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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…