Month: April 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terms of Endearment – 1983

I went into this Best Picture winner knowing only what I had been told.  This is a chick-flick.  A tear-jerker.  Not really my kind of movie.  But I have to admit.  It did its job.  I shed a tear or two for the characters on the screen.  How could I not?  Cancer is never a pleasant subject.

Shirley McLaine, Jack Nicholson and Debra Winger star in this film that I’m not sure if I liked or not.  The acting was fine, the casting was fine, the filming locations and production values were good.  Even the basic plot was acceptable.  But it was the characters that I just didn’t like.  Thus, I had a hard time liking the movie, in general.

McLaine plays the part of Aurora Greenway.  She is a mother who is so overbearing, over-protective, and over the top that her only daughter is embarrassed of her and can’t wait to get away from her.  Winger plays Emma, the daughter that is socially and emotionally damaged by her clingy and invasive mother.

Not one minute into the movie and I already didn’t like Aurora and here’s why.  The opening scene is one in which she is a new mother.  Her infant child is sleeping in her crib.  She can’t hear the baby crying, so she assumes something is wrong.  Within seconds, her paranoia escalates into thinking the baby has suffered a crib death.  Her husband can be heard from the other room, exasperated and annoyed at his wife’s outlandish assumptions.  She goes in and wakes the baby, then actually attempts to climb into the crib with her.  When the infant starts to cry she is satisfied.  “Good,” she says as she leaves the crying baby in the dark.

I think that little scene was supposed to be humorous, but I instantly saw her neurotic behavior for what it was: unreasonable and paranoid.  I was not amused.  I was disturbed.  When the little girl is around 6 or 7 years old, her father dies.  The mother continues her neurotic behavior by waking her daughter and sleeping with her in her bed.  That kind of mother would drive anyone crazy.

Eventually Emma is ready to get married.  The movie never discloses where she met Flap Horton, played by Jeff Daniels.  But Aurora is so narcissistic that the night before the wedding, she begs her daughter not to go through with the marriage, calling it the biggest mistake Emma would ever make.  To me, it was a transparent attempt to keep her daughter at home with her.  At this point I still liked Emma and I applauded her response.  If you disapprove of the man that much, then don’t come to the wedding.  Aurora was such a mean mother that she boycotted the wedding.

You get the picture, don’t you?  Aurora was not a nice person and I, as a viewer, had very little sympathy for her.  But then the daughter starts some bad behavior of her own.  She starts cheating on her husband and showing signs of mental instability.  But the strange thing about that is the fact that she takes the affair so casually.  It is as if adultery is acceptable behavior.  She talks to her mother on the phone about it.  She even goes so far as to talk on the phone to her lover, Sam Burns, played by Jonathan Lithgow, in front of her children.

But then her behavior sinks even lower!  She catches her husband, Flap, having an affair of his own.  Not only does she not tell him about her own cheating, but she blows up and comes down on him for his infidelity!  Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander!

In the meantime, Aurora begins having an affair with her neighbor Garrett Breedlove, played by Jack Nicholson.  This one was alright with me because neither of them were attached to anyone else.  At that point, I said “Good for them!”  Garrett’s big problem, however, is a fear of commitment which becomes evident when Emma arrives with the kids in tow and Aurora tries to introduce them to him.  He literally runs for cover.

But then everything changes when Emma is diagnosed with terminal cancer.  This whole part of the plot took place so quickly that it seemed like minutes after the tumors are found, she is on her death bed.  Then everybody in the family comes together to see her off.  Even Aurora and Flap, who have never liked each other, share a moment of tears and sorrow when Emma dies.

Sure, I shed a few tears of my own at that, but honestly, not that many.  I saw it coming.  Winger was nominated for Best Actress, but lost to McLaine.  I think they both did a fine job in their respective roles, but I’m just not sure the roles themselves were worth Academy Awards.  In addition, Lithgow was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, though Nicholson took home the Oscar in that category.  As I have said before, I did not see what they were up against at the Awards, so I cannot make an informed opinion as to whether or not they deserved their Oscars.

Interesting note:  In an interview with Barbara Walters, Bette Davis said “At least Terms of Endearment was an authentic film about relationships, and I must say that Miss Shirley McLaine gave an outstanding performance, but then she’s always good.”

