list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Reds on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Reds/28506/default.aspx Title: Reds
Year: 1981
Director: Warren Beatty
Plot: Few filmmakers other than Warren Beatty would have had the courage and vision to fashion an epic film from the life of famed American Communist John Reed (who is the only US citizen buried in the Kremlin). The film is an effort to humanize a political movement that has previously been depicted on screen in a series of unsubtle and prejudicial broad strokes. The film begins in 1915, when Reed (Beatty) makes the acquaintance of married Portland journalist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). So persuasive is Reed's point of view--and so charismatic is Reed himself-- that Bryant kicks over the traces and joins Reed and his fellow radicals. Among the famous personages depicted herein are Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton), Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) and Max Eastman (Richard Herrmann). The second half of this nearly-200-minute film skims through the years when Reed, now a Russian resident, becomes disillusioned by the harsh realities of Bolshevism. Despite the celebrity line-up of real-life "witnesses" to the events depicted in the film (ranging from novelist Henry Miller to comedian George Jessel!), historians took Reds to task for its oversimplification of events and its laundering of the notoriously promiscuous Louise Bryant. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 13
Number of Lists: 14
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:00:19 GMTReds1981Warren BeattyFew filmmakers other than <a href="/players/P____81105/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Warren Beatty</a> would have had the courage and vision to fashion an epic film from the life of famed American Communist John Reed (who is the only US citizen buried in the Kremlin). The film is an effort to humanize a political movement that has previously been depicted on screen in a series of unsubtle and prejudicial broad strokes. The film begins in 1915, when Reed (Beatty) makes the acquaintance of married Portland journalist Louise Bryant (<a href="/players/P____96996/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diane Keaton</a>). So persuasive is Reed's point of view--and so charismatic is Reed himself-- that Bryant kicks over the traces and joins Reed and his fellow radicals. Among the famous personages depicted herein are Emma Goldman (<a href="/players/P____67653/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maureen Stapleton</a>), <a href="/players/P____53601/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eugene O'Neill</a> (<a href="/players/P___104455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Nicholson</a>) and Max Eastman (Richard Herrmann). The second half of this nearly-200-minute film skims through the years when Reed, now a Russian resident, becomes disillusioned by the harsh realities of Bolshevism. Despite the celebrity line-up of real-life "witnesses" to the events depicted in the film (ranging from novelist Henry Miller to comedian <a href="/players/P____96033/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Jessel</a>!), historians took Reds to task for its oversimplification of events and its laundering of the notoriously promiscuous Louise Bryant. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide13Tag Target (>10)14213http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88409xts65.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Reds/28506/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/14/36308.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/14/2008 5:01:12 PM
Body: Oliver Stone has long been synonymous with political passion projects, but his latest film, W., may be his most ambitious effort yet, if only because of how quickly the thing came together and got made. Now the serio-comic biopic about our sitting president is about to hit theaters, less than ten months after anyone had heard of its inception, and it’s getting a number of favorable reviews, will possibly rule the box office this weekend, and could even garner an Oscar nomination for Josh Brolin, who portrays the man with the titular initial, George W. Bush. But not all political passion projects are quite as successful as W. is expected to be. Some such films have been banned, while some have simply failed to acquire an audience on more democratic grounds, whether in terms of box office, critical or awards recognition. Yet regardless of the reception of a political passion project, either at the time of release (or intended release) or decades later, it may be regarded as an achievement merely for being made, because it can be a difficult task for a filmmaker, no matter how famous or powerful, to completely, without compromise, express his or her politics using such a collaborative and populist form of art as cinema. We’ve put together a list of 10 political passion projects that were (and are) successful on both levels. They’ve been embraced by a wide audience, a majority of critics and/or the Academy, and they also manage to be as uncompromising in their political passion as is possible in Hollywood. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) For his first “talkie”, Chaplin took on Hitler and the Nazis when it was still taboo for American media to do so. And it became his biggest hit ever in spite of its controversial subject matter. Considering one of the major problems with W. is reportedly Oliver Stone’s inability to mix the serious scenes with the comic, he might have benefitted from looking again at this film, one of the greatest political satires of all time. Meet John Doe (Frank Capra, 1941) Capra had already made a number of greater films with political subject matter, but this was pretty much his ultimate passion project, a culmination of themes he’d worked with on similar films like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But as successful as those films were in terms of Capra’s political expression, and as free as the filmmaker seemed to be throughout his illustrious career at Columbia Pictures, he always felt at least a little stifled by studio head Harry Cohn, and so with this, his first semi-independent project (co-produced and distributed by Warner Bros.), he had the most creative control yet. