Norma Rae (1978)

Plot:  A Union Organizer and a Single Mom join forces to unionize a small Southern Textile factory.
Stars:  Sally Field,  Rob Liebman, Pat Hingle. Beau Bridges
Best Quote:  "No lady of mine is gonna play a whore"' - Burt Reynolds to Sally Field about Norma Rae.

Norma Rae has two things going for it. One, a great  performance by Sally Field.  Two, its a rare "Pro-union" movie. Otherwise, its pretty damn mediocre. The phony characters,  needless vulgarity*, and fake Southern accents are a downer. Plus, its neither a sophisticated political movie nor a personal drama - instead its a didactic Good union vs. Evil business melodrama. The Direction is adequate.  The run-time is 2 hours - and it feels longer.

The Idiot Union Organizer
Norma Rae is really a two character movie.  There's Sally Field, and then there's Union Rep "Reuben" from NYC.  You wonder why he was selected, since he's obnoxious and bad at selling the union. Reuben's constantly patronizing the small-town folks, bitching about the food, and talking about himself.  Hey, Reuben it isn't about you - its about the Union!  And low charisma Ron Leibman, doesn't help things.  Where was Dustin Hoffman when you need him?

The Wasted Supporting Cast
None of the other characters make an impact. At least 25% of the Union members and factory hands are black, but they don't have names and speak only about 10 lines.  Beau Bridges is the bland, good-looking, supportive husband, and Pat Hingle is the bland, tired, supportive father. The anti-union Factory managers are interchangeable scowling rednecks in short sleeves.

Norma Rae is Politically Correct - Or White Man Bad

• The Evil Factory managers? White men  
• Workers skeptical of the Union? White men.  
• Minister who refuses to let the Union use the Church? White Guy. 
• Goons that beat up a black union member?  White men. 
• Someone uses an Anti-Jewish Slur?  White Guy.  
• But Union Supporters? Mostly women, blacks and the Guy from NYC
• Minister who lets the Union use his Church?  A black man

Best Scene

Norma Rae hold up a "Union sign" & all the workers  - one by one -  shut down their textile machines in support

Worst Scene 

When Norma Rae asks to use her Church for a Union Meeting - the Reverend  refuses and Norma Rae leaves the Church forever.  This is the oddest, and worst written scene in the whole movie for the following reasons:

• Its completely unnecessary and doesn't advance the plot.  
• Norma Rae's conversation with the Reverend is extremely strained and clipped - despite her going to this church "Since she was six".  
• She shows no respect for the Pastor, instead she *demands* to use the church and threatens to walk if he refuses**   
• Even more ridiculous, the Reverend - who's known her for years - doesn't explain his position and quote scripture. Instead,, he just snips that: "The Church is the House of God" and "We'll miss your singing in the choir every Sunday". 

Summary:  Despite a good Sally Field performance,  Norma Rae didn't really deserve a Best Picture nomination.  It has a simplistic "Hey gang, lets Unionize the factory" story, an average script, and mediocre direction.  If you're a fan of Unions or Sally Field, I'd give it a watch.  Rating 2.5 of 4

* = We get Norma Rae being slugged by her "Boyfriend" and 3 mentions of Tampons, among other things.
** = Of course, Howard Dean left his Church over a bike path.  But then, Dean's favorite book of The New Testament was Job. So, there's that.

Reds (1981) - Film Review

Plot: Story of Communist John "Jack" Reed from 1916-1920 and his love interest -  Louise Bryant.
Stars:  Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton,  Jack Nicholson, Maureen Stapleton,  Gene Hackman
Best Quote: I have to make an absolutely conventional, corny love story. I want a puppy, I want American Flags and Christmas trees. I want every hokey, old-fashioned Hollywood convention we can come up with, so we can hang the rest of the story on them - Warren Beatty to the Scriptwriters.

Why the Movie was Made
Reds was released in the midst of the Cold War (Reagan had just called the USSR "An Evil Empire") and this was Left-wing Beatty's attempt  to drum up sympathy for Communism/USSR.  He wanted critical praise and the admiration of the Hollywood Establishment for "courageously" making a politically correct movie.

How Beatty made "Reds" A Commercial Success
Of course, Beatty wanted more than plaudits from Leftist critics, he wanted $$$. So, he set about "Mainstreaming" John Reed's Life by:

• Making Reed's story into a romance. And tossing out the truth. 
• Having Cool Old folks tell us about Jack and Louise 
• Casting very good  - but very Americans - actors
• Showing us lots of Flags, Dogs, and Christmas Trees (see quote)
• Turning Reed/Bryant from Commies into well-intentioned "strong liberals".
• De-emphasizing their Atheism and contempt for marriage. After all, its a romance!
• Making Reed likable, brave but bewildered - aka the standard  Beatty Character
• Ignoring Reed's Famous Book "Ten Days that Shook the World". 

