed man and teach him to appreciate life. Muriel represents a very common stock character, but also a hard one to pull off well. Davis is mesmerizing in the role. She is much welcome in this movie because her confidence, sarcasm, and optimism stand for everything that Macon and his insular family do not.
In contrast, Macon’s siblings (who start visiting more often after Sarah leaves) bring a sense of discomfort upon each visit. His sister Rose (Amy Wright) tries too hard to be chipper and perfect. Her brothers (played by David Ogden Stiers and Ed Begley Jr.) are such insensitive deadbeats, however, that it’s hard to resist the pep up when she stands up to them after a Thanksgiving dinner fiasco. Rose’s romantic troubles with her lover Julian (Bill Pullman) act as a mirror to Macon’s case.
Macon starts to come out of his shell of pain, however, thanks to Muriel’s arrival. Muriel is not afraid to take the lead in the relationship, realizing that things wouldn’t go anywhere if she waited for Macon. It’s not a sex-based relationship, but one that fulfills an even deeper longing. Through her and her son Alexander, Macon has a chance to become a father again, something Sarah didn’t allow to happen.
Of course, Sarah shows up again and complicates things. On one hand, Sarah is the mother of Macon’s son. He never wanted to divorce her. On the other hand, Macon has now found Muriel and they love each other. Perhaps Macon never stopped loving Sarah as he seems to try rekindling their relationship.
At this point, The Accidental Tourist loses some of the terse focus it had during its glorious beginning. Tellingly, the less we see of Muriel the less interesting the film becomes. Macon’s decision feels sincere on his part but manipulative on the filmmakers’. It simplifies his healing process by implying that all he needed to cure himself was a wacky girlfriend. Still, it’s nice to seem him returning to Muriel as she brings life into the film.
This story about a self-centered man with two flames that keep bumping into each other would be farcical were it not for the tragic back-story that created the situation. Indeed, that is the sort of movie that The Accidental Tourist was promoted as. This is a common Hollywood strategy for comedies with a darker angle like The Cable Guy and Ghost Town. They are often mismarketed as goofy funfests. Watching The Accidental Tourist for the first time, one is bound to be shocked that the movie puts real love at stake. Macon depends on Muriel to keep him from falling apart but it is Muriel that we feel the most sympathy for. She is the only person in this film who is motivated simply by pure love.
ABSENCE OF MALICE
ABSENCE OF MALICE
1981 116mins. Director: Sydney Pollack
Rated: PG
Cast:
Paul Newman……………………………Michael Gallagher
Sally Field……………………………….Megan
Bob Balaban…………………………….Rosen
Melinda Dillon………………………….Teresa
Luther Adler…………………………….Malderone
Barry Primus……………………………Waddell
Wilford Brimley………………………...Wells
The best shots in Sydney Pollack’s Absence of Malice appear in the opening and have little to do with the plot. They offer a revealing look of how newspapers were printed before computers went mainstream. But Absence of Malice is a film about how news articles are written and this is where the movie should succeed and, frankly, does not.
Miami is an unusual locale for a white-collar thriller, since the majority of these types are often depicted spewing their scams from the skyscrapers of Wall Street. But the city has more character than any of the humans featured in this movie. Pollack, unfortunately, doesn’t make the most of the steamy setting that so captivated thriller writers like Elmore Leonard.
As for the human story, about the disappearance of a longshoreman union leader and how a plucky reporter played by Sally Field casts an unjust cloud of suspicion over an innocent suspect played by Paul Newman, lacks a much needed sense of urgency. Pollack is so bent on making a statement about the state of journalism that he neglects to add a level of shadiness from any angle. Everyone, including the repentant Megan (Field’s reporter), is unusually nice and infallibly boring.
Even when Pollack begins to scratch the surface on the topic of journalism ethics, the film remains pale. Throughout, Absence of Malice lacks vitality and dramatic flare beyond Lifetime movie substance. Every line spoken in the film feels pre-fabricated. It’s painful to see the great Paul Newman virtually reading from a script. The regretful verdict about Newman’s performance here is that his Mike Gallagher is just as dull as the rest. The themes of Absence of Malice, the power of the press, the dangers of corrupt media, and women’s liberation to a lesser extent, were and always will be relevant but are treated here in such a way that makes for one of Sydney Pollack’s worst movies.
Gallagher and Megan switch from antagonists to pals too suddenly for believability. Gallagher jumps from an embittered loner to a witty one-liner delivery boy, to a raving mad man. Then, after his big outburst, he reconciles with Megan in a way that is beyond belief and real human nature. It’s hard to understand their mutual attraction except that it’s another convention in this machine-made movie.
In part, the shortcomings of Absence of Malice have to do with the film’s take on abortion and even homosexuality at one point. Ironically, during a discussion, one character is reminded that it’s 1981. Yes, and thirty years later the movie is even more dated than many older pictures. It turns downright silly, in fact, when Gallagher’s exposed girlfriend (Melinda Dillon) runs down the block grabbing newspapers hurriedly collecting newspapers containing a humiliating revelation about her and Gallagher’s history.
Like everything else in Absence of Malice, this scene is manipulative. Also like everything else in Absence of Malice, it’s not even successful manipulation. It’s an attempt at manipulation foiled by the movie’s own stupidity.