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t nearly as popular as his past films and the film is also not nearly as tight a work. However, more than 65 years later, it’s still one of the best displays of a filmmaker attempting to work out and express his political ideals in a mainstream film. Wilson (Henry King, 1944) Long before Oliver Stone and political documentarians made it more common and acceptable to make a movie about disliked politicians, producer and 20th Century Fox founder Darryl F. Zanuck developed this passion project about his favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. And the result would seem to have been a great success based on its reception by critics and the Academy Awards (nominated for 10, it won 5 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay), yet it was a terrible, terrible flop at the box office, apparently because the public didn’t like or care about Wilson as much as Zanuck did. And legend has it that Zanuck was so embarrassed by the failure that he forbade his staff to ever mention its title again. Despite it’s Oscar success, it is unfortunately unavailable on DVD. The Green Berets (Ray Kellogg, John Wayne, John Gaddis and Mervyn LeRoy, 1968) Regardless of whether or not you agree with John Wayne’s politics, you have to give the guy some respect for making a stand with this film, which displays his support for the Vietnam War. It was a bold move for anybody, even one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, to dare go up against the zeitgeist of the times. And of course it was and is very much hated because of its heavy handed pro-war message. Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981) Beatty had already shown himself to be something of a politically minded celebrity, and he would go on to a greater reputation for being a liberal actor/filmmaker, but here with his first solo directing effort, he made an ambitious epic about the American communist John Reed and released it in a year that ushered in the most conservatively materialistic decade of the 20th century. Despite the political climate of the country, though, it was relatively successful at the box office, and it went on to recieve 12 Oscar nominations, of which it won 3, including a Best Director trophy for Beatty. Malcolm X (Spike Lee, 1992) Whether or not you believe it should have been nominated for more Oscars or if it was politically and racially ignored, the success of Malcolm X, both financially and culturally, was a terrific achievement for Spike Lee, who had made and has made less ambitious political passion projects before and since, some even arguably better than this one. Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1995) Robbins had already begun making political statement films a few years earlier with Bob Roberts, but this film, which he also produced, is the greater passion project. It may occasionally put off supporters of the death penalty, but those performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar) simply can not be ignored. The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004) You can’t think about passion projects without this film immediately coming to mind –– and not just because it has the word passion right there in the title. As for the political part, as much as some of us would prefer not to think of religion as being a part of politics, it certainly is, and both the marketing and reception of Gibson’s film were very much from political perspectives, possibly even more so than from straight religious perspectives. Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005) Perhaps the best cinematic celebration of journalism since All the President’s Men, Clooney’s film is also possibly the classiest political passion project since guys like Beatty, Robbins and Clooney decided to go behind the camera and express their ideals. Darfur Now (Ted Braun, 2007) At a time when famous people like George Clooney and the double duty of “Brangelina” get equal respect and flak for being so political, it’s refreshing to see this documentary defend celebrity action while also examining the film’s specific cause. Produced by and featuring Don Cheadle (and also featuring Clooney), the doc is not technically the actor’s project as much as it is Braun’s, yet due to Cheadle’s passionate interest in the Darfur issue and his involvement with and in the film, and because he’s the biggest name on the production, it can certainly be accepted as equally his political effort. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:01:12 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/14/2008 5:01:12 PMOliver Stone has long been synonymous with political passion projects, but his latest film, W., may be his most ambitious effort yet, if only because of how quickly the thing came together and got made. Now the serio-comic biopic about our sitting president is about to hit theaters, less than ten months after anyone had heard of its inception, and it’s getting a number of favorable reviews, will possibly rule the box office this weekend, and could even garner an Oscar nomination for Josh Brolin, who portrays the man with the titular initial, George W. Bush. But not all political passion projects are quite as successful as W. is expected to be. Some such films have been banned, while some have simply failed to acquire an audience on more democratic grounds, whether in terms of box office, critical or awards recognition. Yet regardless of the reception of a political passion project, either at the time of release (or intended release) or decades later, it may be regarded as an achievement merely for being made, because it can be a difficult task for a filmmaker, no matter how famous or powerful, to completely, without compromise, express his or her politics using such a collaborative and populist form of art as cinema. We’ve put together a list of 10 political passion projects that were (and are) successful on both levels. They’ve been embraced by a wide audience, a majority of critics and/or the Academy, and they also manage to be as uncompromising in their political passion as is possible in Hollywood. The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) For his first “talkie”, Chaplin took on Hitler and the Nazis when