MovieChat Forums > Reds (1981) Discussion > Reds has sunk faster than most classic e...

Reds has sunk faster than most classic epics.

posted 14 years ago by st-shot
18 replies | jump to latest

Sat through this 3 plus hour bore for the second time and while the first go round in 82 was impressive a closer look today makes it more Fall of the Roman Empire than Dr. Zhivago. Beatty's fatuous ego is all over this thing and it plods along and along with repetitive scenes of domestic and international turmoil that wear you down after awhile. Of course with its complete collapse in 89 Reed's quixotic crusade is a lot of wasted sturm and drang attempting to give life to a loss and totally corrupted cause from its berth.
Some may argue that it's more about auteur Beatty painting his masterpiece and defining himself. If you except that premise it's even worse.

[–] murph24 14 years ago

The film may have "sunk" in your estimation, but in 2008 (27 years after its release), the American Film Institute named Reds the ninth best epic of all time.

The other nine are linked below -

http://www.afi.com/10top10/epic.html

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

Thanks for the heads up on the top ten epics. Leonard Maltin calls the AFI best of series ' a celebration of ignorance" and it's more than evident here.

Where does one begin.

Schindler's List 3rd better epic than Gone With The Wind (sure). Zhivago's no where to be found as well as River Kwai, Birth of a Nation, Stagecoach, Intolerance, Greed, The General, Sunrise, Days of Heaven - I'll stop here only to say that I'd really like to debate the merits of Intolerance with John (Cliff) Ratzenberger and Lesley Ann Warren and why they placed Reds above all the others.

Celebration of ignorance- I'd say Lenny hit it on the head. I'm all for it because it stirs debate and may get Cliff and Lesley to rethink their harsh assessment of Erich Von Stroheim, FW Murnau, Buster Keaton, John Ford and DW Griffith.

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

What! Game, match, point, me so soon?

[–] murph24 14 years ago

What! Game, match, point, me so soon?

Game, match, point?

Please - join us in the real world, and repeat after me:

This is only a message board,
This is only a message board,
This is only a message board...

As noted, Reds remains a highly regarded film. Your opinion is interesting, but ultimately that's all it is - an opinion on a message board. It doesn't negate the positive response that Reds received when it was first released, and continues to receive at special screenings and on DVD.

And for someone you claim takes a dismissive view of AFI, Leonard Maltin is more than happy to host their events -

http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/archives/tony_tony_tony/

As for the American Film Institute's lists being "a celebration of ignorance," I can't help noticing that they've placed a number of films you've expressed admiration for (Birth Of Nation, Stagecoach, The Bridge On The River Kwai, Intolerance and Sunrise) on two of their "100 Greatest Films Of All Time" lists. Are the AFI lists "a celebration of ignorance" all the time, or only when they include a film that you don't like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies_(10th_ Anniversary_Edition)

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

Sorry the levity challenged you Murph.

Maltin did make the statement and as I said earlier these actions stir debate and I'm all for that. Thanks for the info as well because it reinforces Maltin's dictum and my point. The "Great Epic" Reds doesn't make the cut for 100 best films while epics that don't make the top 10 epics litter the top 100.

Get the message?

[–] murph24 14 years ago

Maltin did make the statement

Where? Can you link it? Or tell me the name & page number of the book it appears in?

For Maltin to make a statement like that about the AFI (an organization he frequently works with) - well, that's pretty major. I'd like to see the full context of his remarks.

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

He said it on a Monday morning show after an AFI event a couple of years ago with the same attitude I took. It stirs debate and arouses interest. I heard him say it but even if he had not (which he did) I just pointed out the absurdity with their ratings. My guess is that the membership has seen little to no silent film or anything before 33.

[–] murph24 14 years ago

My guess is that the membership has seen little to no silent film or anything before 33.

In their most recent "Top 100 Films" list, AFI placed City Lights (1931) at #11, and The General (1927) at #18. They're both silent films. Other silent films on the list include The Gold Rush (1925), Intolerance (1916) and Sunrise (1927).

So, Leonard Maltin calls the AFI lists "celebrations of ignorance," then blogs about his "friends" at AFI and serves as a consultant on their 100 Films, 100 Thrills TV broadcast. Interesting behavior from Lenny.

