A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Tom Hanks     Matthew Rhys     Susan Kelechi Watson     Chris Cooper     Christine Lahti

     In this film, “Mr. Rogers”, the television personality is portrayed as someone who will change the life of a reluctant expository journalist sent to interview him for a “hero” piece in a magazine.  Lloyd Vogel (Rhys) is shown to be absolutely myopic and abrasive in human interactions (and in his writings), even with his wife Andrea (Watson) and their infant child.  But after his abbreviated times with Rogers, he makes a miraculous transformation.  

     I think I understand what the filmmakers had in mind in making A Beautiful Day, which is to show how effective Mr. Rogers as a television personality could be in the real world with a grown-up.  But having had some personal interactions with the real Fred Rogers, and from my experience of the show when my daughter as a young child was transfixed by it, I came away from the movie rather taken aback.  This is a completely fanciful account of Mr. Rogers and the way in which he related to people outside his show.

     To be specific, when I was a psychologist in Pediatrics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, we invited Fred Rogers to our annual Mental Health Conference¹.  He came and gave a moving presentation about how he worked with kids. During his stay, we had a number of conversations with him.  I want to say that at no time when he talked with us as adults, did he use the same tone as he did on his show with children or use a style of probing someone's psyche, as is shown in this film particularly when talking to the journalist Lloyd Vogel. 

     My misgivings with the film have mostly to do with the dialog.  Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster have written dialog that sounds artificial, as if someone who isn’t Mr. Rogers is trying to sound just like him, and then applying it unrealistically.  The real Rogers—or anyone with psychological sensitivity—would not ask probing questions of a journalist as if he were the man’s therapist.  Fred Rogers was much more sophisticated and psychologically informed than that.

     As far as the acting, Tom Hanks does a marvelous rendition of Fred Rogers’ manner, voice, and demonstrative concern.  Even his singing is engaging.  It was especially provocative to see Matthew Rhys (such an astute, insightful character in “The Americans”) come across as an acerbic, obtuse character who seems completely ignorant of everyday niceties and needs of others.  The rest of the cast including the always effective Chris Cooper as Lloyd’s father and Susan Kelechi Watson as his wife are top-notch.

     In my way of thinking, the writers and director Marielle Heller should have gotten more consultation about the essence of Fred Rogers and his “Neighborhood” show before embarking on the project.  Their backgrounds in Can You Ever Forgive Me, Maleficent, and A Walk among the Tombstones are not adequate preparation and experience for a movie about a master of subtlety and guidance of children.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is not likely to encourage reminiscences about Mr. Rogers or his show for children.

Grade:  D                         By Donna R. Copeland

¹Rogers, Fred.  Growing with Children.  In Donna R. Copeland, Betty Pfefferbaum, Allison Stovall (Ed.) The Mind of the Child Who Is Said To Be Sick.  Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.  1983, pp. 5-12.  

THE REPORT

Adam Driver     Annette Bening     Corey Stoll     Jon Hamm     Linda Powell     Maura Tierney

Douglas Hodge     T. Ryder Smith     Joanne Tucker     Michael C. Hall     Matthew Rhys

     The dramatization of the U.S. Government’s reaction to 9-1-1 is outlined in Scott Burns’ movie, The Report, which focuses on the report prepared by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Intelligence Committee, delegated to David Jones, one of her aides.  It shows the dogged five-year efforts of Jones to wrest documents from the CIA related to its practice of detention and enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) to get information about when/where the next attack would be.

     Gathering data for the report was impeded from the very beginning by CIA officials who refused to share most of their files. Adam Driver embodies the Jones character, eloquently expressing his patience, his diligence, and his intelligence in reading and interpreting reams of material amidst all kinds of setbacks.  Setbacks that never came from his boss, California Senator Dianne Feinstein (Annette Bening), however; as deliberate and politically aware as she was she was also clearly aware of Jones’ honesty and capabilities, so protects him and guides him in negotiating shark-infested waters.

     The film charts Jones’ journey, highlighting his findings despite obstructions, the strategic use of subterfuge to make sure the report was seen and circulated, and the horrifying examples (some presented graphically) of what he found, including clear-cut examples of torture. The two psychologists hired as consultants—James Mitchell (Hodge) and Bruce Jessen (Smith)—had no experience in interrogation, at a time when the country had teams of FBI agents who were experts and should have been in charge of the program.  But, instead, Mitchell and Jessen were put in charge, implementing their unproven methods with virtually no checks or oversight.

     It’s sadly ironic to learn that as early as 1978, the CIA had concluded that brutal tactics are not effective in getting detainees to talk; moreover, they typically result in false answers. The report showed that in their desperation following the 9-1-1 attacks, leaders in the CIA willfully ignored its own earlier findings. 

     I think this documentary is valuable in illuminating a part of our government’s history in which major miscalculations were made, hundreds were made to suffer—some to die—and there were proven injustices committed.  It’s pertinent to present-day situations, and one hopes we will be mindful of and remember what we learned previously.

     My difficulty with the film’s presentation is the rapidity with which major players in the drama are introduced (without clearly identifying who they are).  Moreover, some subtitles meant to give the viewer context fly by so quickly, its difficult to see them and simultaneously follow conversations that are ongoing.  Although I think the film is basically a good one, director Scott Burns and editor Greg O’Bryant should have picked up on this during postproduction.  