For me, the film was pretty average with characters that I didn’t like very much, that is, until Emma’s cancer was diagnosed.  Then the best qualities of the characters started to emerge.  This is where the abilities of the talented cast of actors really started to shine.  Emma changed from a simplistic character I didn’t like to a human being dealing with a terminal illness.  Aurora changed from a mean and self-centered mother to a woman who is terrified as she watches her only child suffer and die.

I think that I saw it in this way.  The majority of the film was supposed to be a romantic comedy.  Aurora’s overbearing and stern attitude was supposed to be funny.  Emma’s quirky mental issues were supposed to be humorous.  Garrett’s lecherous antics were supposed to be laughable.  And there were brief moments when they were.  But once Emma got sick, the little humor that was there vanished.

I know I am over-simplifying the movie.  There were, of course, more subtleties than I am giving the movie credit for.  I just find it hard to like a movie in which I did not like any of the main characters.  That being said, there were things about the movie that I liked very much.  I liked how the script treated the characters after the cancer was diagnosed.  The film became a drama that was able to move me emotionally.

I also have to give a special thumbs-up to Troy Bishop who played Tommy, Emma’s eldest son.  For a child actor, he really did a fantastic job.  Of course it was a smaller part, but he played it well.  Tommy was a troubled young man who had anger issues because he felt unloved by his parents.  On top of that, he had to listen to his parents fight all the time.  I’m sure that many people have had similar experiences growing up.  When he visited his mother for the last time in the hospital, he really stood out to me as a very believable character.

Interesting note:  Apparently, there was a sequel to Terms of Endearment called The Evening Star which came out in 1996.  McLaine and Nicholson both came back to reprise their roles.  The story takes place 15 years after Emma’s death.  The character of Tommy, it is revealed, is in jail on drug charges.

Now, I have to mention something that is a bit of a personal contradiction for me.  I happen to like Jack Nicholson as an actor.  He has a natural presence on the screen that is fascinating to watch.  But I have to say that he is something of a one-trick-pony.  He is basically the same character in every movie I have ever seen him in.  Only the name and situation changes.  I watched him in Terms of Endearment and I clearly saw him in 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1987’s The Witches of Eastwick, 1980’s The Shining, and even 1997’s As Good as it Gets.  And those are just the movies I know him best from.  That being said, he is always interesting to watch.

When it comes down to it, I have to leave it at this:  I am pretty ambiguous about this movie.  I’ve never been a huge fan of romantic-comedies.  But I liked McLaine and Nicholson.  I didn’t particularly like any of the characters, but I liked some of the acting.  The soundtrack was pretty unmemorable, but I liked the production standards.  I wasn’t impressed with the comedy, but I liked the drama.  There was very little romance to be moved by, but it had a reassuring ending.

Oh, about the ending… reassuring is an apt word.  There was a great deal of sadness and loss caused by Emma’s death.  But the family seemed to be doing alright, implying that bad things happen, and unfortunately, it is a part of life.  But once we get past the initial grief, life goes on and it is possible to be happy again.  That, at least, is a positive thought and one that is worth remembering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gandhi – 1982

Gandhi was a wonderful step back into the world of the epic. Films seem to have gotten away from telling epic stories. The last Best Picture winner I can really put into that category was Patton in 1970. The Godfather? Even The Deer Hunter? I don’t think so. Gandhi was really a true epic. The story was told on a grand, world changing scale. The subject matter was a man who changed history.  In keeping with the far reaching effects of the man, the movie had lofty and inspiring themes, some amazing cinematography, exotic and yet very appropriate music, and an impressive cast with thousands of extras.  The story spanned a 55 year period in history.

Gandhi was, of course, a historical figure, making this film somewhat biographical. But it only covered his life from 1893 to his death in 1948. Gandhi is the man who made the term passive resistance really mean something. He was played by actor Ben Kingsley, who won the Best Actor Award for his portrayal. Kingsley was phenomenal. He is a great actor, but even more than that, he really looked like the real Gandhi.