1981 116mins. Director: Sydney Pollack
Rated: PG
Cast:
Paul Newman……………………………Michael Gallagher
Sally Field……………………………….Megan
Bob Balaban…………………………….Rosen
Melinda Dillon………………………….Teresa
Luther Adler…………………………….Malderone
Barry Primus……………………………Waddell
Wilford Brimley………………………...Wells
The best shots in Sydney Pollack’s Absence of Malice appear in the opening and have little to do with the plot. They offer a revealing look of how newspapers were printed before computers went mainstream. But Absence of Malice is a film about how news articles are written and this is where the movie should succeed and, frankly, does not.
Miami is an unusual locale for a white-collar thriller, since the majority of these types are often depicted spewing their scams from the skyscrapers of Wall Street. But the city has more character than any of the humans featured in this movie. Pollack, unfortunately, doesn’t make the most of the steamy setting that so captivated thriller writers like Elmore Leonard.
As for the human story, about the disappearance of a longshoreman union leader and how a plucky reporter played by Sally Field casts an unjust cloud of suspicion over an innocent suspect played by Paul Newman, lacks a much needed sense of urgency. Pollack is so bent on making a statement about the state of journalism that he neglects to add a level of shadiness from any angle. Everyone, including the repentant Megan (Field’s reporter), is unusually nice and infallibly boring.
Even when Pollack begins to scratch the surface on the topic of journalism ethics, the film remains pale. Throughout, Absence of Malice lacks vitality and dramatic flare beyond Lifetime movie substance. Every line spoken in the film feels pre-fabricated. It’s painful to see the great Paul Newman virtually reading from a script. The regretful verdict about Newman’s performance here is that his Mike Gallagher is just as dull as the rest. The themes of Absence of Malice, the power of the press, the dangers of corrupt media, and women’s liberation to a lesser extent, were and always will be relevant but are treated here in such a way that makes for one of Sydney Pollack’s worst movies.
Gallagher and Megan switch from antagonists to pals too suddenly for believability. Gallagher jumps from an embittered loner to a witty one-liner delivery boy, to a raving mad man. Then, after his big outburst, he reconciles with Megan in a way that is beyond belief and real human nature. It’s hard to understand their mutual attraction except that it’s another convention in this machine-made movie.
In part, the shortcomings of Absence of Malice have to do with the film’s take on abortion and even homosexuality at one point. Ironically, during a discussion, one character is reminded that it’s 1981. Yes, and thirty years later the movie is even more dated than many older pictures. It turns downright silly, in fact, when Gallagher’s exposed girlfriend (Melinda Dillon) runs down the block grabbing newspapers hurriedly collecting newspapers containing a humiliating revelation about her and Gallagher’s history.
Like everything else in Absence of Malice, this scene is manipulative. Also like everything else in Absence of Malice, it’s not even successful manipulation. It’s an attempt at manipulation foiled by the movie’s own stupidity.
ABOVE AND BEYOND
ABOVE AND BEYOND
1952 122mins. Director: Melvin Frank,
Norman Panama
Cast:
Robert Taylor………………………………….Col. Paul Tibbets
Eleanor Parker………………………………...Lucey Tibbets
James Whitmore………………………………Major William Uanna
Larry Keating……………………………Major Gen. Vernon C. Brent
Larry Gates……………………………………Capt. Deak Parsons
The story behind the dropping of the A-bomb in Japan could make a compelling movie and it’s about time someone made it (take a hint, Steven Spielberg and Kathryn Bigelow). But Above and Beyond, which focuses on the tactics of Col. Paul Tibbets, is far too jingoistic, starting with its over-abundance of gratitude to the Department of Defense in the opening. Of course, a movie that goes out of its way to vilify the American pilots is just as bad. What we need is an honest and even-handed film.
Unfortunately, neither Japan nor the United States has come clean about its role in the war. As the arguments over a proposed Enola Gay exhibit demonstrate, many Americans refuse to believe that the US did something wrong by dropping the bomb. Above and Beyond follows in the tradition of safe dishonesty and dares to depict Col. Tibbets as a complex figure only as far as having him contesting orders.
Even if we try to remain objective, few will be able to crack into the movie past the first fifteen minutes or so. It is bland with cardboard characters. Robert Taylor is the movie’s biggest problem in two ways. His ideology and reputation in Hollywood (he was one of the finger-pointers during the McCarthy witch hunts), combined with the mindset that produced this film, eliminate any hope of balance and objectivity from the filmmakers right on the outset.
Also, Robert Taylor was successful in 1930s musicals thanks to his good looks and charm. However, apart from his pretty-boy face (fading by 1952 anyway), Taylor offered little of the dramatic flair needed for a character as tortured as Col. Paul Tibbets. Of course, complexity was not the film’s intention and Taylor was cast no doubt precisely because of his politics.
Eleanor Parker doesn’t do the film any favors either as the narrator and Tibbets’s neglected wife Lucey. Her voice never rises above monotones. She can’t even muster excitement over the completion of a B-29.
Above and Beyond sinks into deeper trouble when it presents Tibbets with his eventual ethical dilemma. Should he command the dropping of the bomb that will kill 100,000 people so that he can save half a million others? Tibbets is shown to hesitate before making a decision, but the movie deals with the ethics of such a scenario with superficial profoundness. More importantly, Above and Beyond is guilty of making dangerous assumptions. It’s hard to say, however, if its ignorance of the facts is deliberate.
A movie about the dropping of the atom bomb needs a conscience. If one is interested only in the military tactics leading up to Hiroshima, then there are plenty of documents available. They make poor sources for a movie, however. Without an emotional compass, movies like Above and Beyond turns out no different than a Department of Defense video. This leaves the question as to why this movie was made at all. The only apparent reason is that the filmmakers had to believe in the righteousness of the act and have to reassure themselves of this by making a patriotic movie. At the very least, they should have made a shorter film.
