Skip to main content

Every single thing we said then is true today, and every single day it’s getting worse.

The Company You Keep
(2012)

(SPOILERS) You can absolutely see why The Company You Keep would appeal to Robert Redford’s sensibilities, draped as it is in a soft-radical banner and culminating in easy-positive affirmations that even the movie’s inveterate zealot is ultimately swayed by (family over changing the world). As such, it’s a cop-out on a number of levels, but it’s also his most satisfying directorial effort in a considerable time, and when putting its best foot forward, Lem Dobbs’ screenplay (adapting Neil Gordon’s novel) juggles thriller elements with a sometimes-insightful probing of moral imperatives and action over complacency.


Redford’s ex-Weather Underground leader Nick Sloan has hidden himself away under the name Jim Grant for more than 30 years, now an attorney and single (widowed) father, but the arrest of former accomplice Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon), mutually wanted for bank robbery and the murder of a security guard, sets Shia LaBeouf’s ambitious young reporter Ben Shepard on his trail. Before long, a national manhunt has begun, requiring Nick to take a road trip to clear his name. You can probably see a problem right there. I mean, apart from the actual Weather Underground never actually killing anyone (besides themselves, accidentally, which lead to the charge that they would have killed members of the public, but that’s an if and maybe; the Brinks Job may have been the inspiration for this, but that was after the Weather Underground’s disbandment, and involved ex-members). 


How much more provocative a picture would The Company You Keep have been if Nick did have blood on his hands, rather than offering us the moral cop-out of a newly-inducted Stormtrooper who reneges, having failed to do anything even remotely Stormtrooper-ish? A slightly obtuse comparison, perhaps, but both are symptomatic of reluctance to test audience’s sympathies (not that The Company You Keep found much of an audience anyway; it was more notable for being referenced in a piracy case than its box office). It’s this kind of tepid humanism that prevents the picture from becoming something greater than an assembly of great actors – and the line-up of great actors, often a new one in each scene, is reason enough to check the picture out – and well-worn philosophical debates.


The central one being the climactic meeting between Nick and his ex, Mimi Lurie (Julie Christie, in her last performance to date), which also unspools the “mystery” at the heart of the film, and underlines Nick’s “correct” philosophy, in particularly emotive, melodramatic fashion. Nick and Mimi had a child together (Brit Marling’s Rebecca), who was adopted by ex-police officer Henry Osborne (Brendan Gleeson evidently intended to be a good decade older than he actually is). The adoption part is a particularly awkward contrivance, and its only Christie’s playing of the hard-edged believer that makes the ideals vs reality argument play at all, so intent is Redford on having his way. Nick’s views sound worryingly similar to those of the star’s character in Sneakers, as if he is compelled to justify his cosy, privileged liberal lifestyle through his art (“I didn’t get tired of it. I grew up” he says when Mimi accuses him of betraying his principals).


Mimi: I won’t give myself up to a system I despise.
Nick: How free are you really?
Mimi: I’m not in jail. Everyone has given up and given in and they’re living at the expense of what they once believed. It’s so sad. You understood this. I’m sorry you’ve forgotten.

The exchange between Nick and Mimi is partly appealing just to have these two actors playing against each other (it’s a shame Sarandon and Redford don’t get a scene together, since their last occasion was The Great Waldo Pepper), but Mimi’s unrepentant stance is way more compelling than Nick’s mealy-mouthed platitudes (“I left the movement for the same reason I joined it. Because I didn’t want to see good people’s lives thrown away for nothing”). Indeed, the winning argument is such an irritatingly facile one (what parent wouldn’t agree?) that it gives Mimi’s case additional weight just for being so pandering (“We were so consumed by our principals that we abandoned our most fundamental duty”). As Mimi says, “Every single thing we said then is true today, and every single day it’s getting worse”. But when even a former radical can play the family card and melt the hardest of hearts, it shows the cause is lost, and that the bad guys really have won. There’s also the practical level, besides Nick’s less than heroic suggestion that she should go to prison so he can sit pretty; as a dad in his mid-70s, he should probably be starting to think about his daughter’s future without him on the scene.


Ben: I don’t want to see a guy go to jail for the rest of his life for something he didn’t do.
Nick: Is that what passes for idealism these days?

This picture was made on the cusp of LeBeouf’s more self-destructive career decisions, and he’s well-picked here as something of a self-serving prick who eventually puts principals over career kudos. He’s well-matched in light interludes with Marling, but holds his own against heavyweights like Gleeson and Sarandon. The latter has a particularly fine extended cameo, in which Ben interviews Sharon and she holds forth on her principles. Ben responds glibly to Sharon’s account, suggesting she is justifying herself and that she thought the only option was violence (“We though that sitting at home while our government committed genocide and doing nothing about it, that that was violence”).


Again, this might have been a moment to point out that the Weather Underground was focussed on attacking property (violence against property, if you must: member Mark Rudd commented, “From my own experience, I know that the American people see no distinction between violence against property and violence against human beings. Political violence is a category which does not exist: it is just violence, defined as either criminal or insane or both”), but Redford seems happy to have Terrence Howard’s FBI agent go around labelling them terrorists without qualification (because, in today’s world, everyone and anyone may qualify. Bill Ayers, one of the more prolific members, disputed the label, on the grounds that the Weather Underground’s activities did not involving the killing of innocent civilians: “Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we’re not terrorists”. And again, the counter of the state’s own terrorist activities is not cited.


At least Sharon is allowed confidence in her own position (“Yeah, I would do it again, Smarter, better, different. We made mistakes. But we were right”), even if it’s immediately countered (“Terrorists justify terrorism, Ben. Don’t get confused here”). There’s much more food for debate here than Dobbs (or Dobbs at Redford’s behest) seems willing to broach, and certainly, falling back on a reductive appeal to the most manipulated emotions isn’t the sign of rigorous intellectual rumination.


Also on board are Nick Nolte and Richard Jenkins as old radicals (the latter now a college professor reluctant to give Nick the time of day: “Nancy would forgive me banging a freshman sooner than talking to you”), Chris Cooper as Nick’s brother, Stanley Tucci as Ben’s boss, Anna Kendrick as an FBI agent, Sam Elliott as a flame of Mimi’s, doing that inimitable Sam Elliott thing, and Stephen Root as a pot grower. It’s a dazzling cast, ensuring that almost every scene flares brightly, even when the picture manoeuvres itself into to a stodge of plot mechanics and perfunctory motivation. Cliff Martinez’s elegiac score is also particularly strong.


For all its faults, we should perhaps be grateful The Company You Keep is assured as it is, that it has a voice in spite of its hero’s clichéd motivation. It’s at its most engaging when Redford’s character isn’t presenting his viewpoint; he’s the weak, ameliorating link, whereas Sarandon and Christie, and Jenkins (and even Howard’s obnoxious FBI guy) give a taste of a more defined, spirited piece. This is almost a really good movie, but it ultimately suffers from the same inclination towards ineffectual palatability as much of Redford’s directorial career.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?