The film was directed by Richard Attenborough, who also won an Oscar for Best Director. In fact, the film was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, and won 8 of them. Other wins included Best Original Screenplay (John Briley), Best Cinematography (Billy Williams and Ronnie Taylor), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design and Best Film Editing.

Interesting note: The Academy Award nominated Soundtrack was composed by Ravi Shankar and George Fenton, though they did not win.

Other notable actors in the film were Rohini Hattangadi as Kasturba Gandhi, Gandhi’s wife, Candice Bergen as Margaret Bourke-White, a reporter, Martin Sheen as Vince Walker, a journalist, and Ian Charleson as Reverend Charles Freer Andrews, one of Gandhi’s early supporters and close friend.  All of their roles, with the exception of Hattangadi were fairly small, but the actors stood out to me, partly because they were recognizable names that I am familiar with, and because they are good actors.

Interesting note: Another actor had a few minutes of screen-time: Sir John Gielgud. That makes two actors who were in the previous year’s Best Picture winner, Chariots of Fire, that had parts in Gandhi, the other being Ian Charleson.

The first thing about the movie that caught my attention was its beginning. It does something that I have seen other films do and it is an effective tactic to capture the interest of a viewer. They started out with Gandhi’s death. He was assassinated – shot three times at point-blank range. He was able to utter the words “Oh, God!” before falling. Actually, this was spoken in his native language as, “He Ram!” referring to the Hindu god Rama.

Interesting note: The movie actually holds a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for the use of the most extras in any one scene. In the beginning of the film, after Gandhi is killed, 300,000 extras were used during his funeral scene.

 

Then the film takes us back 55 years to 1893 which was the first event of significance that started to shape the man, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi into the prominent spiritual and political figure that he would become. He is a lawyer that has studied in London and has purchased a first class ticket on a train in South Africa. He is the victim of extreme prejudice from British citizens who are incensed that an Indian is being allowed to ride in first class, and he is forcibly thrown off the train.

 

Seeing how horribly Indian people are treated, he begins his protest in a non-violent way by publicly burning his government-issued documents that mark him as a second-class citizen. He encourages others to do the same. He allows himself to be beaten and arrested without fighting back, earning him the respect of his peers. He continues with his campaign and remains true to his non-violent convictions. The more he protests the criminal abuse allowed by the British laws in South Africa, the more followers he attracts.

You see, Gandhi believed so strongly in the rightness of his cause that he was willing to undergo the worst forms of mistreatment without any retaliation.  And his reasons for doing so were simple and clear. He knew that violence always begets more violence. Also, that violent retaliation only serves to justify the mistreatment. And finally, that once the world, and more importantly his persecutors, saw how unjustly he was being treated, shame would make them give him, or those who came after him, the fair treatment that every human being deserves.

That is the basis of his non-violent resistance. And I’ll be darned if it didn’t actually work. Eventually the Indians in South Africa were given fairer laws and his following grew even larger on the global scale. But when he returned to India, it was the same story all over again. The Brits were there treating Indians like second-class citizens in their own country. So, he started his campaign all over again.

But this time, he traveled all over the country gaining supporters and adherents. His fame and popularity grew. Eventually, the entire nation was behind him and his peaceful ways. There were a few scenes which were hard to watch. One of which was a scene in which some workers who were being treated unfairly tried to walk away from their jobs in protest. The military began beating them badly to get them to go back to work. But the Indians kept taking the beatings without resisting or fighting back. Row after row of men were beaten with sticks. The sad display went on into the night.

But that was the point. The terrible display garnered world-wide attention and the military eventually had to give in and answer for the unprovoked beatings they administered.

As I had mentioned before, the cinematography for Gandhi was incredible. Attenborough was not afraid to use the wide angle camera shots that gave the viewers a sense of the grand scale of the South African and Indian landscapes. The immense fields, the colorful skies, the vast waters, were all so beautiful to see on the screen. And all the people. The endless sea of people that crowd the streets of India were impressive. It must have been a real challenge to organize and film.

As for Kingsley’s performance, all I can say is that I was thoroughly impressed. He had the look, the accent, the mannerisms, and the disposition of the real Gandhi. In all the Academy Award winning films I have watched so far, this had to be one of the finest performances of all time. He was incredible.