Reds - as  a Movie

Well, I enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it three times. The acting is good, the interviews are fascinating, and the cinematography is excellent. I also like the soundtrack.  And to top it all - I'm interested in the Russian Revolution. Once, you ignore the intellectual dishonesty of  "glamorizing" two Communists - who were actually rather nasty people - its quite interesting.

The movie has two flaws:  Its goes on too long, and Beatty puts too many "cutesy"  fake scenes in the film. Do we really need the dog pawing at the door - 4 times.  Or Beatty doing his standard klutzy nice guy act?  And its too bad, we didn't spend more time in the USSR and address the real issues - but that would have hurt ticket sales. 

Warren Beatty's Acting
Incredibly, Beatty was nominated for a AA Best Actor.  Its hard to see why,  Beatty repeats the same character, he played in Shampoo, McCabe and Mrs Miller and Heaven can Wait,  the charming, well-meaning, but not-as-smart-as-he-thinks, bewildered by women, nice guy. If you were to randomly mix-up Beatty acting scenes from his 1970-1988 movies, and show them to people who never seen them, how many people would know he was playing different characters? 

Best Scene:

The interviews with people who knew the real-life John Reed.
Worst Scene:
 Stealing from an old I Love Lucy episode,  Beatty puts on an apron and incompetently tries to cook dinner.  All that's missing is the laugh track.

Summary:  One of Beatty's best movies, this is a well-shot romance that's short on historical truth but long on production values and good acting. Did Beatty really deserve the "Best Direction" AA award? Probably not.  But its still a good movie.  Rating  3.5 out of 4

