Trumbo (2015)
R
3 Stars out of 5
Director Jay RoachWriter John McNamara (screenplay); Bruce Cook (book)
Cinematography Jim Denault
Costume Design Daniel Orlandi
Bryan Cranston Dalton Trumbo
Michael Stuhlbarg Edward G. Robinson
Diane Lane Cleo Trumbo
Helen Mirren Hedda Hopper
David James Elliott John Wayne
Alan Tudyk Ian McLellan Hunter
Louis C.K. Arlen Hird
Elle Fanning Niki Trumbo (teen through adult)
John Goodman Frank King
"As far as I
was concerned, it was a completely just verdict. I had contempt for that
Congress and have had contempt for several since. And on the basis of guilt or
innocence, I could never really complain very much. That this was a crime or
misdemeanor was the complaint, my complaint."
Dalton Trumbo (1976)
At times, Hollywood reminds me somewhat of a child picking
at a scab. The child just can’t leave it be, and in the case of Hollywood they
can’t let go of the collective angst their liberal hearts feel about the
post-WWII era when they split into two groups: one group determined to express
their first amendment rights by belonging to the American branch of the Communist
Party and a second group that was determined to penalize the first group for
their “anti-American” beliefs. Both factions claimed the high moral ground; both,
I think could make thoughtful arguments for their positions. Then as now
though, thoughtful arguments were often a second thought, it was far easier to
demonize those with whom you disagree. “Trumbo” tells this story from the point
of view of Dalton Trumbo, a member of a group of Hollywood writers collectively
known as the Hollywood Ten.
“Trumbo” starts with several jarring jumps in the film’s
tone. It begins with a black and white movie starring Jimmy Cagney (Michael
Stuhlbarg) in a film written by Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston), moves to the
real world to the stage where Cagney’s movie is being filmed, to Trumbo’s
idyllic home life as a wealthy member of the Hollywood elite, and then to a
movie theater where Trumbo is portrayed in the news reel that preceded the
movie he and his family are there to see. As Trumbo exits the theater he is
accosted by an angry theater patron who throws a coke on Trumbo and calls him a
traitor based on what he saw in the newsreel. Trumbo will hear this epithet
many times throughout the course of the movie. He will also encounter a Hollywood
gossip columnist, Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) and John Wayne (David James
Elliott), both of whom will prove to be long term opponents, at least in this
movie version.
Following the theater incident, Trumbo will meet with a
group of like-minded friends from Hollywood: Ian McLellan Hunter (Alan Tudyk),
Arlen Hird (Louis C.K.), Edward G. Robinson and others. Eventually, a group of
ten drawn from Trumbo’s group will be subpoenaed to Washington DC to be
interviewed by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Trumbo will
convince the faint-hearted within his group they should protest the interview
as a violation of their 1st amendment’s right to free speech. Their
performance before the committee will result in a “Contempt of Congress” charge
that will send many of them to prison. Once released from prison Trumbo will
return home and joyous family. He will be forced to sell his home due to his
reduced financial situation; a situation that exists because he now can no longer
get a job in Hollywood. He will write screenplays without attribution to earn
money, and without attribution because he like many others are now blacklisted
in Hollywood. Two of his screenplays will win a writing award from the Oscars,
but won’t be awarded to Trumbo (for many years) since he hid his name from the
public when he wrote the screenplays.
In Trumbo-the-character’s interactions with a devilishly well-played
Hopper by Mirren, there are no greys in portraying her as a woman allegedly
devoted to exposing Communists in Hollywood. Hopper is so devoted though, she comes
across in the movie as a variation of a fascist as she threatens her opponents
and then writes articles that ruin those same people’s ability to earn a living
in Hollywood. Her protestations notwithstanding, her motivations actually appear
to be more in line with a desire to dominate people with her threats and
articles as much as to protect America from her perceived enemies, native born
communists. In contrast, Trumbo is portrayed in the starkest contrast to Hopper
as a man who selflessly is seeking the right to speak his political mind, even
if his “speech” consists of little more than membership in the Communist Party
of America. And this grey-less contrast is the primary fault with this movie:
the anti-communists are a group with a valid fear (however misdirected towards
their fellow citizens it may have been), they act like thugs in this movie;
while the noble, idealistic communists of Hollywood lack all faults, except for
maybe believing too much in their cause. The screenplay’s storyline by John
McNamara is a superficial examination of the people, the events and is highly
tendentious.
