Rain Man

Rain Man (released December 16, 1988)

Director: Barry Levinson

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise, Valeria Golino

Produced by: Mark Johnson

Written by: Barry Marrow, Ronald Bass

Music by: Hans Zimmer

Cinematography by: John Seale

Distributed by: United Artists

Faulty Memories

Last week we pulled Rain Man out of the box. Ever since then I’ve had that song in my head. You know the one: “My grandma and your grandma sittin’ by the fire…” It’s been there all week, and to be honest, I was never a big fan of it. It does take me back though, to my freshman year of high school. Huh. Maybe that’s why I don’t like the song. But that’s a story for the shrink, not for you.

You're so vain... you probably think
 this movie's about you...

Regardless of what was going on in my life during the Christmas season of 1988, the movie certainly does reflect the late 80s with flair. Like The French Connection, this movies is defined by its decade. Only this time instead of the gritty hideousness of the ugliest decade of the 20^th century, we have images of the “Me” decade. And Charlie Babbitt (played by Tom Cruise) is the epitome of that ideal.

Charlie imports fancy sports cars in Los Angeles, wears expensive suits, and has a modelesque Italian girlfriend. Watching this movie now, the character of Charlie reminds me sharply of Cruise’s performance in the movie Jerry Maguire. He played both parts so spot on I wonder if this is “his” role, much like Mel Gibson seems to gravitate towards playing characters hell-bent on revenge. Charlie Babbitt is ruthless, slimy, and overly concerned with his image. He suppresses all emotions except anger. He’s a prick.

Not exactly Thelma and Louise...

The ubiquitous monkey wrench is thrown when his father dies, leaving all the $3 million estate to his brother Raymond (played by Dustin Hoffman) , an autistic savant who doesn’t understand the concept of money. Charlie didn’t even know Ray existed. Ray had been sent to live in Walbrook, a mental institution in Charlie’s hometown of Cincinnati. When Charlie visits Ray he coerces him into the car (a 1949 Buick Roadmaster convertible – Charlie’s inheritance) and takes off. He thinks he can trade Ray for his half of the money, so he sets out for California.

Charlie’s life quickly implodes on the road. His business goes bust from the absence of his fine machinations (i.e. his gift of keeping his customers hanging on through bullshit), his fiancée leaves after she realizes his motivations for keeping Ray, and Raymond himself proves to be extremely hard to handle. A slave to his routines and rituals, Ray must watch The People’s Court every day, eat with toothpicks instead of a fork, and a whole host of other things to keep him comfortable and not pitching a screaming fit.

Susanna: "How was it?" Raymond: "Wet."

I’ve seen a lot of Dustin Hoffman’s films, and I think he’s an amazing actor. From The Graduate, to Tootsie, to Kramer vs. Kramer, he never fails to find a new and interesting role to play, and he plays them incredibly well. Hoffman won the Best Actor Oscar for his role in Rain Man, and it is easy to see why. His portrayal of Raymond Babbitt is so convincing, I forgot he was Dustin Hoffman. That, in my opinion, is the hallmark of a great actor.

My original impressions of this movie as a fourteen-year old were this was a great movie. What wasn’t to love? It had hot Tom Cruise (who had just rocketed to stardom on the con trail of Top Gun). It was funny (“K-Mart sucks” anyone?) and it even had the glitter of Las Vegas thrown in towards the end.

Los Angeles: the new city of Brotherly Love

Watching it last night left me feeling very different. Instead of funny and clever, I now find it to be sad and rather depressing. Tom Cruise’s character is no longer hot, but a rather pathetic jerk with shiny pants and too big hair. (Could someone get him a tie, please?) The movie is no less commanding, maybe more so now that I see it from an adult’s eyes. I can see now the finer subtleties that were lost on me as a newly minted teenager. Charlie’s character does shift from callous bastard to caring brother, but he still retains his self-centered attitude. Being pushed out of his comfort zone, Ray does make progress in learning to connect with people.

Rain Man is certainly not a light and happy movie. However, it does for really the first time bring to light the nature of autism. I didn’t know what autism was before this movie, did you? I’m telling you as a librarian, we buy just as many books about that as we do cancer these days. I believe this movie was instrumental in bringing autism out of the murky shadows of mental illness and defining it for the general public.

Now if I could just get that damn song out of my head.