The movie’s main point of interest has nothing to do with the subject matter, but with Mrs. Tibbets. It was indeed groundbreaking for a woman to be seen pregnant (let alone in labor) in a 50s movie. Above and Beyond, incidentally, could have made a symbolic distinction with the fact that a man who enabled the life of a child was also responsible for ending so many lives. But this irony is lost in the movie’s preference for cornball sentimentality.
Above and Beyond is candid about the US government’s foreknowledge of the A-bombs devastating effects. But this makes its unquestioning salute to Tibbets all the more despicable. In general, it’s a little uncomfortable watching an exalted portrait of such a complicated man with so many demons. The ending of Above and Beyond moves us but in a way the cast and crew could not have intended. Few will be able to watch the unfolding of a historic event of which we know the outcome and aftermath all too well. The bombing of Hiroshima comes and goes like a routine mission in Above and Beyond without a single critical comment from the air crew.
It is unlikely that even Col. Tibbets himself would have been flattered by the pale depiction he receives in Above and Beyond. Certainly, he would have been upset by the words “it’s my job” being so easily attributed to him since they are so similar to words said at Nuremberg after the war he helped to end.
1952 122mins. Director: Melvin Frank,
Norman Panama
Cast:
Robert Taylor………………………………….Col. Paul Tibbets
Eleanor Parker………………………………...Lucey Tibbets
James Whitmore………………………………Major William Uanna
Larry Keating……………………………Major Gen. Vernon C. Brent
Larry Gates……………………………………Capt. Deak Parsons
The story behind the dropping of the A-bomb in Japan could make a compelling movie and it’s about time someone made it (take a hint, Steven Spielberg and Kathryn Bigelow). But Above and Beyond, which focuses on the tactics of Col. Paul Tibbets, is far too jingoistic, starting with its over-abundance of gratitude to the Department of Defense in the opening. Of course, a movie that goes out of its way to vilify the American pilots is just as bad. What we need is an honest and even-handed film.
Unfortunately, neither Japan nor the United States has come clean about its role in the war. As the arguments over a proposed Enola Gay exhibit demonstrate, many Americans refuse to believe that the US did something wrong by dropping the bomb. Above and Beyond follows in the tradition of safe dishonesty and dares to depict Col. Tibbets as a complex figure only as far as having him contesting orders.
Even if we try to remain objective, few will be able to crack into the movie past the first fifteen minutes or so. It is bland with cardboard characters. Robert Taylor is the movie’s biggest problem in two ways. His ideology and reputation in Hollywood (he was one of the finger-pointers during the McCarthy witch hunts), combined with the mindset that produced this film, eliminate any hope of balance and objectivity from the filmmakers right on the outset.
Also, Robert Taylor was successful in 1930s musicals thanks to his good looks and charm. However, apart from his pretty-boy face (fading by 1952 anyway), Taylor offered little of the dramatic flair needed for a character as tortured as Col. Paul Tibbets. Of course, complexity was not the film’s intention and Taylor was cast no doubt precisely because of his politics.
Eleanor Parker doesn’t do the film any favors either as the narrator and Tibbets’s neglected wife Lucey. Her voice never rises above monotones. She can’t even muster excitement over the completion of a B-29.
Above and Beyond sinks into deeper trouble when it presents Tibbets with his eventual ethical dilemma. Should he command the dropping of the bomb that will kill 100,000 people so that he can save half a million others? Tibbets is shown to hesitate before making a decision, but the movie deals with the ethics of such a scenario with superficial profoundness. More importantly, Above and Beyond is guilty of making dangerous assumptions. It’s hard to say, however, if its ignorance of the facts is deliberate.
A movie about the dropping of the atom bomb needs a conscience. If one is interested only in the military tactics leading up to Hiroshima, then there are plenty of documents available. They make poor sources for a movie, however. Without an emotional compass, movies like Above and Beyond turns out no different than a Department of Defense video. This leaves the question as to why this movie was made at all. The only apparent reason is that the filmmakers had to believe in the righteousness of the act and have to reassure themselves of this by making a patriotic movie. At the very least, they should have made a shorter film.
The movie’s main point of interest has nothing to do with the subject matter, but with Mrs. Tibbets. It was indeed groundbreaking for a woman to be seen pregnant (let alone in labor) in a 50s movie. Above and Beyond, incidentally, could have made a symbolic distinction with the fact that a man who enabled the life of a child was also responsible for ending so many lives. But this irony is lost in the movie’s preference for cornball sentimentality.
Above and Beyond is candid about the US government’s foreknowledge of the A-bombs devastating effects. But this makes its unquestioning salute to Tibbets all the more despicable. In general, it’s a little uncomfortable watching an exalted portrait of such a complicated man with so many demons. The ending of Above and Beyond moves us but in a way the cast and crew could not have intended. Few will be able to watch the unfolding of a historic event of which we know the outcome and aftermath all too well. The bombing of Hiroshima comes and goes like a routine mission in Above and Beyond without a single critical comment from the air crew.
It is unlikely that even Col. Tibbets himself would have been flattered by the pale depiction he receives in Above and Beyond. Certainly, he would have been upset by the words “it’s my job” being so easily attributed to him since they are so similar to words said at Nuremberg after the war he helped to end.