Reds (1981) Film vs. History

REDS – The Film	Reality
Around Thanksgiving 1915, Beatty speaks at the Portland Liberal Club and meets Keaton. After a newspaper interview, she spends the night with him, and asks him to judge her writing.  Off- handedly, Beatty suggests Keaton come to NYC and live with him. Later, he's surprised when she shows up.	Bryant and Reed belonged to the same elite social circle & knew each other before November 1915.  When Beatty returned to visit his mother, the two began a very public love affair.  They agreed that Bryant should follow Reed to NYC after she told her husband.
Keaton is intimidated by Beatty’s brainy NYC friends and upset at Beatty’s long absences	There’s no evidence of this. Bryant was an exhibitionist with a big ego. and an established track record of left-wing activism. She had no trouble getting published in New York.
In Summer 1916, when Beatty leaves on a long newspaper job, a lonely Keaton begins an affair with Jack Nicholson.  Beatty comes home unexpectedly, and sees Keaton and Nicholson kissing. He’s crushed.  Later, Keaton makes it clear to O’Neill that she’s staying with Beatty.	Wrong. Bryant and O’Neill had an affair but both Bryant and Reed believed in “Free Love.”  Upon learning of the affair, Reed wasn’t upset, instead he invited O’Neill to have his meals them.  Bryant and O’Neill continued their affair whenever Reed was absent.
When Keaton tries to explain and apologize about the affair, Beatty cuts her off and asks Keaton to marry him, She happily agrees.	Wrong. .  Both Reed and Bryant thought marriage “Bourgeoisie nonsense” In November 1916, they were secretly married because Reed wanted Bryant to inherit his belongings -  in case he died
In October 1916, Nicholson surprises Keaton, and expresses his undying love. Keaton tells him she’s married, and a dejected Nicholson leaves	This never happened. In November-December 1916 Reed had a Kidney operation, and Bryant continued to see O’Neill during Reed’s hospitalization
In May 1917, Beatty finds a Nicholson love letter and hides his anger with a mask of indifference. Beatty and Keaton fight, and Beatty lets slip he’s has affairs of his own. Keaton is deeply upset, and leaves him.	Wrong. Reed was openly promiscuous before and during their marriage - visiting prostitutes, and conducting 4-5 more serious “things”. Bryant finally had enough and left Reed in May 1917 and rejoined O’Neill. But she changed her mind and went back to Reed.
To get away from Beatty, Keaton leaves for France to cover the war.	In June 1917, both agreed she should go to France.  Reed paid for her passage.
In the summer of 1917, Beatty has a kidney operation and Keaton writes him letters boasting of her newspaper work in France.  When Beatty finds out Bryant’s been fired, he goes to France to see her.	Wrong. Bored in France, and barred from the combat zone, Bryant returned to NYC in August 1917. She was never fired. As stated before, Reed’s kidney operation was in November 1916.
Beatty finds Bryant with the French army, and asks her to go to Russia with him.  She declines, but he gives her the train/boat tickets anyway.  Later, she meets Beatty on a Russian train and they cover the Russian Revolution together.	Wrong. When Bryant returned to New York, she agreed to go to Russia with Reed. Arriving in Russia in September 1917, the two covered the Russian Revolution for the Socialist newspaper “The Masses”.
Returning together to USA in Spring 1918, Beatty has his papers confiscated. Later, Bryant is questioned by right-wing Senators about Russia.  Keaton destroys them with her snarky replies. The kill shot?  The Communists let women vote, and the USA doesn’t.	Reed returned alone in April 1918, two months AFTER Bryant. The snarky dialogue is made up.  In 1918, women in both states where Bryant lived - New York and Oregon -  had the right to vote.  Women the USSR had the right to vote –but only for communists.
Beatty involves himself in communist party politics Keaton tells him it’s a waste of time.	While Bryant had no desire to be under party discipline, she supported Reed’s political activism and the Communists.
In October 1919, Beatty decides to go to Moscow for formal recognition of *his* Communist party.  Keaton refuses to go with him. Reed secretly boards a freighter bound for Russia.	True, except Bryant wanted Reed to leave the USA to avoid prosecution for his Communist activities. She wished he didn’t have to go, but was understanding.
Keaton visits Nicholson and the two fight. Nicholson calls Keaton/Reed "phonies" and Keaton leaves in a huff. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Beatty argues with Russian Bureaucrats.	Wrong. During Reed’s absence, Bryant had a long affair with the painter Andrew Dasburg – seeing him every weekend. She’d broken up with O’Neill in May 1917.
During the winter/early spring of 1920, Beatty misses his wife and leaves the USSR. Captured by the Finns, he’s thrown in jail. A kindly prison doctor sends his cable for help and provides Keaton’s response.  Released, he returns to Moscow, where he awaits a cable or letter from Keaton	Reed had left the USSR with $16,000 in diamonds/cash to finance USA Communist activities. There was no “kindly doctor”. The Finns confiscated his Cash/Diamonds, and fake passports, but allowed him to send 3-4 letters to Bryant (and more letters to others). After two months in prison he was released on June 3,, 1920. Without a USA passport, he returned to Moscow
Learning that Beatty is in prison, Keaton undertakes a perilous journey to the USSR.  Working on a tramp steamer, trudging through snowy wastelands, and walking through trackless forests, she arrives in Moscow. By chance, she runs into Stapleton who tells him that Beatty is in Baku.  Bryant rooms with Stapleton in her Moscow apartment.	Wrong. Bryant received a June 8th 1920 cable from Reed asking her to come to Moscow. Leaving NYC in late July, Bryant arrived in Sweden on August 11 and Moscow on August 27th.  Except for a brief walk in Norway, she made the entire journey by boat and train. Reed knew she was coming, and arranged for her to stay at an elite Moscow hotel
Beatty is unhappy and forced to go to Baku. On the way back, the train is attacked by the White army. People are injured/killed during the fighting. When the Train returns to Moscow, Keaton and Beatty have a tearful reunion.  We next see Beatty ill in the hospital and the movie ends with his death.	There was no White army attack on the train. When Reed returned to Moscow on Sept 15, 1920, Bryant and Reed spent a week visiting Lenin & Trotsky and taking in the Bolshoi Ballet. Reed then came down with Typhus and died in the Hospital three weeks later.

Top 21 Twilight Zone Episodes

1. Hocus-Pocus and Frisby
2. To Serve Man
3. Time Enough at Last
4. Living Doll
5. Its a Good Life
6. The Obsolete Man
7. Third from the Sun
8. Long Live Walter Jameson
9. The Grave
10. Walking Distance
11. A Stop at Willoughby
12. A Passage for Trumpet
13. Eye of the Beholder
14. Nick of Time
15. A Hundred Yards over the Rim
16. The Silence
17. Will the Real Martian Stand up?
18. The Dummy
19. Changing of the Guard
20. An Occurrence at Owl Creek
21. The Rip Van Winkle Caper 

Robin and Marian (1976)

Plot:  After a 20 year absence, Robin Hood returns to Sherwood Forest and reunites with his old love, Marian
Stars: Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn,  Richard Harris,  Robert Shaw, Nicole Williamson
Worst Quote: I love you more than sunlight, more than flesh or joy, or one more day. I love you...more than God.