~Anna

Not Your Typical Buddy Film

     Hollyweird be thy name...

My initial reaction to seeing Rain Man is a mixed one. While I can imagine pitching this idea to producers may have been an interesting and exciting exercise, I would have liked the end result to have been somehow… different. The film’s overwhelming positive reviews and acceptance notwithstanding, I found the story a bit too forced in some scenes. I wonder how many people think of Tom Cruise’s role as the selfish and driven Charlie Babbitt a stretch for him. I for one must admit that under the influence of his recent behavior I could not cozy up to his character, even at the end of the film where he apparently has seen the light and accepts his new-found autistic brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman). It’s probably not in my best interest to critique a performance with all of the actor’s personal off-screen baggage influencing me, but there it is. The make-believe Hollywood and its actors and the real-life Hollyweird and its denizens are oft times difficult to keep apart.

It's not easy being an unfeeling ass.

An example of a less than believable scene was near the beginning of the movie in Charlie’s “auto sales office”. I realize the reason for filming it was to establish Charlie Babbitt’s odious character, but the conversations on the headsets sounded a bit too forced to me. Throughout the road trip, Charlie’s rather easy acceptance of Raymond’s decidedly annoying and difficult tantrums seemed unrealistic, although perhaps he was keeping that "thought of half of his late father’s 3-million dollar inheritance in the back of his mind. Overall, I sensed Cruises’s portrayal of Charlie was lacking that last little bit of umph to make me a believer, and him a truly sympathetic character. Their final scene together at the table when the doctors leave the room was something that worked and should have been exploited more.

The cast-list at the end of the film was of interest as it contained the names of a number of doctors who were “consulted” in helping the producers create the character of Raymond Babbitt. Of course, in Dustin Hoffman’s hands, the character of the idiot savant was adorable and interesting. And as this was written as a “feel good movie” firmly in mind, how then can the portrayal be otherwise? Still, one wonders how many people could survive that same trip in the real world and come out the other side wholly sane. Or would they have succumbed to the awful temptation of murdering poor Raymond and dumping his body in a ditch somewhere between Cincinnati and Los Angeles just for a little peace and quiet.

Still waters run deep.

Their brief foray into Las Vegas contained what I thought was the best shot of the entire picture.  It included the long-held close up of Raymond’s face as he sits at the card table and becomes a study in stillness. Director Barry Levinson brilliantly chose to move in very slowly with the camera as in the background, we hear unabated, the hustle and bustle of the rest of the casino which in turn accentuates what Raymond, unbeknownst to anyone else, is doing. That Hoffman can put so much acting into a still face is amazing. His eyes glaze over and you can almost “hear” him counting those cards. It was a very subtle yet bravado piece of acting.

Overall, while I can applaud the idea behind the story and film, its final execution seemed to lack a certain finishing touch, for want of a better term. And in the back of my mind I wonder how much the fact of portraying a dysfunctional character in a sympathetic manner played into the balloting decisions of the Academy members. At times, Hollywood can be awfully touchy-feely.

--kak


Up next: The Last Emperor (1987)

Kramer vs. Kramer

Kramer vs. Kramer (released December 17, 1979)

Directed by: Robert Benton

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Justin Henry, Jane Alexander

Produced by: Richard Fischoff, Stanley R. Jaffe

Written by: Avery Corman (novel), Robert Benton

Music by: Paul Gemignani, Herb Harris, John Kander, Erma E. Levin, Roy B. Yokelson, Antonio Vivaldi

Cinematography by: Nestor Almendros

Distributed by: Columbia Pictures

A “Small Film” in Name Only

I thought the one of most astounding aspects of the 1979 Best Picture winner, Kramer vs. Kramer was that the story itself didn’t degenerate into the farcical. I might be getting too cynical in my advancing age, but in remaking this film I could very well imagine today’s version having Billy Kramer, the child, prattling on with pages and pages of much-too-clever, mature dialog, and contain a courtroom scene that would play out much longer and display much more meanness between the characters than the scene would ordinarily demand. Indeed, the beauty of the film was the balanced portrayal of how painful divorce can be for all involved. Believe it or not there was a certain amount of subtleness and deftness to this film which I think is lost on a lot of filmmakers today. It seems in movies nowadays there has to be an overabundance of just about everything, be it plot devices, character traits, edits, you name it. Kramer vs Kramer was as the producers themselves remarked: “a small movie” and thank goodness they kept it that way.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep in their roles as the feuding couple brought an amazing level of realism to the story, but the most challenging thing about the film was in casting eight-year old Justin Henry as the child caught in the middle. The producers scored a coup with that decision. Without his truly believable acting, the film would have not had the resonance it otherwise enjoys to this day. The story develops naturally as a new life is imposed upon father and son after the separation and divorce. It’s not always pretty, but it rings true and I must admit the scene at the hospital where Billy gets stitched up after a fall in the park as too painful to watch (it is too reminiscent of a similar event involving my young nephew).

