Review of Reds (1981) by Jake R — 25 Sep 2008

A totally overlooked film and practically unheard of today, 'Reds' is one of the greatest films of the 1980s. Most people think of 1981 as the year Indiana Jones first cracked his whip or that the British 'were coming' in Chariots of Fire. At the very least ther was that quiet hymn to the virtues of America and a revelation that old people could act in 'On Golden Pond'. But with 'Reds' Warren Beatty made such a unique film that it could only have been made in the newly wealthy and bare wilderness of Hollywood in the early '80s following the successes of 'Star Wars'. 1981 was also the year America swung dangerously to the Right as Reagan began his colossal transformation of America from a burnt-out, disillusioned wasteland into a conglomerate-owned formula-driven land of gree and consumption (a rather bitter legacy almost 3 generations later.) So for Hollywood to finance a very detailed and fiery essay on the pros and cons of 'Socialism' (read: Communism) in the year the US began to hate Russia again is quite astounding. But here we see the movie-going public as becoming more receptive of smaller, more intricate movies which arguably gave the impetus for independent (or at least smaller scale) movies to be bankrolled onto a waiting public.

'Reds' itself is a very complex film. Not complicated, as such, but very incisive and full of sexual and social politics as well as the obvious insight into the Far Left. With a story that shifts from one country to another it is basically about one man's increasingly obsessive crusade to realise his dream though, as ever, at the expense of his loved ones. John Reed's relationship with Louise Bryant is very wound tight, bordering on love/hate, but symbolic of two intelligent, political artists struggling to swallow their own pride.

Diane Keaton in particular works very hard to make Louise likeable. Keaton is rather notorious, or cursed, with picking insufferably loathsome characters, and very often Louise comes close to awakening that feeling, but over the course of 3 hours she gradually, and subtly, gives her a deep sense of pathos and warmth. Beatty, as the actor, totally transforms into Reed playing him as volatile, charismatic and immensely passionate. He too makes a tremendous journey over the film's enormous running time, and in the second half he looks suitably and increasingly ragged and exhausted, yet he still refuses to back down and be overwhelmed. It's a brilliant performance worthy of a Best Actor win (especially over Fonda, who should have one it in '57 for '12 Angry Men' anyway).

Putting stars in relatively tiny roles almost never benefits a film, particularly long historical epics ('The Longest Day', 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' blah blah blah) but here the performances are quiet and restrained, although Maureen Stapleton shines out as the passionate 'Emma'.

As the director Beatty is astounding. Like Kevin Costner a decade later he uses complex visual rhythms and lyrical compositioning, but manages to keep the drama firmly grounded, perhaps because the characters and events are real and it's less about myth than about scale and reliving history. Beatty allows for various faces of Socialism to be discussed and compared which takes away any threat of polemicising and events are left to unfold at the audience's own decision.

One point Beatty does makes however is that history ultimately comes to repeat itself. Phrases like 'Taxi's waiting for you', 'Where's the Whiskey?' and 'You don't rewrite what I write!' show how things unconsciously but inevitably come full circle and that everything passes with time to return to the norm, whatever that is for people.

'Reds' is a long film but the wealth of detail and its richness and sheer love involved in every frame is hard to not notice. Allow yourself to sit back and be swept away in a great dramatic epic worthy of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the best of anything David Lean did.