Review of Reds (1981) by Ola G — 16 Nov 2012

In 1912, married socialite Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) encounters the radical journalist John "Jack" Reed (Warren Beatty) for the first time at a lecture in Portland, Oregon, and she is intrigued with his idealism. Upon meeting him for an interview on international politics which lasts over the course of a night, she realizes that writing has been her only escape from her frustrated high society existence. Inspired to leave her husband, Bryant joins Reed in Greenwich Village, New York City, and becomes acquainted with the local community of activists and artists, including anarchist and author Emma Goldman and the playwright Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson). Later, they move to Provincetown, Massachusetts, to concentrate on their writing, becoming involved in the local theatre scene. Through her writing, Louise becomes a feminist and radical in her own right. Reed becomes involved in labor strikes with the "Reds" of the American Communist Labor Party. Obsessed with changing the world, he grows restless, and heads for St. Louis to cover the 1916 Democratic Convention. During Reed's absence, Louise falls into a complicated affair with the alcoholic playwright Eugene O'Neill. Upon his return, Reed discovers the truth about the affair and realizes he still loves Louise. The two marry secretly and make a home together in Croton-on-Hudson, north of New York City, but still have conflicting desires. When Reed admits to his own infidelities, Bryant takes ship to Europe to work as a war correspondent. After a flare-up of a kidney disorder, Reed is warned to avoid excessive travel or stress, but he decides to take the same path. Reunited as professionals, the two find their passion rekindled as they are swept up in the fall of Russia's Czarist regime and the events of the 1917 Revolution.

"Reds" was nominated in 1981 for 12 Oscar´s and won 3 and this was a Warren Beatty vehicle from all angles. He directed, he wrote the script and he starred as Jack Reed. Been keen on seeing this much spoken about movie since it came out more or less. Personally, I reckon the story is there, it´s a fascinating time period and everything that happend in Russia then, but I disliked the cut up edited narrative, the inclusion of interviews with "witnesses" (the real-life surviving participants in the events), Jack Nicholson lost performance and Warren Beatty´s wobbly acting at times. The first part of the movie is like one gigantic road to nowhere with Beatty and Keaton changing facial expressions and environments, but it picks up in the second half. This was obviously something extraordinary in 1981, but hardly in 2012. It has aged a bit so so in my opinion. But, storywise it´s quite intriguing. And thus I really understand why Beatty wanted to bring this to the screen.