Kramer vs. Kramer is a movie that explores the raw emotions involved in family break-ups and because it does so in such a faithful and unbiased way, it remains a powerful film and one that justifiably earned its awards.

--kak

“Don’t Leave Me, Mommy…”

Oh God, I had no idea this movie was going to be so wrenching. I knew vaguely it was about divorce, and I thought it was going to be an ugly courtroom battle. And there was an ugly courtroom battle, but it was only a small part of the movie. The rest of the movie was taken up by Dustin Hoffman and Justin Henry digging my heart out of my chest with a spoon. There was no weeping, but there was definite moaning and wailing directed at the TV, and maybe a tear or two.

Dustin Hoffman plays Ted Kramer, an ad executive who is making it big in NYC and is on the cusp of greatness. He lands the biggest account of his life, and when he arrives home to share the news with his wife, Joanna (played by the amazing Meryl Streep) she announces she’s leaving him. And not only is she leaving, but she is also leaving behind their five-year-old son, Billy.  She says as she is getting on the elevator that she doesn’t think she is any good for him, and he would be better off without her. Those are some powerful words. And I sat there wondering, “What kind of woman would leave her child?” I found out later, and it wasn’t the answer I was expecting.

Ted is left alone with a son he barely knows and has to care for him when he is used to spending 10+ hours a day at the office. Reality hits him hard, but I was very gratified to see his character man up and do the right thing. He learns how to do all the things necessary to be mother and father to Billy, and he gets his priorities in order. There is some comedy in Ted trying to learn how to take care of his son, making jury-rigged French toast, and such, but mostly it was pretty serious.

And in the courtroom where Joanna and Ted battle for the custody of Billy we discover why Joanna felt she must leave Billy behind. Joanna had gone through a terrible depression that had left her so low and stripped of any self-worth she truly thought she was harming her son by staying and being a mother to him. After she sought therapy she was able to get her head on straight and realize she wasn’t a terrible person. When Ted and Joanna tell their stories before the court, they both realize just how hard the other person had it, which surprised them. Ted was shocked that Joanna was on the edge of a nervous breakdown and he had never noticed, and Joanna never realized what Ted had to go through trying to tell Billy where his mother had gone.

Included on the disc was a small documentary on the making of the movie, which I watched after we viewed the film. It was probably done 10 years ago, and was interesting to see what Justin Henry looked like as an adult. But the most interesting comment to me was one Meryl Streep made about it being such a small movie. And I know what she means. Today we have movies that are epic in their scope and have huge casts of characters, elaborate sets, and spend millions and millions of dollars. Hell, DeMille did that in the 50’s with his The Greatest Show on Earth. But this movie is small – it has only a few characters, and it focuses on what would seemingly be a small subject: divorce. Everyone knows the divorce rate is 50%. People do it all the time. And yet someone went to the trouble to make a movie about the intimate landscape of divorce and exactly what it did to a specific family. And I think that was why this film was such a success. Everyone on some level can relate to it.

Whether you come from a broken home or not, you are probably close to someone who does. I myself am lucky in that my parents will be celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary in November. But some of my best friends across my life have parents who were divorced (or should have been), and seeing this movie was like having a ringside seat as to exactly what that is like. For those of us who have experienced it first hand as an adult or a child, I am sure it was even more of an identifying experience.

This movie showed me that the smallest, most mundane things about life can be the most riveting, if we can just present them the right way. If the entire human population can identify with your story, and you have a crackerjack list of actors, you really can’t go wrong. It can be small, and it can be spare, and it can move you to tears and break your heart because you know it is authentic.

~Anna   

Up next: Mrs. Miniver (1942)