In this "sequel" to Robin Hood (1937), a great cast is let down by an incoherent, revisionist script, and sloppy direction.  The film-makers didn't seem to know what they wanted to do, as the movie lurches weirdly between Python-esque satire, badly done action scenes, wordy romance, and dark drama.  No attempt is made to make the characters actions or motivations consistent. And the primary focus is on "inverting" everything in the 1937 film. For example: the script makes the following changes in Robin Hood:

• Robin is no longer an expert bowman and swordsman. In R&M, he only shoots his bow twice, and barely survives a duel with the Sheriff.  In his other big fight, he's saved by "Little John".
• He's no longer a former aristocrat who worships "Richard the Lionhearted". Now he's an illiterate brawler who considers King Richard a "bastard" and hates all knights.
• Before, in 1937, Robin was somewhat religious.  In R&M, he can barely remember how to make the sign of the cross. He's spent 20 years Crusading in the Holy Land - but Christianity is unmentioned.  Instead he tells Marian it was nothing more than Killing women and children. And Friar Tuck barely exists. 
• In the Errol Flynn version,  Robin was deeply in love with Marian. But in R&M, he hasn't given her a thought in 20 years, and only looks her up out of curiosity.    

The Sloppy Action Scenes
One of the most annoying things in the film are the cheap and sloppy fight scenes**. There's no attempt to make the fights realistic or exciting. With a few exceptions, battle scenes are constantly shot at mid-to long range or with the combatants wearing helmets. Why? To disguise the stunt doubles. And the whole movie is made with 20 extras and 10 horses.

At the start, Richard besieges the Castle with 10 guys and a catapult. Later, King John's "army" marches against Robin and his band. Its said to be "in the hundreds" but we only see 20 soldiers - at long range. And when King John's "army" attacks Robin's band all we get is 8 King John horsemen attacking 12 Robin supporters - armed with sticks and stones! Most disappointing of all is the big battle between Shaw and Connery, Neither man has a shield and Shaw carries a broadsword in one hand, and a mace in the other!  How could  he have stopped a Two-handed sword thrust from Connery? Absurd!

The sloppiness/cheapness reaches peak stupidity when Sir Ranugh and his guards ride through the forest with their Helmet visors DOWN. Why would they have their visors down - and be unable to see - when arrows can pierce their body armor?  Real reason? Because the Director wanted to shoot the stunt doubles and not have to bother with the actors riding horses.

The Tepid Romance and Dumb Ending
R&M big selling point in 1976 was Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn - two of the greatest stars ever- having a romance.  But what do we actually get?  First,  Hepburn doesn't show up till the 30 minute mark, and she's in relatively few scenes. She's more supporting actor than co-star. Second, their relationship starts out with Connery sucker-punching her and ends with Marian poisoning Robin and committing suicide! Who wants to see that? And the ending is not only depressing, its nonsensical.  Do Nuns have vats of poison laying about?  Isn't suicide against the Catholic religion?  Marian loves Robin so much she kills him?  Ridiculous!

Cynical Revisionism 
Because it was made in 1976, the movie gives us - now done to death - revisionism.  Gone are the colorful costumes and beautiful castles and fairs they're replaced by drab peasant clothes, run down wooden huts and lots of mud.  This is supposed to denote "realism" except its coupled with "unrealistic" 1976 dialogue and attitudes. Nobody is religious (Hepburn has been a Nun for 20 years, but never utters a religious thought and commits murder/suicide), nobody cares about rank (everyone mouths off to their superiors without reprisal), Marian and Robin don't have relatives or family ties, and everyone has a freewheeling cynical attitude toward romance/sex.  As for chivalry - whats that? If you're going to create a fantasy world set in 1050 AD, why make it a cynical, downbeat one?

 Summary:  The only redeeming things about Robin and Marian are the excellent acting and nice cinematography. The movie did poor box office in 1976, because people wanted an uplfiting romance with two great movie stars - and they got a cheap, downbeat knock-off of Robin Hood.  For Hepburn and Connery fans only.  Rating 2 stars of 4.

** - In addition, the film gives us two other shoddy action scenes. First, Connery and Little John jump off a wall into a Hay wagon. Only to save money, the Director only shows us only ONE person jumping/landing. Second, we get a wagon full of nuns driving off a bridge. However, its shot at long ramge, so we can't see the stunt men. Accordingly, all we see is a wagon going into a creek. Yawn.

Laura (1944)

Plot:  When a beautiful young woman is murdered a NYC Detective investigates the High Society suspects
Cast:  Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney, Vincent Price,  Judith Anderson
Best Quote: In my case, self-absorption is completely justified. I have never discovered any other subject quite so worthy of my attention.

