After years of waiting, Warren Beatty’s Reds (1981) has finally made its DVD debut in a 25th Anniversary Edition. Only Warren Beatty could have gotten a film like Reds green-lit, let alone made. No matter what your feelings are regarding the extreme political nature of the film, one has to admire the passion and guts it took for Beatty to not only get this film off the ground but to use his own box-office matinee idol to leverage the most powerful film studio at the time, Paramount Pictures, to finance and distribute a film. The movie is about an American communist, John Reed, who had the distinction of being the only American buried inside the Kremlin.
Reds is, despite its imperfections, a passionate and ambitious film that tries to do too much, yet you don’t fault it for one minute. Trying to bring together the hopefulness of early radical politics, the American Dream, the problematic nature of sharing your love and work with someone, early American bohemianism, sweeping world change, epic romance and naïve political idealism in a three-hour and fifteen-minute film is impossible.
The film will seem longer than that and will, at times, lose the viewer as characters shift to different countries and political stances. Many times it will seem like the political bickering that is present throughout much of the film isn’t so much based on ideology or dogma but rather ego and personality. But, you never lose sense of the passion that drives the film and the people in it. Take the political stance out of it, and it would still be a magnificent film about following your beliefs through no matter the circumstances. Beatty was able to round up a stellar cast to complement him including Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Maureen Stapleton and Paul Sorvino to name a few.
Beatty would wear every authoritative hat one could think of here - he directed, produced, starred in and co-wrote the screenplay along with British playwright Trevor Griffiths. Reds would be one of the last, if not the very last film to have emerged from the greatest decade of American Cinema, that being the 1970s - where directors were treated as artists and given an unheard amount of freedom when it came to their projects and their budgets. Luckily for Beatty and the film, it was able to be made before the Heaven’s Gate debacle ended the director as auteur era of the 70s. It could have easily been Reds that bore that stigma, for like Heaven’s Gate and other films from the late 70s whose now-established directors had been given unheard of budgets for their films (think Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, Friedkin’s Sorcerer, Spielberg’s 1941, Scorsese’s New York, New York), Reds had a then outrageous budget of 33.5 million dollars but ended up grossing 39 million when it was all said and done.
Luckily for the film and Beatty, it was very well-received by critics and garnered 12 Oscar nominations, deservedly winning three for Best Director-Warren Beatty, Best Supporting Actress-Maureen Stapleton and Best Cinematography- Vittorio Storaro. The film lost Best Picture of 1981 to one of the more forgotten best pictures of all time – Chariots of Fire which is more known for its music than the actual film. To this date, Reds is the last film to have received Oscar nominations in all four acting categories (Actor- Beatty, Actress- Diane Keaton, Supporting Actor- Jack Nicholson and Supporting Actress- Maureen Stapleton).
Reds is a mixture of old-fashioned Hollywood romance and historical epic that recounts the last five years of John Reed. He was a journalist from Portland, Oregon who had a knack for being at the right place of the world at the time. He realized the magnitude of the Bolshevik Revolution and put himself right in the middle of it, inspiring him to write the famous novel “Ten Days That Shook the World.” He got seriously involved in American left-wing politics and the split between the Socialist Party and the American Communist Party. He later returned to Russia where he became disillusioned by the bureaucracy of the Soviet Communists before dying of typhus.
As the film opens in 1915, we get a glimpse of his knack for chasing big stories as he literally chases alongside Pancho Villa in insurgent Mexico. He returns to Portland and at a political function, meets and impresses Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). Louise is a progressive woman for her time and considers herself to be a writer in the same important vein as Reed. Indeed, much of the film’s playfulness sometimes bordering on blatant sentimentality comes from her constantly competing with him as an artistic equal. They began a love affair and she decides to abandon her dentist husband and accompany Reed to Greenwich Village in New York. Her ego takes a shot when she realizes her mild accomplishments as a writer and a human cannot compete with Reed’s worldly educated, high-minded friends, which consist of Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton), Max Eastman (Edward Herrmann), and the poet/playwright Eugene O’Neill (Jack Nicholson).
Reed is frequently gone to cover political events and protests over the United States involvement in World War I. They later move to Provincetown and engage in early bohemianism with O’Neill and the others. While Reed is away, Bryant has a brief affair with the closet romantic alcoholic O’Neill. When Reed returns and learns of the affair he proposes to her and she accepts. They have a brief interlude of happiness before Louise grows impatient with the fact that she will always be in Reed’s shadow as a writer. She leaves him to go to France as a journalist. He eventually catches up with her and convinces her to come with him to Russia where the biggest story in the world is unfolding, that being the Russian Revolution. They both cover the Revolution and became intoxicated by the excitement of the history they are witnessing. This is where it’s best to stop with the plot synopsis as the second half of the film deals with the trappings of political ideology and how it can be perverted and twisted.
