PDA

View Full Version : (Video) "Ordinary People"


Fergus
02-07-2002, 07:12 PM
Ordinary People
Director: Robert Redford
Cast: Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Judd Hirsch.
Written by Alvin Sargent
R/1980/123 minutes.

It opens, slowly, steadily, with a singularly beautiful montage of a normal street, a gazebo, a park, with Pachelbel’s Canon in D, playing in the background. It intends to introduce the film, and does so in a fashionable, yet misleading manner. We soon find out that it is merely a dream, and it manages to say, in those few simple pictures, that a beautiful street, and a group of teenagers singing in harmony, are the things of dreams. Conrad, our protagonist, wakes from this dream, sweating, indicating that maybe such happiness to him is scary and nightmarish. This dream also suggests that all is not right with Conrad, and maybe all is not right with his family either. His father asks him shortly after if he had called the doctor to set up an appointment. What is troubling him so much that he needs a doctor? He has depression. Why? Because he lost his older brother Buck in a boating accident, Conrad represents many teenagers in America; normal on the outside, but if you look closer, you see there’s much more. He has dark circles under his eyes; a lack of sleep. A kid who was much into swimming, and suddenly he has dropped out. He’s slowly letting go. Not only is it Conrad who has pulled away, both his parents have started to fall into their own little world; pretending that everything is fine to make themselves feel good. Why? That is what Redford is here to explore.

The screenplay by Alvin Sargent borrows from Judith Guest’s novel of the same name. Just like any other film adaptation of a book, certain details are omitted, and new things are added. And, while I still think that the book is a little bit better, the filmmakers couldn’t have done a better job putting this story on film. There is one detail, however, that is significantly better in the film, and that is its’ characters. Beth, Conrad’s mom is quiet. Her emotions and feelings are hidden away behind a face who puts on a show when friends might come over, and you‘d never notice the underlying problems she hides. Her son is equally silent about his emotions, but is less subtle. The dad, Calvin, loves them both, but he is unsure what is going on between him and his son, and him and his wife. These relationships which are the core of the entire film, anchor the impact of the discoveries which our characters make. It’s difficult to watch these events transpire, because we see ourselves. Seeing these people face such things as death, suicide, love and their own family, I look at my family and I see the same pain.

Redford surprised everyone when his first effort at directing beat out Scorsese’s Raging Bull, when Scorsese was already long overdue to win the award anyway. Looking at both pictures, I can’t simply decide between them and argue that one was better than the other, because that would be unfair, and I have come to see that both were worthy of winning the award. It would’ve been interesting to see the amount of votes for each, I bet it was close.

All three lead performers turn in what may be their best performances. Especially Sutherland, and he gives such a heartfelt monologue near the end to his wife Beth. The reaction is hard to forget. There are other scenes like this, that elicit such power. In the latter part of the film young Conrad breaks down to his psychologist played by Judd Hirsch, and afterwards they hug. If I could, that was the point where I probably would’ve balled my eyes out. It is so simple, the story is so incredibly simple, yet it achieves so much in creating this family and the pain that follows the accident. All we are shown is the aftermath; there is no exposition that shows the accident, or the funeral. It does not lean on being pretentious, it solves something, and that something you’ll have to find out yourself. The inevitable finale brings both tears and happiness; it is hard to dodge those emotions. I don’t mean to get all mushy on you, but this is how this film makes me feel. It hit me hard, and maybe that is a direct result of things that I’ve gone through, and when it brings me to the verge of tears, I look back, and this is the only one that brings me to that state. Redford created a beautiful portrait of a family, unflinching and truthful, dated, yet relevant. The actors hold this film together, and its surprising how Redford was able to get such well-rounded and flawless performances out of Sutherland, Hutton, and Moore. He explores the ins and outs of this family, and what results is an insightful, sad, and compelling drama following an accident that tears a family apart. A beautiful tree, with the fall leaves descending downward, are only part of dreams; this is the reality.

***** out of *****



[This message has been edited by Fergus (edited 02-07-2002).]

Kavan
02-09-2002, 10:33 AM
The family in Ordinary People is probably like a lot of American families. Dad wears a suit and tie to the office. Mom is the kind of woman who had lunch with her friends and has a showplace of a home. Their son Conrad is on the swim team. In all ways these are ordinary people.

But slowly Ordinary People reveals the cracks in this seemingly perfect family. Once there were two sons but the elder has drowned in an accident his younger brother surived. The guilt of surviving has led Conrad to attempt suicide. He has survived and gone to treatment. The film opens just as he's returning to his old life.

In his first film as a director Redford shows considerable skill. A story like this is told in the quiet rhymes of a daily life (choir practice, swims, golf) and would be junked up by alot of "arty" stuff. Redford understands that and his actor's performances to move us without engaging in a lot of fancy shots or effects.

A film like this lives or dies by the performances. Redford's actors more than meet his needs. Timothy Hutton has never been quite as good again as he was here. His Conrad is basically a good, kid trying to figure out how to survie the minefield that his brother's death has brought to life. Donald Sutherland gives a complex performance playing a deceptively simple man.

At the time the film came out I would have given Moore similiar praise. But this seems to be her stock performance. And at some level I don't think she fully captured Beth. In some scenes such as the flashback her tone is all wrong. Buck/Beth seem to be flirting with each other more than mother/son.

But then maybe that's the point. Ordinary People tells a story of a family realizing at some level they don't know each other.That the love for one child may be greater than for the other. It's a story of painful realizations and moving on once you've made those realizations.

Sometimes in life you'll hear someone died young and tragically and you'll think that is the worst thing. Ordinary People suggests the worst thing may come months later when those left behind have to confront what they are or are not feeling. It's a great film.

8/10

Fergus
02-09-2002, 12:26 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kavan:
At the time the film came out I would have given Moore similiar praise. But this seems to be her stock performance. And at some level I don't think she fully captured Beth. In some scenes such as the flashback her tone is all wrong. Buck/Beth seem to be flirting with each other more than mother/son.

But then maybe that's the point. Ordinary People tells a story of a family realizing at some level they don't know each other.That the love for one child may be greater than for the other. It's a story of painful realizations and moving on once you've made those realizations.
</font>

On my first viewing of the film, and after reading some reviews that praised Moore's performance to a tee, I felt the same way as you do. But, upon the second, I began to turn from my original opinion and see her character as it really was. I realized I knew a person just like her, and then it clicked. She did fully capture the character, and I didn't even know it. She does get angry in I don't know how many scenes, but most of the time she is quiet, and holding her feelings in. She is selfish, and has not really gotten over the fact that her son died, and she has changed. That is what Sutherland reveals in that monologue towards her in the end. Remember her reaction. She knew what was wrong, she knew it, but she was to selfish to even bring it out. I see where you are coming from, though, but I understood her character, even if she had some of the least amount of lines and let her eyes do the talking; I think it was intended that way.