The Big Brass Ring (1999)

Orson Welles wrote The Big Brass Ring in the early 1980s--his last attempt to create a commercial Hollywood film--but the dynamic, rich screenplay was never produced. Nearly two decades later, independent filmmaker and documentarian George Hickenlooper (Hearts of Darkness) purchased and rewrote Welles' script, updating the tale of an independent presidential candidate in the cynical post-Watergate years to a more modest gubernatorial race in the media-saturated 1990s. The generally reserved William Hurt is excellent as the firebrand candidate whose secret, repressed past is dredged up when estranged father figure and political rebel Nigel Hawthorne (in a wry, flamboyant performance) reappears on the eve of the election. While the world's attention is focused on a political contest between two independents, Hurt searches his soul to come to peace with the compromises and sacrifices of his youth.

Where Welles' script is suffused with the melancholy sense of loss of an old man looking back on past mistakes, the film is brightened with the hope and possibilities of a younger man looking ahead to unlimited possibility. Hurt gives his best performance in decades as a man whose confidence is cracked by guilt. Less convincing is French beauty Irène Jacob as an international reporter while Miranda Richardson, though excellent, gets lost as the story sidesteps her sad alcoholic character. We'll never know what Welles could have done with his story, but Hickenlooper delivers a handsome, compelling drama. --Sean Axmaker Amazon.com

William Hurt is excellent

William Hurt is just excellent as a Missouri governatorial candidate who has a few skeletons in his closet, walking the tightrope between keeping true to his ethics and wanting to win the election.

A believable, low-key suspense movie. Believe it or not, it was written by Orson Welles, I think it was one of his last works before he died.

Great performances by Miranda Richardson and Nigel Hawthorne.

Very recommended! June 22, 2007

Mediocre or a flawed masterpiece?

This may be a flawed masterpiece or perhaps a mediocre movie with a lot to recommend it. I enjoyed it and would like to see it again, partly to make sure the plot worked and partly to catch some nuances that I missed. And also because, as my esteemed colleague, flickjunkie, notes below, the audio is atrocious and my ears are not as sharp as they once were. But life is short and the entire opus of film is long...but maybe I can edit with the fast forward!

Okay, let's look at the evidence. Script by Orson Welles: somewhat amazing since he died in 1985. His last work. That alone may make this worth watching. William Hurt plays a southern pol, Blake Pellarin, running for governor of Missouri. Miranda Richardson plays his rich, alcoholic wife, and she is very good. Nigel Hawthorne is Kim Mennaker, Blake's one time mentor, a shadowy, behind the scenes political figure, a cynical character who is writing a 27,000-page memoir, which no doubt includes much about his love for the Pellarin boys. Irene Jacob plays Cela Brandini, a TV reporter fascinated with Blake. The one-time protege of French-Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski is not shown to advantage here. I'm not sure why, but there is little subtlety in the way she plays the part. To really appreciate what she can do, see her in La Double vie de Veronique (1991) or Trois Couleurs: Rouge (1994), both directed by Kieslowski. She is beautiful and very winning.

William Hurt, contrary to some opinion, was excellent. His characteristic laid-back, almost languid style works strangely well for a southern pol. He is certainly different, but believable, although I don't think his style would have worked had his character been running for president, as in Welles's original script. (Incidentally, they really wanted Louisiana, not Missouri, for the locale.) Hurt's performance reminds me in some ways of his work in the outstanding but now somewhat neglected, Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985), for which he won an academy award.

The Big Brass Ring never had a theatrical release, and it is not hard to see why. The print is too dark and the story too murky and hard to follow. It appears that the brothers changed identities when young and never bothered to change back. Apparently Blake's brother and not Blake was the subject of the homosexual photo, but I'm not sure. To make this movie work for a mass audience, the true status of the boys then, and during the time of the action, must be made clear. July 27, 2001

Good plot poorly presented

This is a murky story of politics, scandal, sex and deception. Sounds like it should have been a great film, but it wasn't. The basic plot was sound as we might expect from Orson Welles. But the way it was presented was too disjointed and abstruse. Without reading the original script, it is hard to tell if the responsibility for this lies with Welles, Oja Kodar (who did the adaptation) or George Hickenlooper, the director. I suspect it is the latter two.

The biggest problem I had was character development. By the end of the film one should reasonably expect the pieces to fit together. Good character development should give us insight into the characters' motivation. I found this lacking. The flashbacks didn't really help us to understand the motivations of the characters as much as they should have. It seems that the brothers voluntarily switched identities, since Billy was wearing a name tag that said "Romero" on his uniform when he left to go to war. So, Blake really didn't steal his brother's identity as it appeared. This wasn't made very clear.

There were lots of loose ends here. What motivated the limo driver to do what he did? Was it a need to be close to power, or some personal vendetta? Who knows?

From a directorial and cinematography point of view, the film was far too dark, that is, underexposed. I'm certain they were trying for that look, but it made the photography look as if it were shot on 30 year old film of poor quality. Also, the audio was very bad. It was very difficult understanding a lot of the dialogue.

William Hurt was miscast in this role. For certain films, his puling, self tortured style of delivery are appropriate to the character (Big Chill, Broadcast News, Children of a Lesser God). However, in this film his character required a more dynamic and confident portrayal, which he was unable to deliver.

Nigel Hawthorne gave the best performance as Kim Mennaker, the Senator who brought the boys up. His ability to portray the old political warhorse, seduced by the trappings of power was excellent.

Irene Jacob gave a good performance as Cela, the reporter with an obsession for the candidate and the truth behind him.

Overall, the whole was less than the sum of the parts. The presentation was ponderous and uneven and the direction mediocre at best. Worth a 5/10. If you are looking for political campaign stories, there are better choices (Primary Colors, The Candidate, with Robert Redford). April 18, 2000

remarkable !

It's an up-to-date topic, more then ever - political scandals, lies and deceit. but this plays the essential part: in the end Pellarin ( W. Hurt ) decided for his brother and the truth! There were good actors, first of all William Hurt, he plays every part expressive, believable and convincing. Who 's interested in high-quality movies should go and see this film. January 25, 2000

remarkable !

It's an up-to-date topic, more then ever - political scandals, lies and deceit. but this plays the essential part: in the end Pellarin ( W. Hurt ) decided for his brother and the truth! There were good actors, first of all William Hurt, he plays every part expressive, believable and convincing. Who 's interested in high-quality movies should go and see this film. January 25, 2000

More reviews at Amazon.com ...