ABOUT SCHMIDT
ABOUT SCHMIDT
2002 124mins. Director: Alexander Payne
Rated: R
Cast:
Jack Nicholson………………………..Warren R. Schmidt
Kathy Bates…………………………...Roberta Hertzel
Hope Davis……………………………Jeannie Schmidt
Dermot Mulroney……………………..Randall Hertzel
June Squibb…………………………...Helen Schmidt
About Schmidt opens with shots of Omaha looking like a winter wasteland. It is a desolate city, reveling in emptiness and solitude. This also describes the world of Warren R. Schmidt, a former actuary for Woodmen of the World, awaiting his retirement party that evening. Schmidt is the kind of performance that many actors could do, but none as well as Jack Nicholson. He was nominated for the Best Actor Award for his performance and it is telling that his prior award win for As Good as It Gets was for a playing a man very much like Schmidt. Melvin Udall, the reclusive misanthrope from As Good as It Gets, could see no joy in life and no point in trying to find any. The key difference in About Schmidt is that Warren Schmidt tries. Oh how he tries. But it is too late, he has devoted his life to climbing the corporate ladder and in doing so has fallen out of love with his wife Helen (June Squibb) and distanced his daughter Jeannie (Hope Davis), who is now living in Denver and engaged to an unambitious car salesman (Dermot Mulroney).
It wasn’t even worth it. Upon his retirement, Schmidt’s position is being filled by a cocky young dork and the words of his friends during the retirement party ring hollow to Schmidt’s ears.
About Schmidt, which is impeccably written and felt by its cast coasts between the deadpan stares of Jim Jarmusch and Harold Ramis zaniness. Central to the effect of the movie is Nicholson’s interpretation of Warren Schmidt. Nicholson has blossomed playing angry and embittered geniuses. His Warren Schmidt is also an angry man, but he is most angry at himself and his personal shortcomings. Most of all, he is a hurting man.
Schmidt’s decision to sponsor an orphaned child in Tanzania seems a bit arbitrary and out of character, but his motives are not as simple as we may initially think. He wants to feel needed and not easily replaced by ambitious pretty boys and aimless father figures in his daughter’s life.
If About Schmidt sounds droll, it’s because it often is. Such is Schmidt’s life, after all, and he encompasses the film. But it is also wickedly, even bitterly, funny at times. Nicholson has a gift for making the most alienating characters amusing and his rant about how much he hates his wife’s habits is pure comedic gold. Strangely, however, this is one of Nicholson’s most endearing performances. He is a man who has realized the crucial mistake of his life. While working to have everything he left himself with nothing on an emotional level. After retiring, all his work disappears and he regrets not having also invested in lasting relationships with the people who love him. About Schmidt offers the cleverest use of aimlessness in a movie yet. Nothing is more appropriate to explain how Schmidt feels about his life.
When his wife dies suddenly from a blood clot, Schmidt is really left with nothing to live for. There are touching scenes of him turning around in bed in the middle of the night, only to be reminded that she isn’t there anymore. Not even her annoying habits are there to irritate him either. The best thing about About Schmidt is that neither the humor nor the tragedy is over played. It is understated in the best sense of the word. About Schmidt doesn’t manipulate or try too hard to make us understand any of its characters. It simply takes us through the facts of life, the funny and the sad.
When Schmidt grows accustomed to life as a widower, the movie starts to perk up with him. That is until About Schmidt throws a mood whiplash that changes the nature of Schmidt’s grief and motivates him to go on a long road trip concluding with his arrival in Denver for his daughter’s wedding. Some things here don’t work. Schmidt’s visits to the spots where he spent his childhood (his youthful voice echoing in the school hallway) are tiresome and clichéd.
However, the road trip itself is important. It feels empty because it was motivated by emptiness and a longing for fulfillment. Things seem to pick up for Schmidt only when external forces intervene, such as when he befriends a younger couple at a trailer rest area. This proves Schmidt’s dependency on other people for a sense of accomplishment. He gets his chance to open up with his new friends as they seem to be the only ones who truly understand him. When he departs from their trailer after a bizarre altercation, there is a shot of him standing by a vast field, emphasizing how lonely he really is.
It should be said that About Schmidt is not above hokey gimmicks. A blatant example is when he sits atop his trailer staring at the stars, hoping his wife can hear him talk to her. A shooting star confirms that the answer is “yes”. But the film’s feelings are earnest and that’s what wins us over even during its few corny points.
The movie invites us in for a fun and delightful new beginning when Schmidt arrives at the home of his future son-in-law’s parents the day before the wedding. This change of gears into the Meet the Parents territory is winningly kooky thanks to the arrival of Kathy Bates as Roberta, his daughter’s cheerful mother-in-law to be. As moved as we were in the film’s first half, we could only take so much of it. Now we can embrace this zany change of pace. This is the closest this movie gets to pure farce and the Family Guy spoof of the famous (and very funny) hot tube scene seems appropriate.
About Schmidt could have been better had it blended such humor with its pathos from the start rather than putting them on opposite ends of the scale. It is never an ideal situation when one half of the movie is more enjoyable than the other. Still, director Alexander Payne’s genius when it comes to understanding the human heart must be applauded. He knows how to make us smile and put us in touch with real emoting without beating us over the head with tactics. In the end, About Schmidt is a movie about hope. It’s about a man who thought himself a failure, only to find fulfillment and joy late in life from an unexpected place. Such is life indeed.