it was still taboo for American media to do so. And it became his biggest hit ever in spite of its controversial subject matter. Considering one of the major problems with W. is reportedly Oliver Stone’s inability to mix the serious scenes with the comic, he might have benefitted from looking again at this film, one of the greatest political satires of all time. Meet John Doe (Frank Capra, 1941) Capra had already made a number of greater films with political subject matter, but this was pretty much his ultimate passion project, a culmination of themes he’d worked with on similar films like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But as successful as those films were in terms of Capra’s political expression, and as free as the filmmaker seemed to be throughout his illustrious career at Columbia Pictures, he always felt at least a little stifled by studio head Harry Cohn, and so with this, his first semi-independent project (co-produced and distributed by Warner Bros.), he had the most creative control yet. Unfortunately, the result wasn’t nearly as popular as his past films and the film is also not nearly as tight a work. However, more than 65 years later, it’s still one of the best displays of a filmmaker attempting to work out and express his political ideals in a mainstream film. Wilson (Henry King, 1944) Long before Oliver Stone and political documentarians made it more common and acceptable to make a movie about disliked politicians, producer and 20th Century Fox founder Darryl F. Zanuck developed this passion project about his favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. And the result would seem to have been a great success based on its reception by critics and the Academy Awards (nominated for 10, it won 5 Oscars, including Best Original Screenplay), yet it was a terrible, terrible flop at the box office, apparently because the public didn’t like or care about Wilson as much as Zanuck did. And legend has it that Zanuck was so embarrassed by the failure that he forbade his staff to ever mention its title again. Despite it’s Oscar success, it is unfortunately unavailable on DVD. The Green Berets (Ray Kellogg, John Wayne, John Gaddis and Mervyn LeRoy, 1968) Regardless of whether or not you agree with John Wayne’s politics, you have to give the guy some respect for making a stand with this film, which displays his support for the Vietnam War. It was a bold move for anybody, even one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, to dare go up against the zeitgeist of the times. And of course it was and is very much hated because of its heavy handed pro-war message. Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981) Beatty had already shown himself to be something of a politically minded celebrity, and he would go on to a greater reputation for being a liberal actor/filmmaker, but here with his first solo directing effort, he made an ambitious epic about the American communist John Reed and released it in a year that ushered in the most conservatively materialistic decade of the 20th century. Despite the political climate of the country, though, it was relatively successful at the box office, and it went on to recieve 12 Oscar nominations, of which it won 3, including a Best Director trophy for Beatty. Malcolm X (Spike Lee, 1992) Whether or not you believe it should have been nominated for more Oscars or if it was politically and racially ignored, the success of Malcolm X, both financially and culturally, was a terrific achievement for Spike Lee, who had made and has made less ambitious political passion projects before and since, some even arguably better than this one. Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1995) Robbins had already begun making political statement films a few years earlier with Bob Roberts, but this film, which he also produced, is the greater passion project. It may occasionally put off supporters of the death penalty, but those performances by Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar) simply can not be ignored. The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, 2004) You can’t think about passion projects without this film immediately coming to mind –– and not just because it has the word passion right there in the title. As for the political part, as much as some of us would prefer not to think of religion as being a part of politics, it certainly is, and both the marketing and reception of Gibson’s film were very much from political perspectives, possibly even more so than from straight religious perspectives. Good Night, and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005) Perhaps the best cinematic celebration of journalism since All the President’s Men, Clooney’s film is also possibly the classiest political passion project since guys like Beatty, Robbins and Clooney decided to go behind the camera and express their ideals. Darfur Now (Ted Braun, 2007) At a time when famous people like George Clooney and the double duty of “Brangelina” get equal respect and flak for being so political, it’s refreshing to see this documentary defend celebrity action while also examining the film’s specific cause. Produced by and featuring Don Cheadle (and also featuring Clooney), the doc is not technically the actor’s project as much as it is Braun’s, yet due to Cheadle’s passionate interest in the Darfur issue and his involvement with and in the film, and because he’s the biggest name on the production, it can certainly be accepted as equally his political effort. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Cause_Effect/598/32910/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: theunemployedshortstop
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 7/22/2008 8:09:12 PM
Body: It's a great example! Here are some movies that could fit inbetween: The Revolution begins and is reported back to the states in Reds. Hitler, after signing an agreement to the contrary, starts to attack the U.S.S.R. The war does not go well at first: Enemy an the Gates, but the tide starts to turn: Ich War 19. Which leads to the occupation and eventually the GDR. I could go further but I think thats enough to lead up to The Lives of Others.
