Beatty, "Reds" at DGA

email this story
read comments (22)
post a comment

I wangled a last-minute entry into a big hoo-hah for Warren Beatty's Reds ('81) at the Directors Guild of America theatre last night. It was a four-part affair -- a buffet reception at 6 pm, screening at 7 pm, coffee, fruit and brownies in the lobby during intermission, and then a q & a with Beatty and interviewer Bennett Miller (the esteemed Capote director) sometime around 10:40 pm.

Capote director Bennett Miller and Reds director-producer-star Warren Beatty during Saturday night's q & a following a screening of Reds at the DGA on Saturday, 9.30.06.

This and Wednesday's special screening at the New York Film Festival is part of a promotion for the Paramount Home Video double-disc DVD that "streets" on 10.17. The longish, Oscar-winning epic will also open theatrically for a week in New York and Washington, D.C. on 10.6, and in L.A. (at the Arclight) on 10.13.

I hadn't seen Reds in over 20 years (I haven't watched the versions on VHS and laser disc due to gross over-scanning), and I was stirred and turned on all over again -- it's a very smart, wonderfully adult historical epic that delivers at a consistently intimate-intellectual level. I was also startled at how incredibly young everyone (Beatty, Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Edward Herrman) looked back then.

At the same time I was wondering if today's under-30 viewers will care very much about a film as rich and densely political as this one. The dual servings of a troubled-relationship movie (i.e., the ups and downs between Beatty's free-thinking John Reed and Keaton's Louise Bryant) and a very nicely layered portrait of old-school lefty idealism may seem a bit...I don't know, musty.

And I wondered, also, if the early '90s collapse of Russian communism, which Reed cared about and worked for with such feeling in the late teens and early 1920s, has enhanced the film by making it seem more like a tribute to lost-cause Quixotic dreams, or diminished it because it Bolshevism (which the film portrays as being a brutal and failed system almost from the get-go) came to naught at the end?

I'd forgotten what a deeply annoying piece of work Keaton's Bryant is -- insecure, snappy, under-talented, ready to argue at the drop of a hat. She has an affair with Nicholson's Eugene O'Neill and that's...well, emotional indiscretions will happen every so often, but she walks out and all-but-terminates their relationship when Reed acknowledges he's had a dalliance or two on the side and what-of-it?

Miller and Beatty had only met once before, but they seemed relaxed with each other. I liked Beatty's observation that directing a movie was a bit like vomiting. "When things build up inside you eventually start to feel like vomiting," he said. "You don't want to vomit, but when you finally do you feel much better." And I enjoyed a later moment when Beatty said to Miller, "You've acted, right?" and Miller, "What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't acted since high school." And also when Miller said, "You began filming the 'Witnesses' in the '70s," and Beatty replied, "The 1870s."

Beatty mentioned during the q & a that his 12 year-old son Ben said earlier in the evening that he thought Reds was too long.

I spoke to Beatty this morning and asked him how Reed might have evolved in his thinking if he hadn't died at such a young age, and what would he have said about the ultimate fate of Russian communism?

"I feel he wouldn't have moved to the right [if he'd lived]," said Beatty. "And uhm...it's very interesting. How some people moved from the far left to the far right, like Max Eastman. And you know, what happened to people during the Stalinist purges moved a lot of people to the right...and then there were a lot of people who didn't. I believe Reed would have...well, of course, I don't know...but I believe he would have remained true to that which he thought was workable. I also think he saw the upcoming problems with Communist dictatorship."

Beatty said that he'd "he'd never taken DVDs seriously until now. I thought it was retrograde. I thought the picture is what it is and why excessively look back? I don't feel that anymore because I think the nature of distribution has had a deleterious effect on certain content.

"This film, which cost $32 million to make...this film, Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia wouldn't and couldn't be made in today's environment -- they wouldn't be financed. Can you imagine anyone today putting $150 million or $200 million dollars into a story of a very strange Englishman who goes to Arabia, behaves peculiarly and dies on a motorcyle...and played by an unknown?

"DVD releases and the obviously long shelf life that comes with the DVD market are the replacement for the long theatrical life that films used to have in theatres, plus it saves the audience from having to experience the mall experience, which is largely a hormonal matter these days. The home screens are getting bigger" -- Beatty has a high-def system in his home -- "and the multiplexes are...well, the large theatres at the Arclight are more of an exception than the rule."