The AFI lists are just that - lists. Around 1800 film industry professionals are polled about various film genres, and the lists reflect their opinions at the time of the polling. Which brings me back to my original point: Reds may have "sunk" in your estimation, but there's clear evidence that the film is still highly regarded and admired by others.

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

Like I said they saw a little and Reds has sunk in many estimations even here on the board. It is not one of the top 100 of all time and let's not kid ourselves whose watched this albatross all the way through more than twice? I did and the second time around exposed it for the pompous bore it is-but take my word for it go read my review.

Come to think of it may not have sunk since it never really rose to high to begin with after the big PR push and the fact that Beatty was a still a major domo. The sudden loss of having anything left worth to say was still a year or two away.

[–] murph24 14 years ago

Reds has sunk in many estimations even here on the board...

Yes, we can learn a great deal from the IMDb boards; I've learned from reading them that Citizen Kane "isn't as good as Inception" and Lawrence Of Arabia is "hopelessly overrated."

It is not one of the top 100 of all time...

Oh, so you do take the AFI lists seriously. So what's all this talk about them being a "celebration of ignorance"?

it never really rose to high to begin with...

You're so right. Apart from being named the Best Picture of 1981 by the New York Film Critics and the National Board of Review, and the best directed film of 1981 by the Directors Guild of America and AMPAS, and the best drama written directly for the screen by the Writers Guild of America, no one thought very highly of Reds. Well, no one except those who gave it the other awards listed below -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082979/awards

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

So Murph how many times you put yourself through watching this ordeal?

Some films can be superb but watched only once because of the emotional drain or it made itself clear in one showing. Epics beg to be re-seen because of their rousing style and panorama but Beatty's tortured romance using the Bolshevik revolution as a backdrop just doesn't jell properly for me and 3 and a half hours of this is wearisome.

Reds today has some historical significance in American film, especiaslly with regard to Beatty's film ography - He was a s big as they got in H-wood at that point, hence all the hoopla.

So anyone out there whose seen this self indulgent bore of a film more than once all the way through-enlighten me of its brilliance?

As for AFI I only pointed out the absurdity of its listings and as far as Maltin's comment, it wasn't out of malice. He said it to point out the futility of trying to determine what constitute's best. Art is open to interpretation and their are plenty of folks out there who can make a strong argument for the quality of Reds but from my point of view it's aged poorly and once again who has put themselves through this ordeal more than once. For me it's been 3 and it's problems became more glaring with each viewing.

[–] murph24 14 years ago

Obviously you didn't care for Reds, and that's perfectly acceptable; you have the right to your own opinion, whatever it might be. But the way in which you dismiss the favorable response Warren Beatty's film received (and continues to receive) indicates an intolerance for any opinion that differs from your own. And whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Reds is held in high regard by both professional filmmakers and filmgoers, whether they were introduced to it in movie theaters or later on DVD.

In 2006, prior to the film's release on DVD, Reds was screened at the New York Film Festival to an enthusiastic audience response, as reported in Entertainment Weekly -

...Reds showed to a lusty ovation at this year's New York Film Festival, where it seemed both more politically relevant than ever and the last example of a kind of intelligent epic romantic-historical moviemaking that has all but vanished...

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1545541,00.html

About a week earlier, The New York Times had this to say about the film -

Though it has not previously been available on DVD, a format to which its director is a recent convert, the movie has not really been forgotten, either. It features Mr. Beatty in an especially dashing performance, playing the radical journalist John Reed, and Diane Keaton in top form — sexy, unpredictable, quick-witted and tough — as Louise Bryant, Reed’s colleague, comrade and wife. Jack Nicholson, in one of his last entirely un-self-conscious performances, plays Eugene O’Neill, and Ms. Stapleton steals a handful of scenes as the indomitable Emma Goldman.

Reds remains a superior history lesson, thanks to Mr. Beatty’s thorough command of the material and to his inclusion of real-life “witnesses” to the life and times of Reed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/movies/04reds.html

Do I think Reds is a perfect film? No - dramatic liberties were taken that I regret, particularly with Louise Bryant's character. But the flaws are tolerable, especially in view of the film's considerable achievements. The performances are uniformly excellent, the script is sharp and literate, and Beatty's direction is remarkably assured; the world events resonate strongly, but he keeps the focus on the human drama playing out in front of them. Vittorio Storaro's cinematography is frequently breathtaking, and the music score by Stephen Sondheim and Dave Grusin is rich and evocative. And any film edited by Dede Allen benefits from the work of one of the best editors in the business.

