|
I’m surprised that “Reds” has taken so long to show
up on DVD. This Oscar winner mixes documentary style interviews
with the drama illustrating the lives of radical writer
John “Jack” Reed (co-writer, director Warren Beatty) author
of Ten Days That Shook The World and his lover journalist
Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). Reed a globe trotting journalist
whose ethics and belief in the merits of democracy leave
They leave the United States to live in the idyllic world
of revolutionary Russia only to discover that the Bolshevik
Revolution isn’t quite the ideal world they anticipated.
***
The only disconcerting aspect to the film then and
now for me is the constant interjection of real people who
knew Reed and Bryant their affair, their passionate belief
in how socialism could change the world and the political
turmoil they were thrust into in both the U.S. and Russia.
I didn’t care for this approach then and don’t know as it’s
too disruptive to the narrative flow of the film. It brings
the film to a dead stop at time preventing it from achieving
the sweeping, majestic power of epics such as “The Bridge
on the River Kwai” and or “Lawrence of Arabia”. This didactic
approach probably worked well when the film was made 25
years ago for viewers who knew nothing about either of the
main characters and Reed’s famous book but it stifles the
drama and the romantic elements of the film. ***
Although these sequences do interrupt the narrative
flow of the film when they do crop up they occasionally
provide useful continuity and remind us that these people
were living breathing human beings not the product of an
overworked imagination. I did criticize using the interview
sequences but it’s the placing of them that disrupts some
of the narrative flow of the film but some work extremely
well in providing a historical context for Reed and Bryant.
Much had been romanticized about the Socialist Revolution
and America isn’t the best environment for learning about
world history (we seem too preoccupied with our own cult
of celebrity at the expense of real world events today)
so the use of these interview sequences do perform a useful
function it’s just that they don’t stand up well when it
comes to repeat viewings of the drama. ***
The film is still a remarkable achievement but the comparison
at the time to “Citizen Kane” was both unwarranted and oversells
the significance of the film. “Kane” was made by a 25 year
old novice film director in collaboration with a brilliant
team of technicians and veterans. “Kane” helped rewrite
much of the film language of the 20th century (and still
looks damned impressive 60 years on). “Kane” had the support
of RKO but faced a publicity black out by the Hearst newspapers
(and was attacked in print at every opportunity by Hearst
crony Louella Parsons. At one point RKO received an offer
from those associated with Hearst which was rebuffed by
then studio head George Schaefer ( who was so unflinching
during the production of the film he should be nominated
for sainthood) to buy the film at cost so th at the negative
could be destroyed. ***
“Reds” by comparison had the support of the Hollywood
community even though it did take time for Beatty to get
his project (he had wanted to do it since 1963) off the
ground. Paramount gave the film a lavish release and strong
support despite critical attacks on the film from the right
wing. The climate for “Reds” was a very different one than
the one facing “Kane” and “Reds” although a spectacular
film (although flawed) all its own is no “Kane” and Beatty
is no Welles Heck, Beatty isn’t even as good as cult director
Robert Siodmak but he does have an instinctive understanding
of how to place the action and works well with his actors.
***
The film is filled with marvelous performances from
Hollywood veterans. Jack Nicholson virtually steals every
scene he is in as Eugene O’Neill while everyone from the
late writer Jerzy Kosinski (Being There), the marvelous
character actors Edward Herrmann, Paul Sorvino and the late
Maureen Stapleton (who won an Oscar for her portrayal of
the radical Emma Goldman) all shine in their brief time
on screen. Look for cameos by the terrific character actor
M. Emmet Walsh and Gene Hackman as well. ***
The lush cinematography of Oscar winner Vittorio Storaro
truly captures the feeling of the era (although look for
a number of anachronisms such as visible air conditioning
units outside on the building across from John’s apartment).
Storaro captures the vivid images that give life to Beatty’s
vision. Beatty’s direction and the screenplay by Beatty
(with Trevor Griffiths screenwriter of “Fatherland” and
“Sons & Lovers” although it should be noted that Beatty’s
long time friend writer/director Elaine May also took a
crack at the dialogue as well as two other uncredited rewrites
by other writers) prevent the film from becoming ponderous
but the pacing can be turgid at times. Nevertheless the
film manages to be captivating and if it isn’t Beatty’s
crowning achievement as a director it certainly is impressive
for only his second film in the director’s chair. ---
Image & Sound:
Beatty’s film receives a loving transfer to HD DVD.
Spread over two discs the film looks marvelous. Colors are
bright and the transfer appears crisp throughout although
there are a couple of moments where the image is a tad soft
(although that could be the intention of the marvelous cinematographer
Vittorio Storaro. “Reds” looks marvelous in this HD-DVD
edition. By comparison to the DVD edition the colors here
are more accurate, bolder and with a slightly cleaner looking
presentation because of the higher resolution of the format.
Audio sounds surprisingly active and crisp given the age
of the film. Paramount has spiffed up the audio cleaning
up the soundtrack so that it sounds almost as good as a
contemporary theatrical release. Kudos to the st udio, Beatty
and his collaborators for spending so much time and effort
at presenting “Reds” the way it should be.
|