]]>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:09:12 GMTtheunemployedshortstopMovie Games7/22/2008 8:09:12 PMIt's a great example! Here are some movies that could fit inbetween: The Revolution begins and is reported back to the states in Reds. Hitler, after signing an agreement to the contrary, starts to attack the U.S.S.R. The war does not go well at first: Enemy an the Gates, but the tide starts to turn: Ich War 19. Which leads to the occupation and eventually the GDR. I could go further but I think thats enough to lead up to The Lives of Others. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28832.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 4:13:48 AM
Body: Reds and A Passage to India, released a few years, later represent the last of the old style Hollywood epics, before Gladiator and its decendants brought the genre back in vouge with faster editing and CGI effects. And Reds is a great way to go out. It has an intelligence rarely found in American films, expecting the audince to pay attention for three and a half hours to a complicated and esoteric subject that most people know little about. That subject is John Reed (Beatty) and his role in the early Communist movement in America. Reed is famed, as they tell you at the beginning of the film, as the only American to be buried in the Kremlin. He made early fame as a journalist, marrying feminist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). The film chronicles their personal relationship with Reed's increasing political activity, eventually leading his own faction in a break from the American Socalist Party, the writing of Reed's masterpiece, Ten Days that Shook the World and a truly epic act of love from Louise. The movie covers an awful lot of ground. I had never heard of Reed and new next to nothing about the American Socialist movement but Beatty (in addition to acting and directing, he produced and co-wrote the script) features a parade of historic characters and crucial events, making them all understandable and entertaining. I particularly liked Jack Nicholson as playwright Eugene O'Neil (who wrote Anna Christie), sitting back and observing everything with a detached, cyncal bemusment. The gorgeous visuals from my favotite cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, help draw is into a world that is now past. The movie is intelligent, too. I don't think a better film has been made about left-wing politics. There is the central paradox: why are the people who are most interested in the well being of the poor upper-middle class intellectuals? It presents its characters as well meaning, but flawed. Reed basically wants a utopia on Earth and is amazed and critically disappointed when reality does meet up with his ideals, both in his marridge (both partners agree to extra-marretial sex and both end up feeling betrayed), and politics (he can't believe that the Soviet government is corrupt). At the same time, it supports his ideas for a brotherhood of man, but comes to the conclusion that they may only be that- nice but unworkable ideas. Of course, this was too much for many conservatives, who argued the movie was liberal propaganda. This is a sort of American Doctor Zhivago, as it has both the political intrigue and romatic intereste of that film. It is a great movie. It's a shame that Beatty has made only three other films as director, on the basis of this, he should be working every year. Reds (1981)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 08:13:48 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 4:13:48 AMReds and A Passage to India, released a few years, later represent the last of the old style Hollywood epics, before Gladiator and its decendants brought the genre back in vouge with faster editing and CGI effects. And Reds is a great way to go out. It has an intelligence rarely found in American films, expecting the audince to pay attention for three and a half hours to a complicated and esoteric subject that most people know little about. That subject is John Reed (Beatty) and his role in the early Communist movement in America. Reed is famed, as they tell you at the beginning of the film, as the only American to be buried in the Kremlin. He made early fame as a journalist, marrying feminist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). The film chronicles their personal relationship with Reed's increasing political activity, eventually leading his own faction in a break from the American Socalist Party, the writing of Reed's masterpiece, Ten Days that Shook the World and a truly epic act of love from Louise. The movie covers an awful lot of ground. I had never heard of Reed and new next to nothing about the American Socialist movement but Beatty (in addition to acting and directing, he produced and co-wrote the script) features a parade of historic characters and crucial events, making them all understandable and entertaining. I particularly liked Jack Nicholson as playwright Eugene O'Neil (who wrote Anna Christie), sitting back and observing everything with a detached, cyncal bemusment. The gorgeous visuals from my favotite cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, help draw is into a world that is now past. The movie is intelligent, too. I don't think a better film has been made about left-wing politics. There is the central paradox: why are the people who are most interested in the well being of the poor upper-middle class intellectuals? It presents its characters as well meaning, but flawed. Reed basically wants a utopia on Earth and is amazed and critically disappointed when reality does meet up with his ideals, both in his marridge (both partners agree to extra-marretial sex and both end up feeling betrayed), and politics (he can't believe that the Soviet government is corrupt). At the same time, it supports his ideas for a brotherhood of man, but comes to the conclusion that they may only be that- nice but unworkable ideas. Of course, this was too much for many conservatives, who argued the movie was liberal propaganda. This is a sort of American Doctor Zhivago, as it has both the political intrigue and romatic intereste of that film. It is a great movie. It's a shame that Beatty has made only three other films as director, on the basis of this, he should be working every year. Reds (1981) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revolution/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevolution
Number of films tagged: 1036