2002 124mins. Director: Alexander Payne
Rated: R
Cast:
Jack Nicholson………………………..Warren R. Schmidt
Kathy Bates…………………………...Roberta Hertzel
Hope Davis……………………………Jeannie Schmidt
Dermot Mulroney……………………..Randall Hertzel
June Squibb…………………………...Helen Schmidt
About Schmidt opens with shots of Omaha looking like a winter wasteland. It is a desolate city, reveling in emptiness and solitude. This also describes the world of Warren R. Schmidt, a former actuary for Woodmen of the World, awaiting his retirement party that evening. Schmidt is the kind of performance that many actors could do, but none as well as Jack Nicholson. He was nominated for the Best Actor Award for his performance and it is telling that his prior award win for As Good as It Gets was for a playing a man very much like Schmidt. Melvin Udall, the reclusive misanthrope from As Good as It Gets, could see no joy in life and no point in trying to find any. The key difference in About Schmidt is that Warren Schmidt tries. Oh how he tries. But it is too late, he has devoted his life to climbing the corporate ladder and in doing so has fallen out of love with his wife Helen (June Squibb) and distanced his daughter Jeannie (Hope Davis), who is now living in Denver and engaged to an unambitious car salesman (Dermot Mulroney).
It wasn’t even worth it. Upon his retirement, Schmidt’s position is being filled by a cocky young dork and the words of his friends during the retirement party ring hollow to Schmidt’s ears.
About Schmidt, which is impeccably written and felt by its cast coasts between the deadpan stares of Jim Jarmusch and Harold Ramis zaniness. Central to the effect of the movie is Nicholson’s interpretation of Warren Schmidt. Nicholson has blossomed playing angry and embittered geniuses. His Warren Schmidt is also an angry man, but he is most angry at himself and his personal shortcomings. Most of all, he is a hurting man.
Schmidt’s decision to sponsor an orphaned child in Tanzania seems a bit arbitrary and out of character, but his motives are not as simple as we may initially think. He wants to feel needed and not easily replaced by ambitious pretty boys and aimless father figures in his daughter’s life.
If About Schmidt sounds droll, it’s because it often is. Such is Schmidt’s life, after all, and he encompasses the film. But it is also wickedly, even bitterly, funny at times. Nicholson has a gift for making the most alienating characters amusing and his rant about how much he hates his wife’s habits is pure comedic gold. Strangely, however, this is one of Nicholson’s most endearing performances. He is a man who has realized the crucial mistake of his life. While working to have everything he left himself with nothing on an emotional level. After retiring, all his work disappears and he regrets not having also invested in lasting relationships with the people who love him. About Schmidt offers the cleverest use of aimlessness in a movie yet. Nothing is more appropriate to explain how Schmidt feels about his life.
When his wife dies suddenly from a blood clot, Schmidt is really left with nothing to live for. There are touching scenes of him turning around in bed in the middle of the night, only to be reminded that she isn’t there anymore. Not even her annoying habits are there to irritate him either. The best thing about About Schmidt is that neither the humor nor the tragedy is over played. It is understated in the best sense of the word. About Schmidt doesn’t manipulate or try too hard to make us understand any of its characters. It simply takes us through the facts of life, the funny and the sad.
When Schmidt grows accustomed to life as a widower, the movie starts to perk up with him. That is until About Schmidt throws a mood whiplash that changes the nature of Schmidt’s grief and motivates him to go on a long road trip concluding with his arrival in Denver for his daughter’s wedding. Some things here don’t work. Schmidt’s visits to the spots where he spent his childhood (his youthful voice echoing in the school hallway) are tiresome and clichéd.
However, the road trip itself is important. It feels empty because it was motivated by emptiness and a longing for fulfillment. Things seem to pick up for Schmidt only when external forces intervene, such as when he befriends a younger couple at a trailer rest area. This proves Schmidt’s dependency on other people for a sense of accomplishment. He gets his chance to open up with his new friends as they seem to be the only ones who truly understand him. When he departs from their trailer after a bizarre altercation, there is a shot of him standing by a vast field, emphasizing how lonely he really is.
It should be said that About Schmidt is not above hokey gimmicks. A blatant example is when he sits atop his trailer staring at the stars, hoping his wife can hear him talk to her. A shooting star confirms that the answer is “yes”. But the film’s feelings are earnest and that’s what wins us over even during its few corny points.
The movie invites us in for a fun and delightful new beginning when Schmidt arrives at the home of his future son-in-law’s parents the day before the wedding. This change of gears into the Meet the Parents territory is winningly kooky thanks to the arrival of Kathy Bates as Roberta, his daughter’s cheerful mother-in-law to be. As moved as we were in the film’s first half, we could only take so much of it. Now we can embrace this zany change of pace. This is the closest this movie gets to pure farce and the Family Guy spoof of the famous (and very funny) hot tube scene seems appropriate.
About Schmidt could have been better had it blended such humor with its pathos from the start rather than putting them on opposite ends of the scale. It is never an ideal situation when one half of the movie is more enjoyable than the other. Still, director Alexander Payne’s genius when it comes to understanding the human heart must be applauded. He knows how to make us smile and put us in touch with real emoting without beating us over the head with tactics. In the end, About Schmidt is a movie about hope. It’s about a man who thought himself a failure, only to find fulfillment and joy late in life from an unexpected place. Such is life indeed.
ABOUT A BOY
ABOUT A BOY
2002 105mins. Director: Chris Weitz,
Paul Weitz
Rated: PG-13
Cast:
Hugh Grant………………………………..Will Freeman
Nicholas Hoult……………………………Marcus Brewer
Toni Collette……………………………...Fiona Brewer
Rachel Weisz……………………………..Rachel
Natalia Tena……………………………...Ellie
About a Boy opens with a sign of a smart comedy: a relevant commentary. Specifically, the film starts by saying something about the age of materialism through the lifestyle of shallow bachelor Will Freeman (Hugh Grant). He believes with the adage that every man is an island, but also thinks that it the way it should be. His free time (garnered by living off of the royalties he receives from a corny Christmas song his father wrote in the 50s) leave him plenty of time to shop and date various women without having to commit. With the right equipment, says Will, any man can build an island fit to sustain him.