Reds will be at the Arclight on October 13th, as well as at the City Cinemas Village East in Manhattan and the E Street Cinema in Washington, D.C., on October 6th.

"I've never before studied the [DVD] situation, " said Beatty, "but with theatrical you sometimes have your film opening against four or five movies on the same dates. There are 117 other DVD titles coming out on October 17th." Before he said that I had guessed there were probably 20 other recongizable titles coming out that day.
I don't think anyone gives a damn about the other 100.

Reds is unusual in that it will be issued in three formats on 10.17 -- on regular DVD and on both Blu Ray and HD-DVD high-def.

Preordained Fate<< previous | next >>Hamsters on a plane

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 1, 2006 at 4:37 PM

comment #1

ZacharyTF says ...

I've never seen this movie, but I'll be renting the DVD, assuming my local video store carries it.

Posted by ZacharyTF at October 1, 2006 5:04 PM

comment #2

JD says ...

I'm under 30 and I've been a huge fan of Reds for over a decade. And just for the record, the video wasn't that badly panned-and-scanned: it's a 1:85:1 movie, not the more pan-and-scan problematic 2.35:1.

Posted by JD at October 1, 2006 5:21 PM

comment #3

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to JD: Not panned-and-scanned -- that's what technicians serving the schmuck trade used to do to 2.35 to 1 Scope films. The VHS and laser discs of "Reds" were OVER-scanned...the technicians had lopped off portions of the tops, bottoms and left and right sides of the intended 1.85 image.

Posted by jeffreywells at October 1, 2006 5:27 PM

comment #4

JD says ...

Strange. If the video transfer was abnormally flawed -- and the movie definitely worked in spite of this -- conisder me extra-excited about the DVD. If there's one thing that the new Apocalypse Now DVD re-enforced for me, it's that Vittorio Storaro is a visual genius.

Posted by JD at October 1, 2006 5:37 PM

comment #5

Dixon Steele says ...

Saw this epic at the National in Westwood when it came out.

Three things:

1. It was (and is) a very good, ambitious film. Loved Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Eugene O'Neill.

2. Not be a philistine , but Ben Beatty is right. It's too long.

3. Had the bad timing to go up against the underdog CHARIOTS OF FIRE. Although Beatty won the Best Director Oscar, the Academy preferred COF and it won Best Picture. I think Beatty's still pissed off.

Posted by Dixon Steele at October 1, 2006 5:55 PM

comment #6

Min says ...

I always have considered "Reds" to be about a marriage not politics. It's a very good movie and one of Keaton's best.

Now if Paramount would only release Richard Brook's "Looking For Mr. Goodbar" among titles they seem to forever sit on.

Posted by Min at October 1, 2006 6:18 PM

comment #7

Mr. Peel says ...

I don't know who's right, but there's an ad in today's LA Times for Reds at the Arclight beginning on Friday--not the following week--for a one-week engagement. Whenever it does play, I'll be there.

Posted by Mr. Peel at October 1, 2006 6:24 PM

comment #8

Decker says ...

Loved the movie; I haven't seen it in over 20 years as well. Have always loved Beatty. Wish he's work again -- something small, not a lead. I'd love to see him wash off the stench of Town and Country. It's sad to see him at award shows as Mr. Annette Benning.

I'll believe he takes DVD seriously when he records an audio commentary. Heck, any one will do, Bonnie & Clyde, Shampoo, Heaven Can Wait, even Dick Tracy. I can't really blame him for not doing one on Reds; he's a shy guy and that's a heck of a long film to be expected to talk through.

Posted by Decker at October 1, 2006 8:49 PM

comment #9

Hejla says ...

I've noticed that he's not the most eloquent speaker. Maybe that's why he doesnt like to do DVD commentaries? I always get the feeling that he has a bit of difficulty verbalizing his thoughts?

Posted by Hejla at October 1, 2006 9:09 PM

comment #10

Nate West says ...

In preparation for his never filmed movie about Howard Hughes, didn't Beatty shoot an entire set of "witnesses" talking about Hughes? Where is that stuff?

Posted by Nate West at October 1, 2006 9:41 PM

comment #11

Nicol D says ...