I also have to mention the soundtrack in a little more detail. Ravi Shankar’s music on the sitar gave the film a very obvious Indian flavor and was wonderful to listen to. It was exotic and yet approachable. There was a certain kind of unique magical quality to the music that almost made the life of Gandhi out to be somehow mystical or charmed.  And in retrospect, it was. So, well done Ravi!

If I had any complaints at all about the movie, I would mention two things. First, it is a very long movie, coming in at 3 hours and 3 minutes long. Maybe it might have been a little easier to watch if it had been cut down by about 30 minutes or so, though to be honest, I’m not sure what they could have cut.  It all seemed to be necessary to the plot and its biographic nature.

The second thing I would complain about is that there was a definite reason why Gandhi was assassinated. But the film never went into that at all. It never explained who killed him and what his reasons were. I think it would have served the movie well to spend at least a few minutes on that. I wanted to know why he was assassinated and so I had to look it up myself.

Apparently, after Gandhi got the British to leave India, there was a terrible division in the newly freed country between the Hindus and the Muslims. The division was so bad that actual fighting broke out and a civil war began. Gandhi was, of course, opposed to the fighting, and so he fasted until the fighting ceased. His fast was so great that he very nearly died. But though Gandhi was a Hindu, he recommended that a Muslim be the first Prime Minister of India, trying to show that the two sides can find peaceful solutions to their differences.  Unfortunately, this only worked part-way.  The nation was divided into India and Pakistan.

What the movie did not explain was that a dissident named Nathuram Godse, dissatisfied with Gandhi’s choice of Prime Minister and with his non-violent policies shot him for political reasons. A tragedy, to be sure. But I wish the movie would have explained it a bit more than it did.  As it was portrayed, his death seemed random and unexplained.

Still, there is no denying that this was a great movie. I liked it more than I thought I would.  I really liked the way his passive resistance was portrayed.  In the end, the film returned to the inevitable assassination, the funeral, and the public cremation.  The influence that Gandhi had on the people of India justified the 300,000 extras who were in that funeral procession scene.  The last scene before the credits is a shot of Gandhi’s ashes being scattered over the holy Ganga river.

I like that Gandhi was an epic.  He was certainly a historical figure who lived an epic life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chariots of Fire – 1981

I will start this review off by saying that I find it ironic that a movie about running fast was so slow!  I’m sorry, but seeing runners racing in slow motion does not make it feel like a spiritual experience to me.  And there was a LOT of slow motion running.  This was a good movie, but only if you have a lot of patience.  And I must also make a confession.  This is the first Best Picture winning movie I can remember seeing at the theatre.  I was 8 years old and my father took my brothers and I to the movies.  I was bored out of my gourd.

Fortunately, I have a different perspective as an adult.  Let’s face it:  This is not a children’s movie.  There are a lot of adult concepts that are covered that I wasn’t old enough to understand back then.  Unfortunately, though I fought against it, I had difficulty forgetting how bored I was when I first watched this movie in 1981.

As you might have already guessed, Chariots of Fire was about running.  More specifically, it is about Olympic Track runners.  It is based on true events that took place in the 1920s.  Runner Harold Abrahams, played by Ben Cross, is a Jewish Englishman.  He has apparently never lost a race in his life.  He is also an angry young man who wants to stick it to anyone who is anti-Semitic.   Unfortunately, he attends Cambridge College, which is overtly Catholic.  The staff treats him unfairly because of his religious beliefs.  So rather than running away, he runs on the track team. Exceling on the track is his way of throwing his religion in their faces.  While there he meets and falls in love with professional soprano, Sybil Gordon, played by Alice Krige.

Interesting note:  Sybil is introduced as she is performing the role of Yum-Yum, the female lead, in the Gilbert & Sullivan Operetta, The Mikado.  In real life, Gordon never played that lead role, though she did play the part of Peep-Bo, one of Yum-Yum’s friends.

Runner Eric Liddell, played by Ian Charleson is a China born Scotsman whose parents are missionaries in China.  He is a devoutly religious man who believes that because God gave him the ability to run fast, his running is a way to glorify God.  His sister Jennie, played by Cheryl Campbell, wanted him to return to China as a missionary.  She feared that running in the Olympics might be dangerous for him in some spiritual way.