This early promising sign does not betray us in About a Boy, one of the most intelligent comedies of recent years. It’s funny while carrying a heart. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz, who also adapted the screenplay from Nick Hornby’s novel along with Peter Hedges (and received an Oscar nomination), do marvelous things with the relatively familiar premise of a slacker coming to grips with his empty life. In part this is thanks to the likeable performance from Hugh Grant. With his unforgettable smile and Mickey blue eyes, Grant can win us over with the shadiest of characters. But also, there is something refreshing about the bluntness with which the screenplay treats its material.
This works well because we do like the island that Will has created for himself. He is a man of leisure, is always happy, he can have his choice of women (and does he ever take it!), he has a cool flat in London, and mingles with powerful people. Besides, he’s clever. He knows the workings of relationships and soon learns of the virtues of dating single mothers. They are desperate for a man, but also find it harder to commit since they give priority to their children.
We may not approve of what Will does, but we cannot help but smile at his slickness and fortune. His success in life is proof that God has a sense of humor. He just happens to see a flyer advertising a group meeting for single parents. What better place to meet vulnerable single mothers? Even Will’s awkwardness, as when he attributes a story to a fake 2-year-old child he claims to be the father of, is salvaged by his charm. How long can he hide his lie?
Well, he meets his match in Marcus (a talented newcomer named Nicholas Hoult) a twelve-year-old who is smarter than him. Marcus knows what Will is up to and uses the situation to blackmail him into dating his depressed single mother Fiona (Toni Collette).
Voice-over-narrations are often indifferent in films, but here it accents the already funny jokes. What Hugh Grant says off-screen compliments his facial expressions perfectly, as when he gets stuck watching Marcus in the park. But there is a mood whiplash at the end of that farcical day at the park. Fiona has attempted to overdose and now Marcus is going to need a new friend.
Ultimately, About a Boy is about two boys. One is a twelve-year-old who, due to his experiences with an unstable mother, is more mature than the thirty-eight year old “boy” he befriends. While the story of Marcus and his mother is somber, Will’s is a joke. For once, a movie reverses the table and it’s a troubled child reaching out to a misguided adult. Together, they make us smile, both through humor and tenderness. It’s a perfect deal. Will needs fulfillment in his life while Marcus needs a second adult.
At times, About a Boy skates close to being cloy, and in clumsier hands it could have been, but a little bit of Grant’s smile works a long way in putting the tongue firmly on the cheek. What the film does become is charming.
What’s best, though, is the reality of the situations. We laugh at their antics and feel their sadness precisely because we recognize the reality in their situations. About a Boy surprises us with unexpected gags and then honest emotions. Will is as surprised as we are when he is genuinely love-struck by Rachel (Rachel Weisz), a single-mother who decides to take a chance on him against her better judgment.
Even Marcus’s crush is unconventional. Ellie, the girl that catches his eye, is no classic beauty. She is a tough punk rocker girl with a heart so big that she even makes us fall in love with her. Natalia Tena’s performance as Ellie is a plum in the film. She balances Ellie’s emotions toward Marcus with a mix of amusement and endearment.
A bittersweet joke in About a Boy is that when things start to go well for Marcus, Will suffers a disappointment when Rachel discovers his dishonesty. But maybe this misfortune is just the wake up call that Will needs. In routine comedy he would pull some corny stunt to win Rachel back, but About a Boy makes him take the hard and earnest way. The movie is too smart and too well-made for easy solutions. It even satisfies with a compromise. Will keeps his island in the end but he also realizes that sometimes several islands are better than one.
2002 105mins. Director: Chris Weitz,
Paul Weitz
Rated: PG-13
Cast:
Hugh Grant………………………………..Will Freeman
Nicholas Hoult……………………………Marcus Brewer
Toni Collette……………………………...Fiona Brewer
Rachel Weisz……………………………..Rachel
Natalia Tena……………………………...Ellie
About a Boy opens with a sign of a smart comedy: a relevant commentary. Specifically, the film starts by saying something about the age of materialism through the lifestyle of shallow bachelor Will Freeman (Hugh Grant). He believes with the adage that every man is an island, but also thinks that it the way it should be. His free time (garnered by living off of the royalties he receives from a corny Christmas song his father wrote in the 50s) leave him plenty of time to shop and date various women without having to commit. With the right equipment, says Will, any man can build an island fit to sustain him.
This early promising sign does not betray us in About a Boy, one of the most intelligent comedies of recent years. It’s funny while carrying a heart. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz, who also adapted the screenplay from Nick Hornby’s novel along with Peter Hedges (and received an Oscar nomination), do marvelous things with the relatively familiar premise of a slacker coming to grips with his empty life. In part this is thanks to the likeable performance from Hugh Grant. With his unforgettable smile and Mickey blue eyes, Grant can win us over with the shadiest of characters. But also, there is something refreshing about the bluntness with which the screenplay treats its material.
This works well because we do like the island that Will has created for himself. He is a man of leisure, is always happy, he can have his choice of women (and does he ever take it!), he has a cool flat in London, and mingles with powerful people. Besides, he’s clever. He knows the workings of relationships and soon learns of the virtues of dating single mothers. They are desperate for a man, but also find it harder to commit since they give priority to their children.
