Reds

I made a declaration recently that if I am to do these reviews on a consistent basis, I would have to lay down a few ground rules, and I made it a declaration because it seemed less intense than an exclamation. First, I’m not going to do blow-by-blows for good movies because I’d like people to go judge for themselves the quality of those movies, and because there is significantly less material for satire or criticism. Also it’ll give me a chance to exercise that part of my brain that isn’t based in swears. This rule also applies to theatrical releases, so you don’t need to worry about spoilers for the newest movies. So with that in mind let’s review something good.

Reds is a 1981 film co-written, produced, directed by and starring Warren Beatty, and I think he did something with coffee-fetching as well. That, and the fact that the film was coma-inducingly long at over three hours long, were the only things I knew about the film before deciding/being convinced by my mother to watch the film, and while I did learn many things since, I’m not sure as to how much of it was worth it. The plot follows the life of revolutionary American Communist reporter John Reed and his longtime girlfriend/colleague/comrade Louise Bryant (played by Diane Keaton) from 1915 in the midst of the First World War to his death in 1920 (whoops spoilers sorry) primarily following his involvement in the Russian Revolution. Now before I go into it, let me say this; this is a good movie. The script is strong with good pacing and sense of history and time, the acting is top-notch, including a fantastic performance by Jack Nicholson as the playwright Eugene O’Neill (even though he doesn’t get as much screen time as he should with such a prominent place on the promotion) and the sets are fantastic, feeling vast and diverse as the narrative spans across the globe. But the problem is I don’t think the movie takes advantage of any of the things it has going for it.

Part of the problem is the structure. The movie is divided between the historical fiction with the big name actors and the giant budget and interviews with people who lived at the time talking about John Reed, Louise Bryant, or just the time period, and this is not done poorly or anything; it gives a real sense of history and gives a great picture of the characters and the setting and most importantly of the people who lived through this period, but it doesn’t feel like it belongs. The interviews don’t fit into the film’s scheme as a grand epic, and at times the interviews cut off the action, ruining the pacing. It feels like two movies got jumbled together and the editor got woozy and fainted before he could properly separate them. But even if the historical fictional was properly strained out, I’m not convinced it’s a great film. Part of this is the length; while the script does give a great sense of time, it has too much time on its hands. Every excruciating detail is shown and analyzed, even if you got the idea several minutes ago. The film uses montages in an attempt to condense some time, but there are a lot of montages (although unlike House of 9 these montages do serve a purpose and are done with talent and care) and the montages are longggggggggggg. The film takes so much time with the small details that nothing feels large or significant, and you don’t feel like you missed anything if you, say, took five minutes to do dishes during the film. In short, nothing feels epic, which is a huge problem given the style and running time.

I was told by my mother that the point was to show that life goes on without us and that the big moments are brief in the grand scheme of life’s tapestry, but there are ways to do that better. In The Lord of the Rings movie, the epic scenes still feel epic and exciting and the quiet scenes that reflect on the motion of history allow the audience to feel the confusion and depression of the characters who have gone through such amazing things and now must find a way to adjust to normal life. There’s a way to do both is what I’m saying. In Reds, nothing feels captivating or powerful or epic; all the action sort of blends together without purpose or power. You never empathize with the characters or grow to care about them, and even the scenes of pitched battles or revolutions feel small and unimportant in the grand plan of the movie. There’s just nothing to gravitate to, which is the movie’s biggest flaw. The problem stems from Beatty’s direction—I don’t think he had a clear idea of what he wanted for this movie, and just kind of let the movie go without direction or polish, both of which were sorely needed. The movie needs a center, which Warren Beatty tries to give in his performance, but though John Reed is interesting he never captures the audience’s attention the way Warren Beatty needs. The film feels like it wants to be everything at once and gives a less than great job all around. The film needs to be more art and less detail. Also the editing is a bit off. Just a thought.

I’d like to reemphasize that the movie isn’t awful though, it is actually quite good, made with care and attention and with a lot going for it. Reds captures the rise of the socialist and communist movements in America and across the world with accuracy and fairness, as well as the internal problems of those movements and once again the acting and dialogue are solid with good characterization and idea of the setting and subject matter, but the movie lacks the artistry to truly captivate and appeal to a broader audience. It’s worth checking out if you’re on maternity leave or have way too much free time on your hands, and it’s a worthy piece of film history (Warren Beatty won Best Director for it) but perhaps it isn’t aging as well as other films.