Interesting note:  This was something that was invented for the movie.  In real life, Jennie was actually very supportive of Eric’s running.

Both men were supposed to be the fastest men in Brittan.  The actors did a good enough job, though it was honestly hard to tell just how fast they were.  They were always shown running in slow motion with inspirational, yet somehow creepy and ominous music blotting out every other sound.  I understand that the filmmakers were trying to make running seem like the religious experience it apparently was for the two men, but for me it just translated into slow.  It seems to me that a race would catch my attention a lot more if I was actually watching men running fast in hearty competition.

I think this might have been a better movie if they had taken out all the slow motion running because the stories that took place off the race track were interesting enough to keep my attention.  Of course, there was much more to the movie than running.  There was the anti-Semitic sub-plot, the devout Catholic angle, the love story between Harold and Sybil, the hard training to be the best, the preparation for the Olympic games, the disappointment of defeat, and the glory of winning.

This was a period piece and the costumes and sets were all quite appropriate.  I have always liked women’s fashions from the 1920s.  I always found that fashion designers were trying to be as daring as possible without going too far.  Another thing that was good was that the actors looked right for the period.  I have seen period specific movies in which the actors had very modern faces.  They didn’t look like they belonged in the era in which the story took place.  The proper hair style can account for some of this inconsistency, but not all of it.  Ben Cross and Ian Charlson looked like they had both stepped right out of 1922.

But thinking in those terms, for me, the music didn’t really work very well.  Of course, the score by composer Vangelis was popular enough to win the Academy Award for Best Score.  But I thought that, as a whole, it wasn’t that great.  True, that opening instrumental theme was a great piece of music.  It was beautiful, inspiring, and memorable.  But that was the only part of the score that really worked.  For that opening scene, showing the men running along the beach, it was great, though it had a very synthesized modern sound that did nothing to put me in the 1920s.  But even then it would have been fine if the rest of the film had a score that was in the same style as the opening theme.  But the rest of the film had music that was strange and slow, and quite unmemorable.

Other actors in the film who stood out to me were Ian Holm, John Gielgud, and David Yelland.  Holm played Sam Mussabini, a trainer who took on Abrahams as his student.  I have always liked Holm as an actor, and his role in this film did not disappoint me.  He looked the part, acted well, and did a fine job.  He also played drunk very well after his student Abrahams won his gold medal for the 100 meter dash.  Believably drunk is not easy to play.  And there was one thing he said in particular that really made sense to me.  He said, “Now that you have won you can put all this behind you and start living.”  (Unfortunately this is a paraphrase I should have written the exact quote down.)

And it was such a true statement because they showed how training for the Olympics, training to be the best became the kind of obsession that took over the runner’s life.  I’m sure that the athletes of today go through the same experiences.  The sport becomes everything.  It eclipses everything and becomes the most important thing in the athlete’s life.  It has to.  It is the only way for someone to be the best.

In Abraham’s case, it forced him to set Sybil aside until the Olympics were over.  But he was fortunate.  She understood and waited for him to win his gold medal.  When he did, he took Mussabini’s advice and returned to her.

John Gielgud played the Master of Trinity at Cambridge University.  He was one of the men who was anti-Semitic, treating Abrahams badly because he was a Jew.  I can’t picture Gielgud playing anything other than a stuffy British professor, lawyer, or banker.  His face just has that permanent “I’m better than you” kind of smugness that is, on rare occasions, broken by a kindly smile.

David Yelland had a very small but memorable part as the Prince of Wales who attended the 1924 Olympics.  His part was important to the plot.  You see, when Liddell finds out he is scheduled to run in a race on a Sunday, he refuses to run.  He believes that Sunday is intended by God to be a day of rest.  The Prince requests a private audience with him to try to convince him to run.  Even then, Liddell politely refuses, saying that his allegiance to God is greater than his allegiance to his country.  Yelland was very handsome and played the small part very well.

Though it wounds him Liddell to do so, he still refuses to run.  Fortunately, a solution is found.  Another runner who has already won a gold medal in another race allows Liddell to run in his place in the 400 meter, which takes place on a Thursday.