     Adam Driver is consistently admired for his acting skills in many different kinds of roles including this one.  He conveys the carefulness shown by Jones, as well as his agony when he is being blocked and questioned.  Annette Bening is likewise highly skilled, but not as often recognized for it as she deserves.  Here, as Senator Dianne Feinstein, she captures the politically astute Congresswoman’s quiet, confident demeanor and decisiveness in tense situations, despite trying to navigate successfully through the sensitive politics of the situation.  These two leads are backed up by a strong cast including Jon Hamm, Maura Tierney, Linda Powell, Corey Stoll, Ted Levine, and others.

A real-life drama depicting the reactions of Washington’s politicos to the 9-1-1 disaster. 

Grade: B                                                By Donna R. Copeland

MOWGLI: LEGEND OF THE JUNGLE

Voices of:  Cate Blanchett     Christian Bale     Benedict Cumberbatch     Peter Mullan 

 Andy Serkis     Tom Hollander     Naomie Harris     Freida Pinto

Rohand Chand as Mogli and Matthew Rhys as a researcher

     I’m a bit puzzled as to why this movie was made, following so closely upon the very successful 2016 film, “The Jungle Book”, a Disney production based on the Rudyard Kipling novel directed by Jon Favreau.  This version, with a screenplay by Callie Kloves and directed by Andy Serkis, pretty much follows the same story of a child being brought up by the animals when his parents are killed in the jungle by a tiger named Shere Khan (Cumberbatch).  Mowgli (played here by Rohand Chand) tries valiantly to keep up with his “pack” (tested in a race), but when he starts to come of age, it is clear that he can’t keep up and that he is becoming more and more like a human man. His two main advisors, panther Bagheera (Bale) and bear Baloo (Serkis), see to it that he joins the group of villagers who live nearby.  That’s not the end of the story; heroics will follow.

     The strongest asset of this Mowgli lies in a stellar cast.  Cate Blanchett as the initial narrator and embodied as the python Kaa delivers authoritative/threatening/protective lines in a voice that conveys the message very clearly.  Christian Bale and Andy Serkis serve as the wise overseers of the pack and of Mowgli that connotes both patriarchy and loving concern.  Benedict Cumberbatch issues ferocious, lip-smacking threats that seem even more threatening with a British accent. And finally, Rohand Chand is successful in convincing us of a feral child gradually becoming acquainted with his own tribe.  

     Aside from this version of The Jungle Book being an unnecessary, less successful remake, it does have a plot that is engaging and offers some good counsel to children in its message about the importance of social groups and cooperation to achieve goals, “specialness” not necessarily being an asset, and the value of wise counsel even when it feels uncomfortable. On the other hand, inserting the character John Lockwood (Rhys) as an alcoholic, boorish researcher having no human interest in his subjects, is offensive and disrespectful to the many anthropological/sociological scientists who have given us valuable information. I have no idea why this character was included.

     I expect that children may enjoy the color and the story about a child brought up in the jungle, but it is probably not one that will stay with them for long.  And it probably won’t engage their parents at all.  

More tales of a feral child and his adventures in the jungle.

Grade:  C                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE POST

Meryl Streep     Tom Hanks     Matthew Rhys     Sarah Paulson     Bob Odenkirk    

Tracy Letts     Bradley Whitford     Bruce Greenwood     Alison Brie

     Steven Spielberg’s production of The Post, based on true events and smartly written by Elizabeth Hannah and Josh Singer (Spotlight, The Fifth Estate), is as exciting and tension filled as a good mystery story.  (I was glad I knew how everything turned out, so I could relax a bit.)  It’s about the time Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst employed by the Rand Corporation, released classified information to the New York Times, and then to the Washington Post, about the complicity of four U.S. Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon) and their administrations in covering up significant U.S. operations during the Viet Nam War. 

    The Post refers to the Washington Post newspaper, which obtained classified documents after the New York Times broke the story.  The dilemma Publisher Katherine Graham (Streep) and Editor Ben Bradlee (Hanks) face after the government has already initiated legal action against the Times, is whether to publish information that came to them from the same source, Daniel Ellsberg (Rhys).  These are papers reporting on a study requested by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Greenwood) about the progress of the Viet Nam War from 1945-1967, and document the U.S. Government’s complicity in covert operations, rigging elections, and lying to the Geneva Convention, and then covering it up, essentially lying to the American people about the Viet Nam War.  Most egregious of all, is its sending young servicemen into battle for a war they knew couldn’t be won.

     There are numerous aspects of the story that the filmmakers highlight, which are relevant today.  First and foremost is the issue of the need for government secrecy versus freedom of speech.  At the time, President Nixon was so incensed about the actions of the New York Times, he sought legal action against it.  Some of the more clever scenes in The Post are views through the Oval Office windows of Nixon talking on the phone and making his threats. 

     Another theme I appreciated is a picture of how women were regarded during that era, and another of the film’s highlights is how Katherine Graham is treated by men, even though she is the wealthy publisher of a major newspaper.  Her editor somewhat grudgingly gives her respect, as does Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who is a personal friend, but others clearly think she is out of her element in making major decisions, when—in fact and in retrospect—she is highly qualified.  When push comes to shove, she and Ben Bradlee are shown to be brave and heroic at considerable personal risk.

     Steven Spielberg directs a masterful work based on a true story, but with the intrigue and excitement of a fictional drama.  The cast is outstanding, highlighted by Meryl Streep as Katherine Graham and Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee.  Their conversations are as enlightening as they are interesting.  Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bruce Greenwood, and Matthew Rhys providing superb acting support.  Sarah Paulson as McNamara’s (Greenwood) wife shines in her argument to her husband about the greater bravery shown by Graham at a time when he is feeling besieged.  It was rewarding later to see that he listened to her and at a later time gave Graham credit.

Get informed about a critical event in U.S. history while enjoying an exciting drama.

Grade:  A                                                By Donna R. Copeland