One of the greatest Film-noirs of all time. Its possible to discuss this film on so many levels. We can start with...

The Music
Generally, I'm not too interested in film scores, but Raskin's haunting song "Laura"  really adds to the movie and has become a popular Jazz standard. Incredibly, it wasn't an AA nominee!

Re-watchability
This is one Film Noir that stands up to repeated re-viewings. In fact, I can watch the last 10 minutes of Laura over and over again.  Just for the sheer craftsmanship - the ending moves with the precision of a Swiss watch and there's not a minute of wasted film. Hitchcock would've been proud.   Preminger never did anything as good, or even half-way as good, which make me think Zanuck and plenty of 20th Century Fox "suits" were responsible.

And then are the great characters:

Waldo Lydecker
The wittiest and darkest villain in film-noir. And who could have done better than Clifton Webb? He makes a good part great. He is - in fact - the true star of Laura. Certainly, he has all the good lines. Which was no accident, once he gave in to Preminger and cast Webb, Zanuck constantly demanded the scriptwriters give Waldo more and more zingers. And they complied.

Webb delivers them superbly - but he's also quite good at the end where he decides to kill Laura.  Its played perfectly, the sinister look as he grabs the shotgun, the look of shock and then determination when he sees the shotgun shells are missing, the somnambulist way he utters the words "They'll find us together Laura..".   Its these last scenes that give us the clue to Waldo's hard-to-understand motivation. Jealous lover?  Hardly. Waldo isn't joking when he says he's egotistical and misanthropic. He's created Laura - she belongs to him (like a beautiful painting) and if he can't have her - no one else can. Perhaps that's some kind of love.

Laura Hunt
To be honest, Gene Tierney was disappointing the first time I saw the movie. Indeed, many reviewers in 1944 felt the same way. For example:  For Gene Tierney simply doesn't measure up to the word-portrait of her character. Pretty, indeed, but hardly the type of girl we had expected to meet - NYT.

But of course, no actress - or living woman -  could live up to Waldo's hype.  Which gives us a clue that Waldo is an unreliable narrator. After all, what "great" "sophisticated" woman would have gone with Shelby? Or considered Waldo the epitome of sophistication?  Once I understood that, Gene Tierney seemed perfect for the role. Acting wise, she's good, and was there anyone more beautiful in B&W? Her best acting?  The reaction to Waldo with a shotgun: "Waldo, isn't one life enough?"

Lt. Mark McPherson 
This is the role that put Dana Andrews on the map. Tough, no-nonsense, and not much for romance (a doll got fox-fur out of him once), he's your typical 40s Noir detective.   He's the audience's stand-in as we investigate Laura's murder and the "remarkable set of dopes" she's surrounded herself with.  Waldo's statement that he's the "Detective with the sliver shin bone" not only shows he's brave, it explains to 1944 audiences why he's not in uniform. Andrews plays wonderfully off Clifton Webb ( they would've made a great comedy team) and is sufficiently tough and intelligent.  And everyone's straight-man.

Bessie
Ah Bessie. Dear, sweet, evidence destroying, cop-hating Bessie.  Dumb as a post - but who wouldn't want a devoted maid like her? Wonderfully played by Dorothy Adams, who specialized in down-trodden characters, nurses and, maids.


Ann Treadwell 
Beautifully played by Judith Anderson, an Australian who - like Webb - was a Broadway star before she came to Hollywood. Treadwell, is a wealthy society "cougar" and so in love with Shelby she's willing to kill her niece over him.  Who wouldn't want an aunt like that?  She not only introduces Laura to wealthy NYC society, she's also passed on her love for gigolos and worthless men.

Best Quote: He's no good, but he's what I want. I'm not a nice person, Laura, and neither is he. He knows I know he's just what he is. He also knows that I don't care. We belong together because we're both weak and can't seem to help it. That's why I know he's capable of murder. He's like me.

Shelby Carpenter
The weak link in the movie is the casting of Vincent Price as Shelby. The part calls for a spineless - but incredibly attractive - man.  Yet, Price isn't particularly sexy.  Its hard to believe Laura or even Treadwell would be so attracted to him. Maybe someone like Zachery Scott would've been a better fit.

Plus, Price is too good-natured and likable.  When McPherson sucker punches Price, you feel like someone had kicked a Golden Retriever.  Which makes it hard to think he was capable of murder. You wonder why McPherson couldn't have figured that out - well before the audience. But that's not Price's fault. He acts well - and his miscasting is a minor flaw.

Summary:  One of the greatest Film Noirs of all time and one of my 100 most enjoyable movies. Laura has a great cast, great score, great dialogue, and at 86 minutes isn't boring for a second.