Interesting note:  Liddell’s adherence to his religious convictions made headlines all over the world.  Before the race began, he was given a note that said “It says in the good book ‘He that honors me, I will honor’.  Good Luck.”  In reality, this note was given to him by his British teammates.  In the film, it was given to him by his opponent, American runner Jackson Scholz, played by Brad Davis.  Colin Welland, the movie’s screenwriter asked the real Scholz permission to make this little change for dramatic effect.  Scholz’s reply was, “Yes, great, as long as it makes me look good.”

Another interesting note:  At the end, the film shows a few paragraphs on the screen, telling what happened to the characters.  Abrahams married Sybil and went on to be the elder statesman of British Athletics.  Liddell, went on to more missionary service in China, but was killed in 1945 in Japanese-occupied China.

When it comes down to it, the movie was a bit too slow for my tastes.  That didn’t make it a bad movie, just a slow one.  I have done my best not to let my memories of being bored with it as a child affect my enjoyment of it as an adult.  There were plenty of good things about the movie, and even a moment or two of greatness.  But on the whole, it was just not my cup of tea.

Still, I can understand why it won best picture.  It was a movie about dreams of Olympic glory.  The Olympics have always been about international cooperation, being the best one can be, integrity, and following ones dreams.  They have been fostering inspirational stories since their inception in 1896, and continue to positively inspire people around the world today.

Just… enough with the slow-motion running.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary People – 1980

I went into this movie knowing next to nothing about it.  I knew that it starred Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsch, and Timothy Hutton – but that was about it.  Then, before I watched it, a friend told me that it was a horrible movie.  He said that it was a waste of film.  So, I must admit that my expectations were low.  After all, I was never a huge Donald Sutherland fan.

But I am pleased to say that I actually enjoyed the movie.  It was a very heavy drama that was, at times, difficult to watch.  It made me squirm in my seat.  I wanted to pause the DVD and walk away.  But I forced myself to stay and experience the film as the director had intended.  You can’t walk away from life.  You can’t walk away from the things that happen to ordinary people.

The drama centered around the Jarrett family.  Sutherland played the father, Calvin.  His wife, Beth, is played by Moore.  And finally there is their remaining son, Conrad, played by a very young Hutton.  I say remaining son because apparently there was another son who died in a sailing accident.  To make matters worse, Conrad, dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor’s guilt, tried to commit suicide.

To make matters worse, Beth had always favored her first son, Buck, and always showed very little love to Conrad.  This unfortunate behavior gets a hundred times worse after Buck’s death.  She loses the ability to love anyone including her husband.  To make matters worse, Calvin has no idea how to recognize, let alone deal with, the problems in his family.  He has ideas of some of the things going on, but has very little conviction when it comes to finding solutions.

To make matters worse, Conrad is desperately reaching out for help in various ways and it seems as if he is slowly moving back towards the idea of suicide, a prospect that terrifies him.  To make matters even worse, the only way his parents know how to deal with things is to put on happy faces and pretend that everything is, or will be, OK.

I quickly realized that this insanely dysfunctional family needed professional help, and the only one of them smart enough and brave enough to get that help is Conrad.  Hutton really turned in a stellar performance.  He was very young at the time, 19 years old when the filming took place, but he really stood out as a fantastic actor, even then.  He made it easy for me to see his character’s problems.  I knew what needed to be done.  It was heart-wrenching to see what he was going through, knowing that, as an outside observer, I was powerless to help.

And yet, without his parent’s urging or even their support, Conrad contacted a professional psychiatrist, Dr. Berger, played by Hirsch.  Hirsch also exceeded my expectations, doing a great job.  I’ve never been to a psychiatrist, so I don’t know first-hand how they behave, but I thought his portrayal was pretty accurate according to what I might expect.

Interesting note:  Hirsch’s performance has been praised by the psychiatric community because he was able to portray their profession in a positive light.  Apparently, this is not how psychiatrists are normally shown.  But of course, you can’t please everybody.  There were a few psychiatrists who criticized him because his character was too positive, making him seem one-dimensional.