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 68

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:32:33 GMT10364268Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journalism/MemberTagFilms.aspxjournalism
Number of films tagged: 1146

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 65

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT11464165Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writer/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriter
Number of films tagged: 869

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 89

]]>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:08 GMT8694189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nyc/MemberTagFilms.aspxnyc
Number of films tagged: 90

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 113

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:05 GMT9029113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/infidelity/MemberTagFilms.aspxinfidelity
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 43

]]>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:37:59 GMT342543Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/communism/MemberTagFilms.aspxcommunism
Number of films tagged: 467

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 34

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT4672234Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love-triangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove-triangle
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 58

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:09:49 GMT532058Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/radical/MemberTagFilms.aspxradical
Number of films tagged: 149

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 11

]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:00 GMT149911Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/soviet/MemberTagFilms.aspxsoviet
Number of films tagged: 167

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 13:04:03 GMT16767Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Supporting-Actress/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Supporting-Actress
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 75

]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:45:23 GMT71575Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bohemians/MemberTagFilms.aspxbohemians
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 5

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:04:49 GMT435Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/leftwing/MemberTagFilms.aspxleftwing
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 13:06:48 GMT2422Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/strong-chemistry/MemberTagFilms.aspxstrong-chemistry
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:12:49 GMT526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/career-change/MemberTagFilms.aspxcareer-change
Number of films tagged: 8

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 8

]]>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:12:49 GMT818Tag