If this sounds boring to you, then it most likely will be. This is NOT a film for those with 24-second attention spans and that expect explosions at every turn. This film is at heart a love story and a character study between Reed and Bryant. If you don’t care for them, you won’t last an hour here. It’s easy to criticize the film for its cutesy portrayal of their relationship. One minute, they’re making goo-goo eyes, the next minute they’re fighting, one leaves then the other one goes back, etc. Yes, it is a highly traditional Hollywood romance on that level. But, and credit to Beatty for this, that was the only way to get an audience for this. Is there anyone that wants to watch a history lesson about an American Communist who dies at the end? Not enough to where you would finance a 33 million dollar epic shot all over the world. But, if you can add in attractive and talented big-name actors along with traces of excellent writing and a sweeping historical backdrop, then you’ve got something. This is very much like a more high-minded and reaching Doctor Zhivago if you’re looking for a comparison. In the end, the actors make the difference.
Beatty, who helped to usher in the New Wave 70s with Bonnie and Clyde in 1967, was always considered a pretty-boy lothario but never a serious actor. Here, you see the man committing himself to someone that he could have been in another lifetime. Anyone familiar with Beatty’s real-life left leanings will have no problem believing him in this role. In a fundamental way, John Reed’s crisis was very much Warren Beatty’s crisis. Both men had a deep, internal conflict inside between the two things that mattered most to them…art and politics. I’ve always thought that given his high-profile image and playboy reputation, Beatty much like another high-profile actor of the 70s Robert Redford, for the most part picked challenging politically tinged projects that may not have been the most commercial opportunities available.
Whether it was Bonnie and Clyde, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Shampoo, Parallax View, Reds or even more recently Bulworth, Beatty always seemed to be able to put forth the feeling that he didn’t take himself too seriously as an actor and frequently picked parts where he played men that were simplistic idiots in a way. You can almost excuse the cinematic blunders like Ishtar and Town and Country that he would be responsible for later in his career just for Reds and Bulworth alone. With Reds, Bulworth and Shampoo to a lesser degree, he would not shy away from presenting his left-leaning political views but he knew how to do it without alienating the audience and to present his views with a sense of hopefulness, passion, humor and ultimately tragedy. John Reed is presented as a man that naively clung to the belief that he could force the truth upon the world; if you’re a writer, you’ll always fondly remember his passionate, twice-spoken “You don’t re-write what I write!” to those that dare edit his copy. He is not, despite what you may think of his politics, a traitor or an instigator. He was caught up in the idealism of a young movement that he believed could change the world for the better. His idealism ends up being coldly shattered as the film progresses and the Beatty does not hide that realization. John Reed would arguably be Warren Beatty’s greatest performance and he was justly recognized with a Best Actor nomination that year.<!--page-->
It is Jack Nicholson that steals the show whenever he’s onscreen as the boozy and sad Eugene O’Neill. His short love affair with Bryant will break your heart and you will find yourself hating Bryant for her coldness towards him once Reed returns into the picture. He never once veers into the self-parody that would mark many of his later films but rather plays O’Neill close to the vest and speaks volumes through his sad eyes. Were it not for the scene-stealing John Gielgud as Hobson in Arthur that year, Nicholson would’ve unquestionably walked off with the Best Supporting Actor that year. It is one of his more remarkable, understated performances that most may not have even heard of due to the fact that his role is very small and is seen only twice in the film’s last hour and a half. You’ll find yourself wishing the film was about him and Bryant rather than Reed. Much of the credit for Nicholson’s involvement must go to Beatty, however. Beatty knew that Nicholson was the only actor that audiences would believe could steal his girl away from him and in fact, in an ironic touch of life imitating art that no doubt helped the film; during filming Nicholson had a deep crush on Keaton while she was still with Beatty. Nicholson actually wrote the poem that he gives Keaton in the film.
Another small but powerful performance in the film belongs to Maureen Stapleton’s Emma Goldman. She comes across as something of a tough talking, intimidating political bully early on, especially to Bryant whom she views as just another one of Reed’s girlfriends. But at the end, she is simply a broken-hearted human being who has fought for a cause, been persecuted and deported from her home because of it, and sadly notes how “the dream we had is dying.” Her win for Best Supporting Actress that year was well deserved. She too, is not in as much of the film as one would like but she makes her presence felt. Look for Gene Hackman in an unbilled cameo role he did as a favor to Beatty as well as legendary character actor M. Emmet Walsh.
One of the film’s many touches that allows you to overlook its shortcomings and melodramatic clichés are the interviews that Beatty intersperses throughout the film with real-life friends and acquaintances of John Reed and Louise Bryant. Shot against a black background thus utilizing every wrinkle and glance of the face, these are fascinating, humorous, educational, and occasionally heart-wrenching remembrances by those that were there. Beatty uses this in a two-fold manner. First, instead of using long exposition to set up the historical backdrop, he uses these people and their words instead. Second, he very slyly uses contrasting opinions and remembrances to emphasize that life is always someone’s perspective. One person’s can be completely different from someone else’s. There will always be different viewpoints and opinions when it comes to history.