You see, like I said, the movie was stressful to watch, but it was OK because, in the end, progress was made and healing began.  And most importantly, what needed to happen happened.  At the end of the movie, Beth left.  The mom left, and that was what needed to happen?  Well, yes.  I discovered that most of the problems that plagued the family stemmed from Beth’s inability to love her family after Buck’s death.  Both Calvin and Conrad needed her emotionally, and she couldn’t give them anything.

The way she treated them was horrible.  At one point, Conrad tried to tell his father that she hated him.  Of course, Calvin’s automatic response was that she loved him, and Conrad knew that he wasn’t even listening to his cry for help.  But eventually, even Calvin began to understand that his son had been right.  Trying to be a good father and husband, he gave Beth several opportunities to get help, which she could not bring herself to accept.  He all but begged her to talk to the psychiatrist.  Even at the last when he told her exactly what I had been thinking about her for half the movie, how she was hurting everyone around her, making everyone miserable, her first and immediate response was to run away, rather than to face her own pain.  But that is exactly what need to happen before Calvin and Conrad could begin to heal.

I was actually really impressed with Sutherland’s performance.  I have never seen him in a role that allowed him to explore such deep emotions.  I have gained a new respect for him as an actor.  He was especially good in that last scene where he tells his wife how much she is hurting him and her son.

Moore also did a good job.  In my eyes, she was the bad guy, and I spent half the movie wanting to strangle her.  That tells me that she portrayed the character well.  When she leaves at the end, I don’t think the audience is supposed to see it as a bad thing.  Of course, it would have been better if she broke down and admitted her failures, and began to heal, herself.  But she was so emotionally damaged, she couldn’t bring herself to do it, and I was glad when she left.

Interesting note:  Mary Tyler Moore used this role to make a definite break from the TV roles she was most known for:  Laura Petrie from the Dick Van Dyke Show, and Mary Richards from the Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Another face it was nice to see was Elizabeth McGovern.  She played the part of Conrad’s love interest, Jeannine Pratt.  She is beautiful, and a fine actress.  She was also very young at the time, but was able to turn her minor supporting role into a character with a little depth and personality.  Well done Elizabeth.

The director is actually a pretty big name in Hollywood.  Actor Robert Redford made his directorial debut with Ordinary People, and he took home the Oscar for his efforts.  Screenwriter Alvin Sargent won for Best Adapted Screenplay, and Hutton garnered a well-deserved Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.  Moore was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and Hirsch was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, though neither of them won.

Interesting note:  Donald Sutherland was not nominated for Best actor for his performance, though all three of his co-stars were in their respective categories.  Some Academy Historians consider it to be one of the biggest snubs in Academy Award history.

This was Timothy Hutton’s first major role that really put him on the map.  To say he did a great job was an understatement.  He was really phenomenal.  The night in which Conrad has his epiphany and realizes that his brother’s death was not his fault was such a moment of great relief.  It was truly a cathartic breakthrough.  The tears, the raw emotion, the sobbing, was all so real.  As we all know, an outpouring of grief like that can sometimes be the best thing that can happen to someone who is in a lot of pain.  The ability to forgive one’s self for the tragedies of the past is one of the hardest things for a person to achieve.  And when that dam broke, the flood of deep, deep grief poured out from him in a way that brought tears to my eyes.

And lastly, I must mention the music, specifically the use of the classical piece, Pachelbel’s Canon.  The music itself is a gentle round that is absolutely gorgeous in its simplicity.  The repeating bass line provides a lush foundation for the melodic variations wandering above.  It has a distinctly easy and insightful feel to it, and yet when coupled with images of the empty streets and perfect lawns of Lake Forest, Illinois, it is colored with a touch of melancholy.  Using Pachelbel’s Canon was an inspired choice made by Mr. Redford.

Interesting note:  Pachelbel’s Canon experienced a significant surge in popularity after the release of Ordinary People.

After watching the film, I understand the title.  Sadly, terrible things happen to people every day.  The movie explores how such a tragedy as the death of a family member can affect not only the stability of the family, but the emotional stability of its individual members.  Things like this happen to ordinary people like you and me, and when they do, more often than not, a great deal of pain must be worked through before healing can happen.  But there is hope.  Help is out there, if we can but learn to accept it.