Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I just saw Reds this last week for the first time, and I must say, I was really pleasantly surprised. Although the pacing was at times slow, overall, I though the film was great and underrated.

 

What were your impressions of Reds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Nicholson, after a decade of roles where he seemed to be parodying himself, was absolutely heartbreaking as Eugene O'Neill.

 

My biggest complaint with the movie is/was I wish they had identified the witnesses. Who knew back then that the idea of people talking about history or historical figures would become such a part of the mainstream of documentaries?

 

One of my favorite movies of the 1980s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

Reds is one of my top ten favorite films. But I still don't know who all the witnesses are. They weren't identified as they appeared. I bought the DVD when it came out, and it only identifies a few of them.

Who can identify all of them, with photos to go with the names? I can put names to a few of the faces; obviously Henry Miller, Dora Russell, Rebecca West, Adela Rogers St. John, Hamilton Fish III, and Roger Nash Baldwin.

You can look up the names and find youthful photos of many of them, but that doesn't always help.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2005 at 1:47 AM, rosinryanz said:

I just saw Reds this last week for the first time, and I must say, I was really pleasantly surprised. Although the pacing was at times slow, overall, I though the film was great and underrated.

What were your impressions of Reds?

We hadn't seen a good ol' 3-hr. "Roadshow epic" in years when it came out, as probably noted by the fact that when I talked about the movie with a friend, he said the whole "Internationale" scene of the Russian Revolution just before the Intermission was stolen wholesale from Dr. Zhivago's, just before their Intermission...Which, when I saw later, I realized Beatty had.

Jack Nicholson was good (by the 80's, only one out of three movies he was doing was an actual great performance, and not just paid to be Jack B)), and Warren Beatty can direct Big--But after wondering why Dick Tracy (1990) could have been a lot better, I look back at Heaven Can Wait (1978) and realize that Director Beatty just keeps falling too much back on "Musical montages" when he can't think of how else to direct the scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Swithin said:

Reds is one of my top ten favorite films. But I still don't know who all the witnesses are. They weren't identified as they appeared. I bought the DVD when it came out, and it only identifies a few of them.

Who can identify all of them, with photos to go with the names? I can put names to a few of the faces; obviously Henry Miller, Dora Russell, Rebecca West, Adela Rogers St. John, Hamilton Fish III, and Roger Nash Baldwin.

You can look up the names and find youthful photos of many of them, but that doesn't always help.

 

 

Miller was the only other one I recognized other than GEORGIE JESSEL.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Since I first went to it for Christmas of 1981, I've always found *Beatty's epic/bio tremendous on every level!!!

Unfairly many compared it to "Doctor Zhivago" but I rate things in own right & "reds" is tremendous fimmaking-(NOTE: Ever see the real Jack reed though?) He's sole American buried in the Kremlin

Last yrs *Oscars were arguably thee single biggest upset for BP yet-=(*"Moonlight" upsetting "La La Land?")

But back for 1981 *"Chariots of Fire" was considered an upset defeating "reds" & "0n Golden Pond"

I met *Maureen Stapleton on the set of 1985's terrific "Cocoon" by the way, got her autograph & spoke of "Reds" though very briefly

it did eventually take home "statuettes' for *Beatty as BD, *Stapleton & Best Cinematography & grossed $41m.

Never 4-get, media complaining because everytime it won something they played the Russian anthem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:38 PM, EricJ said:

We hadn't seen a good ol' 3-hr. "Roadshow epic" in years when it came out, as probably noted by the fact that when I talked about the movie with a friend, he said the whole "Internationale" scene of the Russian Revolution just before the Intermission was stolen wholesale from Dr. Zhivago's, just before their Intermission...Which, when I saw later, I realized Beatty had.

Jack Nicholson was good (by the 80's, only one out of three movies he was doing was an actual great performance, and not just paid to be Jack B)), and Warren Beatty can direct Big--But after wondering why Dick Tracy (1990) could have been a lot better, I look back at Heaven Can Wait (1978) and realize that Director Beatty just keeps falling too much back on "Musical montages" when he can't think of how else to direct the scene.

