The
Company You Keep, the
novel by Neil Gorden won rave
reviews. Critics, from what I found online, pretty much ganged up and
panned the
movie, by and with Robert
Redford.
It didn't do badly at the box office, returning more than
double its $2 million production costs. I hadn't known of The
Company You Keep, book or movie, when I
spotted the DVD in a rack at Dollar General. The big-name
cast—including Redford, Shia LaBeouf, Julie Christie, Susan
Sarandon, Nick Nolte, and Chris Cooper--and the story sold me. I took
it back to my apartment and watched it. Twice. Then I bought the
book, and read it through with pauses only to pee, eat, or sleep.
Took me a couple of days. I'll no doubt read it again in the near
future. I'm considering watching the movie again too, any day now.
Not being a
student of film, my infrequent movie viewings are for entertainment
only. I do not watch with a critical eye, and, appreciating the
ancient practice of male actors portraying females, am more than
willing to suspend natural disbelief on the silver screen. It did not
bother me in the least, as evidently it did some critics, that
seventy-six-year-old Redford played the 40-year-old lead as the outed
Weather Underground fugitive with a seven-year-old daughter. I had
the sense critics who made much of this were less concerned with
Redford's age than resentful of Redford's persistence in the
industry. For the record, I've always been resentful of the bastard's
beauty, but, as I said, I can see past such distractions in the
fantasyland of disbelief.
The other
complaint was the talking:
too much explaining and arguing about political issues in a long ago
context. Again, this didn't distract me. Maybe
the critics, younger folks I suspect, found it too old and musty to
work. I found it
vitally relevant, to the story and to me. I
was politically aware in the '70s. I participated in some of the
anti-war activities on campus.
I fantasized
fugitive Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn showing up at my apartment
desperate for shelter, which, of course, I would gladly provide. The
explaining and arguing awakened my nostalgia. Much of it is as
relevant today as it was fifty years ago. I have to wonder if these
film critics bothered to read the novel, in which the explaining and
arguing seemed to take up most of the plot.
The novel
is more complex and fascinating as story. Redford's movie took a
small part of that story, streamlined it, and turned it into a
thinking person's thriller (I don't believe a gun appears at all, and
it is completely explosion-free). In one deviation from the novel,
the Redford character's wife is mentioned only in passing as dead
from a car crash. In the novel she's crucial to the plot, which
involves a bitter custody battle for the seven-year-old girl. It's
the reason the main protagonist—the outed Weather fugitive—abandons
his law practice to find his fugitive former girlfriend and persuade
her to surrender to clear him of charges in a bank robbery in which a
guard was killed. So he can keep the daughter away from his
drug-addict ex-wife.
In the
movie, the Redford character simply wants to avoid prison so he can
raise the daughter, whom he leaves with relatives while he hunts for
his ex-girlfriend.
Admittedly this weakens the plot, as noted by some critics. The book
version is more plausible. Probably just as well I saw
the movie before
reading
the book. I'll watch it again tonight to see how
much this matters.
Before your post about the book I did not know either the book or the film existed. That is not entirely true, I am sure I saw ads for this film when it came out but I had no knowledge of the subject matter and never followed up on it. I will read the book first and then see the movie and I hope to do that sooner rather than later, but sometimes my reading plans don't work out. This was a great post on the movie, informational and entertaining.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tracy. I believe this is the first movie review I've ever done.
Delete