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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.