Reds (1981)

Smug communist propaganda and boring at that

"Reds" is an irritatingly self-satisfied film telling the story of two unbelievably selfish and naive American communists John Reed and Louise Bryant (played by a smug Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton).

Since the film was made in 1981 communism has fallen rendering the fledgling communist movement in the US - and this film - largely irrelevent and reinforcing how naive and misguided people like John Reed and his colleagues were - one can't help but be disgusted as one watches the film at how they were prepared to look the other way as the Bolsheviks tyrannised the Russian population.

The low budget look of the film, combined with its mediocre actors and gargantuan length (188 minutes) give "Reds" the feel of one of those 80s mini-series. Only Jack Nicholson as writer Eugene O'Neill gives it any spark. Smug communist propaganda and boring at that.

October 1, 2008

Magnificent achievement

While this is ostensibly about the Russian Revolution, it is really about unbounded youthful enthusiasm and the ultimate brick wall it hits when experience sets in. Ignorance, youth and over-confidence are a lethal combination. Made shortly after the similar youthful outburts of the 1960s, the movie could easily have used that backdrop for the same purpose.

The revolution began with high hopes and sank into an Orwellian slough, just as many of the 1960s visionaries became the conservative suburbanites of the following decades. The supposed father of the Russian Revolution was Karl Marx, but in short order all that remained of him was his poster picture--because his ideals, as John Reed and Louise Bryant would discover, were impossible, e.g., the abolition of all private property.

Reed died early, before the purges, before the advent of Stalin--who would probably have killed Reed. Bryant lived on, married a U.S. ambassador and lived in Paris, where her scandalous behavior was of a different sort. The movie doesn't go into all that, any more than "Hair" went into the rise of Ronald Reagan.

The acting in this movie is superb, flawless. The use of witnesses is especually effective, although I wish they had been labeled. I recognized some but not all of them.

This is a movie that has stayed with me since I first saw it more than 25 years ago. It felt just as fresh upon seeing it again yesterday. September 30, 2008

yes

not much yu can say. reds was probably one of or the greatest films of all times. September 21, 2008

One of few

I first saw this within a month of its release in 1981-1982 (came out over 1981 holidays.)

When the video was released in the 80s, I was thankful.

After watching it about every month, and more now, I have no doubt Reds is up there with Last Tango in Paris, The Third Man, The Maltese Falcon. In short it might be on many critics' list of Ten Best Films ever.

I do not overestimate. Everything is perfect. July 8, 2008

The most nuanced, detailed, politically sophisticated movie on the Russian Revolution ever

I'm an undergraduate in history at Harvard, and I've studied the Russian Revolution with some degree of depth, but all the books in the world could never succeed in doing what "Reds" did for me, which was truly to give me a feeling for what it FELT like to experience those events. The political atmosphere, the material environments, all of these are meticulously (and rather accurately) reproduced, and all of this is combined with a compelling narrative propelled by difficult personal and political choices that the main characters must make.

(Examples: Support Woodrow Wilson or not? Struggle for the revolution in the USA or Russia? Concerning the Russian workers, whether going on strike will be a betrayal of their Russian soldiers and American allies, or whether that would be a comradely gesture that would set an example and ignite revolution around the whole world? Accept the Bolshevik rationalizations for their dictatorial ways, or reject the Bolsheviks? Etc. The movie doesn't just pose such questions; the movie shows how ordinary people (soldiers, workers), as well as the main characters, wrestled with these questions, and the window into this history that the movie provides is simply fascinating.)

That's what truly makes the movie work: the detail and sophistication given to the intricate political questions. For these, the movie does not prescribe normative answers, only a view to how these particular characters responded. I really do not understand the reviews arguing that "Reds" glorifies communism or the Soviet Union. Reds includes plenty of hard-hitting skepticism and criticism of communism and the Soviet Union from the likes of Emma Goldman, Jack Nicholson's O'Neill, and some of the documentary-style witnesses. It would have been much easier to make a movie that hammers a single, unified message into the viewer, but "Reds" doesn't do that. Throughout, the movie constantly confronts the characters and viewers with tough questions: was the revolution worth it? Are Reed and Bryant deluding themselves, as O'Neill claims? Which comes first, revolution or love? Are they mutually exclusive? What does it take for a person like Reed to balance between being an objective journalist, a creative artist, a partisan for his true political feelings, and a lover to his wife? Questions like these (that the film never definitely tries to solve for the viewer) are what keep the viewer gripped to the movie and make every minute of the 3 and a half-hour movie worth it. The only thing that this movie demands from the viewer is an open mind, and unfortunately it seems that that is too much to ask from some viewers. July 1, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...