Tuesday, September 1, 2015

DANIEL: HOW TO MAKE POLITICS BORING



I am a huge fan of Sidney Lumet. While some have flocked to his more notable films I’ve always been one that enjoyed the smaller films he made that didn’t seem to draw more attention, like PRINCE OF THE CITY. So when I heard that this film was coming out I was anxious to watch it again. I kept thinking I had seen it once long ago but after watching it I don’t think so. If I had I’m not sure I would have looked forward to it as much.

The movie is based on the novel by E.L. Doctorow who wrote the screenplay as well. The book as well as the movie are a thinly based look at the lives of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, names long forgotten by many but not all. The couple was accused of selling secrets to the Russians at the height of the cold war and were executed for espionage, the first to be Americans to be executed for this reason since WWII.

This story begins in the late 60s with a family dinner in which Daniel Isaacson (Timothy Hutton) broods about life and all there is while his sister Susan (Amanda Plummer) goes on about the current state of affairs in the world. As the pair are about to be awarded a large sum of money for what happened to their parents, Susan wants to use it to open a center in their name that will take on numerous social injustice issues. She has no clue what, she has no idea exactly what they will do or how they will continue to fund it, like many radicals of the time they just want change. When Daniel confronts her becoming more and more violent in his outburst she collapses wanting justice for her parents.

The movie moves back and forth through time from start to finish. We move back to see their parents Paul and Rochelle (Mandy Patinkin and Lindsay Crouse) as they meet in college, both enthralled by the Communists movement and how it pertains to the union workers they support. When Paul returns from the war they get involved with the party, meeting with people and attending summer camps where speakers come to talk to them and inspire them. As they grow we get to see the two young children as well, growing up in this atmosphere.

Moving forward again we find that Susan has attempted suicide. Daniel tries to comfort her in the hospital and finds her mental torment combined with the questions he has of his own inspire him to follow through with what she wanted, justice for their parents. Using this as the basis for his graduate thesis, he begins to look deeper into what happened, searching for clues as to why his parents of all the other people involved with the Communists back then were singled out and if they did indeed do what they were accused of.

As the story unwinds moving back and forth from past to present, the clues are offered. Theories are discussed. Anger is unleashed. Does Daniel discover what it is he is looking for? Is justice finally served? Sorry, no major spoiler here, watch and find out.

Story wise this film will either rankle you or make you cheer. If you lean to the left you’ll find this a great movie, to the right you’ll find the many flaws it involves, most of which were not discovered until 2008 when papers were released thanks to the freedom of information act. Those papers showed the Julius Rosenberg did indeed pass information along to the Russians though if his wife was involved remains a mystery. And yet people still hold them up as victims of an oppressive government ignoring this discovery. The movie would rather paint them as heroes. The concept of having to decide whether to sell out your fellow party members or to live and take care of your family shows that the cause was more important to these characters.

The movie is well made and the cinematography is spectacular. The transfer done by Olive Films on this title is amazing and looks as clean as anything I’ve witnessed transferred to blu-ray format. The directing shows that Lumet was a master at what he did but at the same time could allow his judgement to be clouded when it came to subject matter.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing to witness here is the overzealous acting on display from the leads. I’m not sure who to blame for that though, Lumet or the actors themselves. One can’t help but know their personal political feelings in real life and those are injected strenuously into their performances. Rather than help it makes them feel more like caricatures than real people which is to the detriment of the performances. Subtlety would have been a better path to take rather than trying to present the characters as heroic martyrs.

The problem with movies that take on political issues is that they tend to get far too caught up in the beliefs of the film makers themselves. It doesn’t matter if they lean left or right, the occasions to find a movie of this type that doesn’t push too hard one way or the other is rare. Instead the film makers beat you over the head so hard that the end result is being turned off from what they are trying to tell you. I felt this way after watching DANIEL. It glorifies the protest movement composed more of symbolism than actual accomplishment. Sorry but we get enough of that these days and when it’s slammed into your head as a movie it just isn’t entertaining.

Click here to order.

No comments:

Post a Comment