If you realize that, then you can forgive the somewhat ludicrous, overly sentimental last hour of the film, which fictitiously details Bryant traveling under great duress back to Russia to find Reed who has been imprisoned after trying to escape Moscow. Beatty does use this section to illustrate how the Russian leaders that failed to make good on their initial promises and unify the party shattered Reed’s ideology in Communism and, because of that, you are willing to forgive the melodrama that is interjected. By the end, you’re not really sure what Reed is doing in the middle of a desert battle other than juxtaposing his chasing after the attacking soldiers with the first image we have of him chasing after Pancho Villa’s soldiers. But again, the ends justify the means. Passion is what’s behind these people and the choices they make. In that sense, Reds is an exhilarating example of how amazing and powerful the notion of chasing after history and greatness can be and how it can intoxicate the soul unlike any drug. The question is do the actors make you care about what is going on? The answer is a definite yes.
Beatty wisely framed the film around the love story between him and Keaton as a way of drawing the audience into the political nature of the film. The film works because you care about both of them and there are several moments where they look at each other without words and you know there is something emotionally powerful resonating. How else can you explain the enduring and iconic image of Beatty and Keaton finally reconnecting and embracing at the train station at the end? It works. Not just because of the actors involved but because of the build-up to that moment and the time that we have invested in these people. That scene alone sold the film to audiences because of its passion and emotion behind it. It is still one of the most enduring images in all of cinematic history and even people that have never cared to see the film know that scene when they see it.
The extras here are in the form of a wonderful 7-part documentary about the history of the film that runs one hour, seven minutes. I had a genuine worry that Beatty, who is notorious for not given interviews or taking part in any retrospectives, commentary, etc would not be present in the documentary. Beatty did not even do press for the film when it was originally released in 1981. Those fears are quickly extinguished as Beatty is front and center throughout the featurettes as well he should and he even remarks how he has never done anything like this for a DVD. Considering that this is and will always be his crowning achievement, how could he not have been here? Paramount must have backed up the Brink’s truck for him here but it is worth it as he goes into great detail about everything good and bad surrounding the film. Also a wonderful surprise here is Jack Nicholson’s presence as well as former Paramount CEO Barry Diller, Paul Sorvino, Edward Herrmann, Vittorio Storaro, and others. Diane Keaton is nowhere to be found but as Nicholson points out, she considers these retrospectives about her past work to be trivial. Disappointing, but Beatty and Nicholson more than make up for her absence.
In “The Rising,” the film’s origin and green lighting at Paramount are discussed in depth by Beatty. “Comrades” deals with the assembly of marvelous acting talent. “Testimonials” deals with how Beatty and Vittorio Storaro shot the interview footage with the survivors of the period. It includes some wonderful footage from the interviews that did not make the final cut. “The March” and “ Revolution Parts 1 and 2” deal extensively with the on-location shooting of the film and how Beatty more than lived up to his reputation of being relentless when it came to perfection and multiple takes. There is a fascinating revelation by Storaro and Beatty where they discuss a potentially deal-breaking clash they had over the use of the camera; Beatty wanted a stationary feel while Storaro, who should have won an Oscar for his work on Apocalypse Now and also was behind the lens for Last Tango in Paris, wanted a more fluid, moving camera. “Propaganda” deals with how the film was marketed successfully behind the eternal poster shot of Beatty and Keaton embracing at the end and Beatty talking about how the film could not be made in today’s Hollywood.
Perhaps the reason I connect with the film and sound like an apologist for it is that being an artist myself, it is impossible for me not to be inspired by the depth of emotions and desires that mark the characters in Reds. This film on-screen and off is about artists chasing their life-long dreams at their purest and untainted level while trying to maintain their lives amidst a time of turmoil and change. There will be moments that mean different things to different people but for me, it is towards the end where Beatty and Stapleton are alone in an apartment in Russia. Both of their utopic visions of communism have been altered if not downright shattered. Stapleton, who has been jailed and deported from the United States, is ready to give up the fight when Beatty says to her “It’s not happening the way we thought it would. It’s not happening the way we wanted it to but it’s happening. If you walk out on it now, what’s your whole life meant?” That is the underlying message of Reds if not one of the underlying messages of life itself.
It’s also important to note that Reds is about a time when the haves of the United States as well as the rest of the world, were so oppressive towards the working classes that leftist movements were more about fighting for simple human rights rather than attempts to overthrow and destroy established governments. The socialist movements that formed from this period fought and died for the rights and benefits that many of us take for granted today. Reds does not promote nor glorify communism or Russia rather it presents it through the eyes of those who were innocently and euphorically caught up in its hopefulness before realizing that it could not succeed. This is one of the more significant films of its time and, if you consider yourself a cinema lover; you owe it to yourself to seek this film out and give it a chance.
Reds (25th Anniversary Edition) is now available at Amazon . It is available for pre-order at AmazonUK for a Dec. 18th release. Visit the DVD database for more information.
There are currently no comments for this article. Be the first to comment! (no registration required)