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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

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.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…