With respect to the characters, the primary character Dalton
Trumbo is often well played by Bryan Cranston. There are moments near the end
of the movie when his character is told by his long suffering wife Cleo (Diane
Lane) that he is losing his family as he works endless hours to win his victory
against Hopper & Co. Trumbo will eventually slow his non-stop rush to
produce sub-rosa scripts that must be sub-rosa due to him being on (Hopper’s?)
blacklist; but must still be written to bring in an income for him and his
family. As their family life disintegrates, Cleo will persuade him to seek out
his eldest daughter, Niki (Elle Fanning) in order to have a meeting of minds.
Close-ups as directed by Director Jay Roach will reveal subtle emotions running
across both Cranston’s and Fanning’s faces as they seek to renew their previous
close father/daughter relationship. Sadly, this scene is the classic “exception
proving the rule”: the rule in this case, is that character Trumbo is not a well-fleshed
out character. He largely consists of two emotions: his pre-prison thoughtful leader
of his philosophical cadre and his post-prison driven to succeed at all costs
script-mill writer. Perhaps, these two Trumbo’s are symbolic of the actual man
before and after prison, but they no better define a real man’s character any
better than the “neo-Nazi” Hopper character that Trumbo persistently meets in
this film.
“Trumbo” does have some technical merits that I admired throughout
the movie, most notably the suits worn by Cranston and designed by Daniel
Orlandi. The film depicts a 13 year period from 1947 to 1960, and Orlandi’s
designs for Trumbo are a nostalgic delight to the eye (or at least to eyes
interested in male fashions) that evolve over that period. It is odd though
that as good as the costumery was the make-up seemed sadly out of sync in terms
of quality. When we first meet Cranston/Trumbo in 1947 his hair is a shocking
pitch black – right perhaps for the real Trumbo in 1947, but most definitely
not for the much older Cranston. Somehow the make-up artist just never got
Cranston’s lined faced to agree with his hair color. Also along this line,
there is a scene where the out of shape, wrinkled 60 year old Cranston is playing
the 42 year old, unlined Trumbo as he enters prison. The image of a nude
Cranston bending over in order to perform the evidently required prison-film
scene of inspecting anuses is an image I really wish I never had seen. In any
event, there is some mis-casting of a too old Cranston, or in poor make-up to
conceal this discrepancy.
The biggest opportunities this movie raised as a topic but
then did not really deliver on were the twin topics of 1st amendment
rights and the astonishing perquisites for public condemnation without
evidence that Congress has. Trumbo and the other Hollywood Ten could have
circumvented congress’ powers had they claimed the 5th amendment's
right to not self-incriminate. But to the group’s point, does the 1st
amendment’s right to free speech permit one the right to belong to a hated
group such as the Communist Party? The answer may well be they do not, if that
group advocates violent overthrow of the American government (an issue
completely skipped in this movie); but if they don’t advocate such and they are
merely political pariahs (e.g. Japanese Americans during WWII), what are their
rights before Congress? And even more to the point, does Congress have the
right to cross-examine a citizen in a manner calculated to defame them, and to
do so without presenting any evidence regarding their guilt? Does Congress have
the right to arbitrarily ruin people’s reputation? And what of the real Trumbo’s
opinions regarding the Soviet Union's practice of free speech versus the United
States? This movie most certainly gives no indication that real Trumbo publically supported
the Stalinist regime of the USSR (at the very least made excuses for them). This movie
gives no reason to question Trumbo’s opinions or even to know them beyond his
argument with Congress; he is found innocent by this movie of all charges and
aspersions. I will repeat myself; this movie is highly tendentious. There is only a wrong
side and a good side the argument under discussion.
“Trumbo” is a missed opportunity. It came with several marvelous
actors (Cranston, Lane, and Mirren), but failed to write three dimensional
characters for them. It raised at least two intriguing questions about the
rights of the American citizen when facing an interrogation from Congress, but
it failed to explore those points in any detail whatsoever. It even failed to explore
in much detail beyond a thrown coke or spoilt swimming pool the effects on the
families of the Hollywood Ten. Instead, this movie set out to describe a
confrontation between Good and Bad, where the screenwriter had the freedom to
define those two groups as harshly and thoughtlessly as he wished. There was
some good acting in various scenes by Cranston and Mirren, but not quite
frankly by anyone else. And to top off the acting, this movie made the
oft-repeated error of having John Goodman play the one character he almost always
plays: the big, heart of gold character that despite his flaws will always come
through in the end. I cannot really recommend this movie to anyone unless you
really, really love Bryan Cranston’s acting; and even then if no other aspect
of the movie within which he appears will detract from your love of his acting.
Good luck to anyone else who watches this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment