Cast:
John Heard (Harry Lucas), Lindsay Crouse (Abbie), Jeff Goldblum (Max Arloft), Jill Eikenberry (Lynn), Bruno Kirby (David Entwhistle), Gwen Welles (Laura), Stephen Collins (Michael), Lewis J. Stadlen (Stanley), Jon Korkes (Frank), Michael J. Pollard (The Hawker), Lane Smith (Roy Walsh), Joe Morton (Ahmed), and Marilu Henner (Danielle) Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street)
Review:
Admittedly, if you want to follow up a sleeper hit that was thought to be too "ethnic" from big studios, I suppose an ensemble piece with up-and-coming actors is not the oddest thing to come up with. As with her last effort in Hester Street (1975), Raphael D. Silver served as producer. The film was written by Fred Barron and David M. Helpern Jr. Barron had written for the Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly periodical and he used his experiences there to help shape the script (incidentally, Silver had worked for the Village Voice before becoming a director. This was the second of a total of seven theatrical films that Silver directed. The cast might be the most standout quality in terms of the sheer rise that came from some of them: this was the debut for Heard, Eikenberry, and Morton, who each had started in stage and television before this film, while Goldblum had made his debut in film only three years prior while Crouse was fresh off supporting roles in All the President's Men (1976) and Slap Shot (1977). Perhaps fitting the tone of the film is the inclusion of Welles, who earlier had a supporting role in Nashville (1976). The film was shot and set in Boston.
The movie has a picturesque style of trying to show a look at a time that was within a bare plot composed of episodic pace and an attempt at forming an interesting ensemble. I just wish it was a better movie to sit through for 101 minutes, because it is an experience that seems hopelessly stuck between wistful reminiscences of a time long ago and mildly interesting humor without ever sticking to one main plot. It lingers in episodic format without making a stand for itself beyond trying to ride with mildly likeable people (except for one glaring case) that has a last act that feels like it should have been firmly in the middle. Look, you don't need much to go on about the dangers of big business in little papers, but the bare minimum is meant to be doubly excelled, not barely cleared. Heard makes for a mostly capable lead in frustration and drive. His on-again, off-again dynamic with Crouse is at least entertaining to try and hold a film longer than the other ideas presented, if only because one would like to see more when presented with someone loaded in talent that could use her as just an excuse to not write. You can already see how Goldblum became a curious presence in film here, since he practically gobbles the attention right out from under folks, one that sees him act like a flake in mostly satisfying ways that might as well be a predecessor to his role in The Big Chill (1983); I especially like a scene where he talks with a performance artist with accompanying acts of "art". Kirby makes a suitable middleman in terms of wistful charm in the foreground. Korkes makes an okay beleaguered head to the process. It should only figure the one actor who is the most loathsome in terms of who they became in later life has the least interesting performance. Collins is simply not fun to watch, seemingly trying to bring humor in self-involved author crap that is bland and easily skippable when contrasted with literally anyone on screen. Whether intended as a caricature of writers who want to write the "great American novel" or not, he doesn't do anything worth mentioning positively. Hell, Pollard is playing a cliche with the newspaper salesman on the street, and he runs circles around him when it comes to general charm because one finds Pollard endearing in the foreground and background in those moments, while Stadlen is at least meant to be a foil in his advertising shill persona. Smith only shows up in the last couple of scenes as the prospective buyer of the news station that clearly means big changes...and since the movie ends quickly after that, his impact is diminished despite the fact that he makes an imposing figure. I mean, sure, make an argument all you want about the creeping danger of big business onto papers that supposedly tap into the city, but don't just latch it in late (putting "rumors of a big buy" through the film doesn't cut it). The presentation of contrasts between Heard-Crouse and Collins-Welles would be interesting if the latter didn't end with a completely lame resolution to the latter that is less a case of "human decision-making" and more just a lazy way to throw things together. As a whole, what I like about the movie is the occasional amusing moments that come within trying to make a living in newspapers with a place now resigned to being a middle-ground on the way up or down for people, one that has some ideas wishing to flow for a stronger experience. The loss of innocence within a newspaper that sees its ambition squashed would make an intriguing tragedy, but here one finds a movie that can barely hold the jockstrap of Park Row (1952) It might be an interesting time capsule for a time long past in terms of newspaper media being more than just the option used for people who don't like reading a phone screen, and that is probably the best compliment one could make.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)
No comments:
Post a Comment