When my colleague reviewed this and gave it a great mark, I was excited, though I have to confess to never having heard of it before. Pretty shocking really since I consider myself to be of a like mind (at least generally speaking) with the characters of this film, American communists living and writing in the second decade of the twentieth century. Now, I have come to understand it is one of the most important leftist films that have ever been made and I'm pretty gutted I didn't discover it before.
The film centres on John (Jack) Reed, author of 10 Days that Shook the World about the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, and his turbulent relationship with fellow journalist Louise Bryant. I'd never heard of Reed before and, as famous socialists go, together with typical socialist reading-lists, he's not high up. I might well check out some of his work now. America actually has a pretty poor radical leftist tradition (compared with other nations the world over) so it was very interesting to get an insight into the American left and the film piqued my curiosity and interest to go and investigate further.
Anyway, onto the film. You'd think a three and a half hour epic about a group of communists and their lives and loves would be a hard sell. It is, but Reds, manages the material, and the length, brilliantly and beautifully by focusing on such an intense and moving relationship. Politics comes second. This is not so much a film about the left as about love, and that is something I'll come back to. Warren Beatty is excellent as Reed, who plays a little like a socialistic Han Solo (I'm not kidding) and Beatty uses his not-insignificant charm to great effect. Although it's pitched as his film, it's ironically made as good as it is by Diane Keaton's Louise Bryant, with whose struggle it is impossible not to feel a lot of empathy. Keaton is magnificent and Bryant feels so alive, so multi-dimensional, you at times forget you're watching a film rather than a documentary (a feel the film goes for anyway with a very effective use of talking heads). Exquisitely judged and performed, a truly list-busting performance and, to be honest, Reds is worth seeing for Keaton alone, she eats up every scene and the denouement left me in floods of tears for a good while. Two scenes in particular are worth mentioning, a surprise meeting with Emma Goldman, a character she had a difficult relationship in the film, is emotionally vast and a reunification with Reed is simply emotionally perfect. A true, and rare, joy.
A number of other performances are well worth mentioning. The underrated Paul Sorvino (excellent in Goodfellas) is perfect as Louis Fraina, Jerzy Kosinski is good as Zinoviev and Gene Hackman is as good as always, if underused. However, the supporting star is undoubtedly Maureen Stapleton as the prickly, idealistic and likeable anarchist Goldman, a famous historical figure of the anarchist movement. Jack Nicholson is strangely off-kilter, however, as the playwright Eugene O' Neill. All in all, though, an effective supporting cast.
It's difficult to know where to stop, but if I don't end soon I'm sure most readers will give up (if they haven't already), so I'll just say this. One point the film does make, perfectly, I might add, surrounds free love. Free love and the sharing of sexual partners might sound like a good idea in practice but love itself (and all that goes with it) has a tendency to get in the way. Bertrand Russell famously supported free love then got in a massive huff when his wife had an affair. This has always been an odd one for me, since I am very much one for questioning society's basic values and premises. In the end, it should always be up to individuals whether they wish to choose one partner or many. Bryant and Reed try the latter option but, as you watch Bryant traipsing through the snow (I won't say more than that) as the film draws to a close, you're in no doubt which side of the fence the film is on. And I suspect that speaks to many people. Socialism is not about free love (though it is commonly misconstrued as such) and Reds stands as a perfect testament as to why. And that, to bring us full circle, is also a perfect testimony to what a great film it is. I challenge anyone not to be emotionally spent at the end which is also, ironically, what a first foray into socialistic ideas can do to you. I hope both leave you as breathless as they did me.
A+
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Reds (1981)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Knew you'd love this!
Was in floods!!!
PS - Just doing some very belated list-updates, hope to have them done tonight....
A+? Jesus - has the film vault had any of these so far this year - must be great....
Or...
This only underlines my point about this entire site - the grading system is totally random....in the interests of all 'vault' fans I demand some standard grade definitions....
To be fair this is a left wing, communist film that features characters that share Matt's philosophy and I could have predicted an A+ from a mile off!
Will get on to some standard definitions though. Good idea.
Welcome back Bec, good to have you back again!
A few things to say really...
1. Why is the grading system totally random? I grade films on how much I enjoy them and the measure of that enjoyment depends on the type of film it is. If it's a horror film, it's got to fucking scare me, if it's a drama, it's got to move me, if it's a comedy, it's got to make me laugh. Or, if it's got designs on an A+ mark, it's got to do all these and more. Ok, maybe not scare me if it's a drama. I don't want Freddy Kreuger (sic?) turning up in the middle of Ikiru or Citizen Cane. A+ films are, and should be (judging from the general level of films that are churned out worldwide) rare. Even though I'm still desperately trying to catch up on many, many, years of great films (I've never even seen Taxi Driver and Raging Bull), I've still only seen a few A+ films this year, and only one from 2007. But, ok, as my colleague says, your wish is our command, will try to offer a set of definitions to go alongside Adam's.
2. I honestly didn't just like Reds because it's a leftist film. I've seen a number of such films with my heroes in that I think are just okay, or a bit better than okay. Eg Ghandi (who I'd say I admire more than any other human being who has ever lived on this earth). I loved Reds because it left me in floods of tears for a good few minutes, in no small measure because of Keaton's performance. I do try and judge all films purely as films regardless of their political stance. I liked Malcolm X, though I disagree with some of the central ideological themes. Reds is a such a good film because it's a good film, and I'd recommend it on that basis, not because it will convince everyone that communism is a good thing. It won't anyway.
3. Although I've got some affinity with what the characters are doing and saying in Reds, its far from total. For example, Reed desparately seeks recognition from the politbureau for his political party which has separated from Sorvino's because of infighting. I hate all this and the party system in the first place, so there was, I swear, a lot that made me mad as well. The film represents the failings of the left as much as its benefits.
4. I love American History X as well, even though it's a film about racists. It's still a very good and thought provoking film even though I find the ideals of the protagonists beyond repugnant. Until they change, that is : )
Better stop there, sorry for boring you!
I might fail to do so, but I do honestly try to judge every film I see purely as a film and nothing else, but I'm more than delighted to debate the results.
Post a Comment