I saw Reds on the big screen three times when it was first released, and I've watched it at least three more times on DVD - and yes, I have a copy in my own personal library. I don't (in any way) find the film "an ordeal" - in fact, I only wish more films were made today with the same intelligence, ambition, and passion.

[–] st-shot 14 years ago

Murph-

Plenty to agree with Storaro, Sylbert's set design and Shirley Russell's costuming give the film an excellent look but Beatty hampers things with overt self indulgence and pace killing repetition. Keaton as Bryant is dreadful-all reaction shot with a hissy fit here and there. Stapleton and Nicholson give the film' s best performances and novelist Jerzy Kosinski is surprisingly good.

His witness testimony does give the film a touch more gravity but he fumbles here as well by not identifying them as they speak. I'm familiar with a few but with names you get a little more perspective into the character and the film as it unveils itself in real time..

I find the Times statement "more politically relevant than ever" beyond laughable since the fraudulent panacea of communism has been in the dust bin of history for twenty years reducing Reed to a useful idiot for the Party. Of course lower Manhattan where it all began would greet it with hossanas-this is the same crowd who refused to give up on Uncle Joe even after he had murdered and starved millions. Relevant to what? The rise of the iniquitous tea party? Quick sandbag the White House.

"Superior history lesson" This is just laughable. Beatty posing with Lenin and Trotsky look a likes while being shouted down or attempting to shout down others is all free for all posing - Stapleton's Goldman does make some sense of things and give focus to the period but Nicholas and Alexandra is a better (not superior history just better) film since it focuses more on polemics than the Beatty-Keaton romancer, clocks in under 3 and a half hours and gives abetter historical overview.

Sorry if I don't cow-tow to predictable NYC film critics who are more caught up with the celebrity than the form. Reds is not a bad movie-it just doesn't deliver the bang for the buck. You want epic with panoramic history go Lean. You want epic romance check out Sharif-Christie. You want absorbing fascinating complex historical figures go with Lawrence or the Col.in Kwai You want self indulgent identification and preening check out wonderful Warren's sluggish Reds.

[–] murph24 14 years ago

I find the Times statement "more politically relevant than ever" beyond laughable

You're not reading too carefully - the Times didn't make this statement, Entertainment Weekly did. I identified the source of the quote very clearly in my post.

As for the witnesses, Beatty made a conscious decision not to identify them because he was afraid audiences would pay more attention to the individuals whose names they recognized; he wanted to make sure the observations of ALL the witnesses received equal attention. Was it the right choice to make? It's debatable, but I can see the reasoning behind Beatty's decision.

Otherwise, your predictable attacks on anyone who feels positively about Reds continue unabated; your intolerance is entertaining but obvious. You've attacked and dismissed the viewpoints of the American Film Institute, the New York Film Critics, the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly. Well, all of the following named Warren Beatty the best director of 1981: Directors Guild of America, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the National Board of Review and the Los Angeles Film Critics. When do you launch your attack on them?

The simple fact is, Reds hasn't "sunk" in everyone's estimation; if anything, respect for the film has increased over the past few years, and the evidence is clear - the very successful screening at the 2006 New York Film Festival, the high profile (and favorably reviewed) DVD release, and the film's appearance on the 2008 AFI "Best Of Genre" listings.

Deny them all you want, but these are the facts.

And frankly, I'm wasting my time discussing anything with someone who doesn't know how to spell "kowtow."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] murph24 14 years ago

I misspell a word and you think your wasting your time.

That's "you're," not "your." The sentence requires a contraction of "you are," not a possessive pronoun.

But correcting your poor writing skills (again) isn't the real reason I'm making one more appearance in this thread. I just happened to glance at both the Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton boards, and you're on those, too, spreading your unmistakable bile. This is truly obsessive behavior. And when you work at it this hard, it means you're a TROLL.

You even snipe away at Beatty in a gossipy thread about his marital troubles! For all this talk about David Lean, it appears that Rona Barrett is your true role model.

So back under your bridge, TROLL, and play with your toenails.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tolbs1010 9 years ago

It has sunk because it's a terrible film. Bloated, self-important, some of the worst dialogue ever spoken in a 'prestige' picture, and a terrible lead performance from Beatty. I laughed out loud at a few of the more cringe-worthy scenes.

No modern audience wants to re-vist this piece of *beep*