Grade: C—
Some movies were meant to be long. Movies like Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, the Godfather, Gandhi, Gettysburg, and, quite possibly, Doctor Zhivago, were meant to be. They were lengthy indeed, but that was because they told stories that were complete, widespread, and richly detailed. They required that extra running time. In other words, they could not be condensed, and feel like the same piece of inclusive work they were. Those films are commonly called epics, or, historical epics. Whichever way, they set up numerous characters, provide backgrounds to each one, and encompass all in sight, with a key hero (or anti-hero in some cases) at the center of it all. Director Warren Beatty strived hard to undertake a notable epic of his own, but he had chosen the wrong piece of history to accomplish this, and he made a wrong endeavor by supplying more handy effort into the production value then the story at hand, instead of evening the two out. The result was Reds, an interesting but unfortunately also uninvolving and excessively sluggish epic motion picture. Sorry to say, but Reds did not need to be as long as it was.
Reds is rough and tough to sit through. It follows the exploits of John Reed, an American Communist who was instrumental in supporting the Bolshevik Revolution and in attempting to bring Communism over to the United States (fortunately, he was unsuccessful). He was also one of only three Americans buried within the Kremlin. The story also covers his love affair and eventual marriage to Louise Bryant. At over three hours, it’s an exhausting tale that never feels complete in its own sensation. The previous examples of epics that I had mentioned were eloquent in getting to their objectives, but Reds seems to be all over the place. The problem is that Reds is overly ambitious, as the entire piece is far too pushy in exploring themes of a traditional love story, a backdrop of war and intense political matters.
Roughly an hour of the film, the first hour, easily could have been told in less than half that time: Reed meets Bryant, the two fall in love, get married, and Reed campaigns hard to try to convince Americans across the country to avoid World War I. While the rest of the film starts to pick up a little more speed, this slow start to the story is a major fault in the film’s structure, as there are too many drawn out scenes that display a lack of proper pacing.
The acting itself isn’t really passable, save the performances of Jack Nicholson and Maureen Stapleton. Nicholson, though maybe not on the same level of standards he had set for himself in his other motion pictures, conveys a sufficient performance. Stapleton forcefully demands attention in her scenes and commands the entire scene intently. The two leads, Beatty and Diane Keaton, can serve in direct contrast to the supporting actors, in that they are both underwhelming in their roles, as Reed and Bryant, respectively. Beatty overacts completely and throws himself too far into his role. I didn’t find this too surprising, because he portrayed his character in similar fashion in Heaven Can Wait, a very dreadful (and overvalued) movie. As charismatic an actor as he is, Beatty is still not one of my favorite actors. While Beatty overacts, Keaton underperforms. Her acting feels stagnant, without even a fixed feeling of any sort of emotion. Nearly right away, I didn’t care for Reed or Bryant as movie characters.
Good or bad, Reds feels more like a documentary biopic then a true epic it so desperately sought to be. The film is interspersed with real life ‘witnesses’ who had met and/or seen Reed, and therefore knew something about him. This was done to provide an interesting backdrop for personal opinions about Reed; to give us a broader view of his persona. Alas, these interviews with the witnesses only impede the film’s progress, extend the running time and do not necessarily allow us to get to know Reed any better. I find this frustrating, because this is one of the major praises that has been allotted to the film.
The production value nevertheless is undeniably worthy of big-budget epic film standards. The film also clearly sets the right tone once the narrative moves over to Bolshevik Russia. As a result, Reds can be considered to be a technical success in that it is callous in making everything feel as bona fide as it can be.
Reds manages to not totally collapse, though it is certainly a big letdown. Somehow, someway, Reds has, as I am typing this review, pulled off a strong 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. So obviously I was expecting much, and was therefore as disappointed as anyone could be when the resulting film I watched was one of the more underwhelming I have seen. On the auspicious side of things, the legitimate production values and valid historical accuracy (from what I have heard) keep the film gasping for breath when it otherwise would have sunk to the bottom of the sea. The characters are nearly as unlikeable as they can be, and the running time is far longer than it should have been (I wouldn’t be surprised if the story could have easily been shortened to somewhere around two hours). Reds has no clear goal in its mind, and as a result, it’s excessive, unfocused ambition goes too far and comes to no clear-cut conclusions. Reds is a movie that tries too hard to find a spot among those other epic films, and the results are unsatisfying and lethargic.
C—
C—
No comments:
Post a Comment