When I was a wee wee one my dad took me to see Burt Reynolds Sharky's Machine on a Sunday afternoon. It was restricted of course, so we spent the afternoon watched Reds instead.

I didn't completely understand it at the time, but I remember being impressed by the big, epic feel of it. In that regard it was unlike anything I had ever seen in a theatre before. It felt like I was getting a peek into an adult world that was far more sophisticated and important than my own. That the world was a very big place with many difficult things going on.

Reds was my first epic. I look forward to buying this on the 17th.

Posted by Nicol D at October 2, 2006 2:42 AM

comment #12

Nicol D says ...

"It was restricted of course, so we spent the afternoon watched Reds instead."

...'watching' Reds is what we did.

Posted by Nicol D at October 2, 2006 2:45 AM

comment #13

York "Budd" Durden says ...

I was sixteen when this came out. I was a movie nut, not just for Star Wars and other Hollywood stuff, but for the art material as well. I saw it on Saturday afternoon. I was moved; the inclusion of the witnesses seemed a daring technique that elevated the movie to another level.

I haven't seen it since college, in probably '86 or so. I can't wait to have these discs.

Posted by York "Budd" Durden at October 2, 2006 5:25 AM

comment #14

breadlymoore says ...

"When I was a wee wee one my dad took me to see Burt Reynolds Sharky's Machine on a Sunday afternoon."

Christ, I had no idea you were that old. So much makes sense now...

Posted by breadlymoore at October 2, 2006 8:02 AM

comment #15

T. S. Idiot says ...

For some bizarre reason, I actually preferred Chariots of Fire to Reds at the time but now clearly see my error. No one has mentioned that the only person in the cast to win an Oscar was Maureen Stapleton, though Beatty, Keaton, and Nicholson give better, more rounded performances. She had weak competition while the others were trampled by the sentimental rampage for Fonda, Hepburn, and Gielgud. Alas, the Oscars!

Posted by T. S. Idiot at October 2, 2006 8:56 AM

comment #16

sardine says ...

have an affection for REDS, but it is not a v. good movie. There is no role written for Diane Keaton....(she was superb the month later in SHOOT THE MOON). But Reds is pretty and Nicholson, Stapleton and Beatty are v. good. the project took so long...Beatty lost interest.

Posted by sardine at October 2, 2006 8:56 AM

comment #17

Arizona Joe says ...

The interpolations of the real life people giving interviews is an interesting and novel cinematic device. I don't think it is original with "Reds."

Jack Nicholson does a character turn as Eugene O'Neil. It shows Mr. Nicholson is a lot more than "Jack."

"Reds" is a tad long. But it reminds us that Warren Beatty is a movie star, and a guy in Hollywood who is an artist.

One fly in the ointment: the communists, particularly the leads, had teeth that were white and straight. I was not aware the Soviets had talent and budget for cosmetic dentistry.

Posted by Arizona Joe at October 2, 2006 9:59 AM

comment #18

T. S. Idiot says ...

Because Keaton's character leaves her dentist husband for Beatty, some TV show, Letterman I think, had a dentist review Reds, and he complained about the historical inaccuracy of the pristine choppers. Modern denistry appears anachronistically in most period pieces. See The Illusionist, for example.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at October 2, 2006 11:04 AM

comment #19

sardine says ...

stapleton gave the best performance....and she got an oscar for it....an example of an oscar going to the right person...it does not often happen. The academy is too square.

Posted by sardine at October 2, 2006 11:17 AM

comment #20

DeeQ says ...

quote: Posted by Decker at October 1, 2006 08:49 PM

I've noticed that he's not the most eloquent speaker. Maybe that's why he doesnt like to do DVD commentaries? I always get the feeling that he has a bit of difficulty verbalizing his thoughts?

Decker: Beatty is a stutterer. I think his mind works faster than he's able to get the words out :) He's also notoriously shy.

Posted by DeeQ at October 18, 2006 2:25 AM

comment #21

DeeQ says ...

^Somebody pointed me to an interview transcript of Beatty's on Larry King Live regarding Dick Tracy (early nineties). Not the most eloquent speaker indeed. http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/hot-guys/warren-beatty-actor-page20-1336.html

Posted by DeeQ at October 19, 2006 2:17 AM

comment #22