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.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.