He & *Jack are still great pals!  Matter of fact *Beatty used to-(or still does) live as well on Mulholland,. but further down & off limits to the public. Think that's where he shot some of his wonderful 1978 "Heaven Can Wait"  Think the sequences where he's riding his bike were around there.  Personally I love his version of "Heaven Can Wait" & again, though I was yet an *Oscar pundit,etc I'll always remember the media (Rona Barrett, Rex Reed) forecasting him & that fantasy to sweep the '78 *Oscars. Mostly because the Globes oddsmaker then. were the biggest Eventually it only won for Best Art-Direction though. That was the Vietnam vets year w/the *Academy *"Deer Hunter" & "Coming Home" & I split, thinking "Dick Tracy" was very good (3 & 1/2) ($104m) but not great. I';m also prejudiced because MADONNA was on hand-(it won *Oscars for one of her songs ("Sooner or Later") Art-Direction & Make-Up though. Propblem may have been in pt iot was released only 6 months after Tim Burtons' "Batman" ($251m.)   WHO SAW "BULWORTH" OR LAST YRS H. HUGHES FLICK "RULES DON'T APPLY?"
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2005 at 1:47 AM, rosinryanz said:

I just saw Reds this last week for the first time, and I must say, I was really pleasantly surprised. Although the pacing was at times slow, overall, I though the film was great and underrated.

 

What were your impressions of Reds?

BP nominees for that year 1981 were:

*"Chariots of Fire" "Atlantic City"-(my vote!) "0n Golden Pond" "Raiders of the Lost Ark" & "Reds"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed feelings about Reds....it certainly is brilliantly directed and acted, especially by Beatty, Keaton and Nicholson....but I think the movie could have been cut down a bit. I personally found the relationship between John Reed and Louise Bryant a lot more fascinating than the political story which I found it bit hard to follow at times.

 

(And I don't know if it's true or not, but I read somewhere it was actually Bryant who pursued Eugene O'Neill, not the other way around as the movie portrays in here. But then I get the feeling that this was one point where Beatty and the witnesses in the film may have not agreed on....the movie wants us to believe that Louise did not go on seeing O'Neill once she married Reed, but a few of the older ladies interviewed on here seem to feel otherwise. Of course the only ones who would know for sure are the real Reed, Bryant and O'Neill and they are long gone).

 

Reds is watchable but not so sure it would have been my choice for Best Picture either. Still there is no doubt that Beatty really put his heart and soul into the making of this movie.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the witnesses "actually" witnesses? I wondered this at the time I saw it. For them to have known John and Louise in the 1910s and be interviewed in 1980-81 they would have had to be at least 90 years old.

Nobody talks about the sad end of Louise Bryant, who was actually looked down upon in socialist circles as somebody who slept with socialists rather than someone who was a socialist herself. After John Reed died she remarried in 1923, had a series of affairs with women which caused her husband to divorce her, and caused the courts to give their only child to her husband. Then Louise developed Dercum's disease in which the sufferer gains weight out of any proportion to caloric intake. The fat gained forms a bunch of hardened tumors making the sufferer look something like The Michelin Man. To deal with the pain Louise became an alcoholic and died in 1936. Part of this can be found by anybody with access to Wikipedia.  Part of it came from a book I read several years ago, the title I do not recall.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, calvinnme said:

Were the witnesses "actually" witnesses? I wondered this at the time I saw it. For them to have known John and Louise in the 1910s and be interviewed in 1980-81 they would have had to be at least 90 years old.

Yes, they were actually witnesses. It took Beatty a few years to make the film, so they would have been interviewed perhaps in the late 1970s, but all were contemporaries of Reed and Bryant as young people. John Reed's dates were 1887 – 1920. Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU was 1884-1981. Dorothy Frooks (1896-1997); Scott Nearing (1883-1983); Isaac Don Levine (1892-1981); Arthur Mayer (1886-1981). Many of the witnesses knew John Reed and Louise Bryant well. It's clear based on their comments who those are. Others appear as witnesses to the times and events. The U.S. Congressmen Hamilton Fish III (1888-1991) probably didn't know Reed or Bryant but gives a dissenting view of their politics.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...