We may not approve of what Will does, but we cannot help but smile at his slickness and fortune. His success in life is proof that God has a sense of humor. He just happens to see a flyer advertising a group meeting for single parents. What better place to meet vulnerable single mothers? Even Will’s awkwardness, as when he attributes a story to a fake 2-year-old child he claims to be the father of, is salvaged by his charm. How long can he hide his lie?
Well, he meets his match in Marcus (a talented newcomer named Nicholas Hoult) a twelve-year-old who is smarter than him. Marcus knows what Will is up to and uses the situation to blackmail him into dating his depressed single mother Fiona (Toni Collette).
Voice-over-narrations are often indifferent in films, but here it accents the already funny jokes. What Hugh Grant says off-screen compliments his facial expressions perfectly, as when he gets stuck watching Marcus in the park. But there is a mood whiplash at the end of that farcical day at the park. Fiona has attempted to overdose and now Marcus is going to need a new friend.
Ultimately, About a Boy is about two boys. One is a twelve-year-old who, due to his experiences with an unstable mother, is more mature than the thirty-eight year old “boy” he befriends. While the story of Marcus and his mother is somber, Will’s is a joke. For once, a movie reverses the table and it’s a troubled child reaching out to a misguided adult. Together, they make us smile, both through humor and tenderness. It’s a perfect deal. Will needs fulfillment in his life while Marcus needs a second adult.
At times, About a Boy skates close to being cloy, and in clumsier hands it could have been, but a little bit of Grant’s smile works a long way in putting the tongue firmly on the cheek. What the film does become is charming.
What’s best, though, is the reality of the situations. We laugh at their antics and feel their sadness precisely because we recognize the reality in their situations. About a Boy surprises us with unexpected gags and then honest emotions. Will is as surprised as we are when he is genuinely love-struck by Rachel (Rachel Weisz), a single-mother who decides to take a chance on him against her better judgment.
Even Marcus’s crush is unconventional. Ellie, the girl that catches his eye, is no classic beauty. She is a tough punk rocker girl with a heart so big that she even makes us fall in love with her. Natalia Tena’s performance as Ellie is a plum in the film. She balances Ellie’s emotions toward Marcus with a mix of amusement and endearment.
A bittersweet joke in About a Boy is that when things start to go well for Marcus, Will suffers a disappointment when Rachel discovers his dishonesty. But maybe this misfortune is just the wake up call that Will needs. In routine comedy he would pull some corny stunt to win Rachel back, but About a Boy makes him take the hard and earnest way. The movie is too smart and too well-made for easy solutions. It even satisfies with a compromise. Will keeps his island in the end but he also realizes that sometimes several islands are better than one.
ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS
ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS
1940 110mins. Director: John Cromwell
Cast:
Raymond Massey…………………………..Abraham Lincoln
Ruth Gordon……………………………….Mary Todd Lincoln
Gene Lockhart……………………………..Stephen Douglas
Mary Howard……………………………...Ann Rutledge
Minor Watson……………………………..Joshua Speed
Harvey Stephens…………………………..Ninian Edwards
At least, the opening shots of Abe Lincoln in Illinois promise that it will transcend its stage origins. It begins with good atmosphere, recreating early 19th Century America. However, this beginning also hints that the movie may fall into the trap of so many other biopics of reverend figures, and turn a sermon. We hope that the movie will not be as pious as the music indicates.
Although the movie still skirts a little close to idolatry, the start runs smoothly. Raymond Massey (who was 6’1’ playing the 6’4” Lincoln) is both physically and (according to documents) verbally uncanny as Abraham Lincoln, justifying the Best Actor nomination. Massey embodies his role in a way that seems as if the spirit of Lincoln has taken over him. It’s easy to forget that it is a performance. Massey’s performance is not only a spectacle in itself, but what the movie does with it is equally astonishing. Although it treated urban slums as the cradle bed for gangsters, Hollywood was once sympathetic to rural poverty and Lincoln’s log cabin origins in Kentucky are treated with kind humility. Maybe Hollywood had its heart in the right place and was judging the person and not the birthplace. In fact, the scenes depicting Lincoln’s youth, such as the chasing after hogs when the raft falls apart on his way to a business trip in New Orleans, are very charming.
Abe Lincoln in Illinois erases any doubt we may have had soon after. Massey plays Lincoln as a good-natured hick; bashful but optimistic. This was pretty courageous given the tendency and expectation to revere a figure who has achieved a reputation just short of sainthood in American history. In this regard, Abe Lincoln in Illinois is braver than Pride of the Yankees. Lincoln’s initial depiction is hardly that of a conventional hero. He doesn’t want to stick his nose in politics and has to constantly be corrected on his grammar.
The movie loves this rustic environment that bred Lincoln. Each shot tries to make the most of the atmosphere. This is not to say that the movie is always interesting. At times, it looks all too much like a filmed play (rather than a film adapted from a play, which is what it was). It never turns corny or blindsided, however, and is good at what it does. Not only is it honest about young Abe’s humility and social awkwardness, but it actually celebrates his folksy upbringing.
Even more courageous are the film’s glimpses of Lincoln’s friends menacing citizens into voting for him once he is roped into the dirty game of politics. Not all was clean with Lincoln, and this movie knows it. Abe Lincoln in Illinois is at its best, in fact, when it stays close to Lincoln’s human imperfections and vulnerabilities. There is a tender moment when his first love falls sick and dies, and the pain on Massey’s face says more than the history books ever could.
