Skip to main content

I mean, I think anybody who looked at Fred, looked at somebody that they couldn't compare with anybody else.

Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
(2018) 

(SPOILERS) I did, of course, know who Fred Rogers was, despite being British. Or rather, I knew his sublimely docile greeting song. How? The ‘Burbs, naturally. I was surprised, given the seeming unanimous praise it was receiving (and the boffo doco box office) that Won’t You Be My Neighbor? didn’t garner a Best Documentary Oscar nod, but now I think I can understand why. It’s as immensely likeable as Mr Rogers himself, yet it doesn’t feel very substantial.

Perhaps that’s a reflection of its subject’s simple, straightforward values and intentions, but there’s a limit to the number of ways you can stress that he was a genuine man genuinely trying to make a modicum of difference where he could; even the attempts to come up with some, if not controversy then straying slightly from the sunshine-and-rainbows image of the man, are rather wanting. There’s Roger’s employment of François Clemmons on Mister Roger’s Neighborhood, but his stipulation that Clemmons didn’t disclose his sexuality (this counterweighted by Clemmons’ primary importance as an identification figure in terms of racial integration as the two shared a paddling pool); really, though, what degree of progressiveness would one realistically expect from an ordained Christian minister and lifelong Republican? in many respects Rogers’ attitudes come across as positively liberal. Certainly, the flip-side, in which naysayers suggested he was evil for endorsing the idea that everyone is special so they grew up believing they didn’t have to bother – thus, if you can credit it, ruining an entire generation; presumably this viewed hailed from the same general party political spectrum as Rogers himself – doesn’t really stand up to any kid of scrutiny.

There’s a familiar sense in watching the doc of a keenly socially-minded individual struggling to broach important subjects in an accessible, comprehensible and responsible manner (through the medium of hand puppets) via his particular calling to kids (“He realised that, if he really wanted to communicate, the most important thing is to listen”). But one has to wonder how many of those watching, immediately following Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, really needed to understand what an assassination was and how much of this was Rogers projecting his own anguish; if he’d done a show on nuclear fallout – he did, in 1983, but it seems he didn’t actually mention the nuclear word itself, which might make it that bit too oblique – it might have come closer to the kinds of thing that really freaked out a young mind, rather than, say, the Challenger disaster. He came briefly out of retirement following 9/11 to record some addresses, but admitted “I just don’t know what good these are going to do”, as if society’s relentless downward trajectory had finally got to him.

For me, the most fascinating part of the doc comes when Rogers appears before a senate committee looking to cut PBS’ funding; up until that point, it appeared that losing it was a fait accompli, but the footage shows Rogers’ from-the-heart statement and the genuinely affected response (“I think it’s wonderful. It’s wonderful. Looks like you just earned the twenty million”). It’s all the more impressive for seeing a stony-faced arbiter actually listening to Rogers’ words, and not responding with the expected cynicism.

There’s also the occasional comment from one of his sons about growing up in the shadow of someone who was “almost a second Christ as a dad”, the various parodies (Eddie Murphy’s appears affectionate, and apparently Rogers only objected to those that were “making fun of the philosophy” of the show), the questions about Rogers’ own sexuality (presumably owing to his somewhat fey manner), his interaction with a gorilla that signed her love for him, and the most bizarre myths (that he was a Navy SEAL). All of it boils down to: “The universal question about Fred is, was he that way in real life. And the answer is yes”.

Rogers’ quiet war against the corrupting influence of other children’s TV (prime clip culprits include Transformers and Ren & Stimpy), whereby stopping and taking time amid the accelerating pace all around is not only valued but prized, isn’t an entirely isolated example, but it’s one in very short supply. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? is, necessarily, a bitter-sweet documentary, pointing to someone raised on a pedestal and implicitly suggesting that we have not only fallen a long way from such heights, but also have no hope of even aspiring to such standards, let alone meeting them. This, despite the remonstration to do not what Fred Rogers would do, but rather ask the question “What are you going to do?


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

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…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…