Surprisingly, the movie’s up frontness extends to Lincoln’s inner conflict regarding slavery. He opposed it but hesitated about dividing the nation to abolish it. The movie makes no secret of the fact that Lincoln opposed interracial marriage and makes no attempt to make him a progressive champion, not that it would have felt pressured to in 1940. The movie plays candidly, depicting Lincoln as a good man for his time, but not as free of racial prejudice as some would think. One blunder that tries to hard for effect is an obvious superimposition of Black faces against a newspaper article reporting the illegal assisting of slaves by the Northern states.
Abraham Lincoln’s complexities and enigmatic philosophies make him a greater man than any manicured image or the Lincoln Memorial itself ever could. As well as a great politician, he was a shrewd military commander. His defeat of Stephen Douglas at the polls caused South Carolina to secede from the Union leaving Fort Sumter in a Dixie Line limbo, being under Union command while on Confederate territory. To illustrate Lincoln’s strategic reasoning, it is worth looking at his response to South Carolina’s government when Fort Sumter was running out of supplies. South Carolina said that any Union ship approaching the fort would be taken as a sign of war. Lincoln sent a memo to South Carolina clarifying that an act of war would more accurately be an attack on a ship that was simply delivering food.
The ending does feel mythical, depicting a great hero departing for a higher calling but, overall, Abe Lincoln in Illinois resists lionizing the man and stops at due admiration. It succeeds as an accurate, touching, and honest biography.
1940 110mins. Director: John Cromwell
Cast:
Raymond Massey…………………………..Abraham Lincoln
Ruth Gordon……………………………….Mary Todd Lincoln
Gene Lockhart……………………………..Stephen Douglas
Mary Howard……………………………...Ann Rutledge
Minor Watson……………………………..Joshua Speed
Harvey Stephens…………………………..Ninian Edwards
At least, the opening shots of Abe Lincoln in Illinois promise that it will transcend its stage origins. It begins with good atmosphere, recreating early 19th Century America. However, this beginning also hints that the movie may fall into the trap of so many other biopics of reverend figures, and turn a sermon. We hope that the movie will not be as pious as the music indicates.
Although the movie still skirts a little close to idolatry, the start runs smoothly. Raymond Massey (who was 6’1’ playing the 6’4” Lincoln) is both physically and (according to documents) verbally uncanny as Abraham Lincoln, justifying the Best Actor nomination. Massey embodies his role in a way that seems as if the spirit of Lincoln has taken over him. It’s easy to forget that it is a performance. Massey’s performance is not only a spectacle in itself, but what the movie does with it is equally astonishing. Although it treated urban slums as the cradle bed for gangsters, Hollywood was once sympathetic to rural poverty and Lincoln’s log cabin origins in Kentucky are treated with kind humility. Maybe Hollywood had its heart in the right place and was judging the person and not the birthplace. In fact, the scenes depicting Lincoln’s youth, such as the chasing after hogs when the raft falls apart on his way to a business trip in New Orleans, are very charming.
Abe Lincoln in Illinois erases any doubt we may have had soon after. Massey plays Lincoln as a good-natured hick; bashful but optimistic. This was pretty courageous given the tendency and expectation to revere a figure who has achieved a reputation just short of sainthood in American history. In this regard, Abe Lincoln in Illinois is braver than Pride of the Yankees. Lincoln’s initial depiction is hardly that of a conventional hero. He doesn’t want to stick his nose in politics and has to constantly be corrected on his grammar.
The movie loves this rustic environment that bred Lincoln. Each shot tries to make the most of the atmosphere. This is not to say that the movie is always interesting. At times, it looks all too much like a filmed play (rather than a film adapted from a play, which is what it was). It never turns corny or blindsided, however, and is good at what it does. Not only is it honest about young Abe’s humility and social awkwardness, but it actually celebrates his folksy upbringing.
Even more courageous are the film’s glimpses of Lincoln’s friends menacing citizens into voting for him once he is roped into the dirty game of politics. Not all was clean with Lincoln, and this movie knows it. Abe Lincoln in Illinois is at its best, in fact, when it stays close to Lincoln’s human imperfections and vulnerabilities. There is a tender moment when his first love falls sick and dies, and the pain on Massey’s face says more than the history books ever could.
Surprisingly, the movie’s up frontness extends to Lincoln’s inner conflict regarding slavery. He opposed it but hesitated about dividing the nation to abolish it. The movie makes no secret of the fact that Lincoln opposed interracial marriage and makes no attempt to make him a progressive champion, not that it would have felt pressured to in 1940. The movie plays candidly, depicting Lincoln as a good man for his time, but not as free of racial prejudice as some would think. One blunder that tries to hard for effect is an obvious superimposition of Black faces against a newspaper article reporting the illegal assisting of slaves by the Northern states.
Abraham Lincoln’s complexities and enigmatic philosophies make him a greater man than any manicured image or the Lincoln Memorial itself ever could. As well as a great politician, he was a shrewd military commander. His defeat of Stephen Douglas at the polls caused South Carolina to secede from the Union leaving Fort Sumter in a Dixie Line limbo, being under Union command while on Confederate territory. To illustrate Lincoln’s strategic reasoning, it is worth looking at his response to South Carolina’s government when Fort Sumter was running out of supplies. South Carolina said that any Union ship approaching the fort would be taken as a sign of war. Lincoln sent a memo to South Carolina clarifying that an act of war would more accurately be an attack on a ship that was simply delivering food.
The ending does feel mythical, depicting a great hero departing for a higher calling but, overall, Abe Lincoln in Illinois resists lionizing the man and stops at due admiration. It succeeds as an accurate, touching, and honest biography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)