by Sam Juliano
Note: The following is a transcript of an extended conversation I had back in the fall of 2002 within the student union building at Montclair State University with a good friend, and a fellow movie fan, English literature graduate student Bill Riley. The section of the talk printed here is the one dealing with Robert Redford’s 1980 award winner ‘Ordinary People.’
Sam: Bill, have you ever found it more than a little curious that the 1980 Best Picture Oscar winner Ordinary People has suffered such an extensive backlash with critics and movie goers since it won, with some even going so far as to assert that it isn’t even a good film?!
Bill: Sam, I have in fact. What makes it even more difficult to fathom is that the film won far more than the Oscar – I recall it copped the Best Picture prize from the prestigious New York Film Critics Circle and similar citations from other groups nationwide and abroad.
Sam: So basically, most critics and moviegoers -or at least a good number of them- thought Ordinary People was the best American film of that year.
Bill: Pretty much so, I’d reckon. Backlash is a potent force in arts competitions, and resounding success will always bring on more scrutiny and the Monday morning quarterbacking. Success breeds it. I’d say backlash includes the heightened voices of the devil’s advocates, naysayers and those who are thinking in terms of “I told you so.” Those are the ones likely to admonish those who commit the mortal sin of overrating a motion picture. (snickers)
Sam: I know just what you mean Bill. Oh it won the Oscar for Best Picture, so it has to be Oscar bait, unworthy or just plain forgettable. Heck, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Godfather, On the Waterfront, Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia won Best Picture Oscars too. Does it make them overrated or undeserving? Hmmm.
Bill: Yeah, and my beloved Amadeus and The Last Emperor won Best Picture as well.
Sam: I never disputed that the Oscars are a joke for all sorts of reasons. Many voters don’t see all the films, studio money often buys nominations, and the group is generally myopic to recognizing foreign language films in the major categories. Timing means more than artistry three-quarters of the time, and the time between the nominations and the actual awards can be framed as a shameless rat race. Yet, they do make some good choices if for no other reason than the odds are on their side. Every awards organization gets it right some of the time. I’d like to say that I continue to believe that Ordinary People’s reputation was negatively impacted because of its Best Picture win. The reason is because it won over Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull, a film that most think was superior. Some, like Roger Ebert, named it the best film of the 1980’s, and those in that camp will always take Oscar to task for snubbing it.
Bill: (laughs) Sounds like 1941 all over again. How Green Was My Valley winning the Best Picture over Citizen Kane. Dire stuff. Mind you I do like How Green Was My Valley, but Welles should have taken home the bacon.
Sam: Bill, the actual point I am trying to make is not whether or not Ordinary People should have won the Best Picture in 1980 -though if I were a voter it would have received my support- but rather that its win have tarnished its legacy.
Bill: I hear ya Sam. I like the movie too, but I would have voted for either Raging Bull or The Elephant Man, both of which were nominated I think?
Sam: Correct. The other two were Coal Miner’s Daughter and Tess. Not a bad lot, but for me the five English language films should have been: Ordinary People, Raging Bull, Atlantic City, The Shining and either The Elephant Man or The Great Santini for the fifth spot. Fassbinder’s German language masterpiece Berlin Alexanderplatz should have made any list of the year’s best films, and I have high regard for the Australian Breaker Morant. For me it seriously challenges for the top spot. (pauses)
Well, as Conrad Jarret (Timothy Hutton) says in the film – “anyway” So how would you assess the cinematic value of the film, Bill? The artistry? What makes it so exceptional? Does it hold up today?
Bill: Well Sam, first off I’d like to say that Redford knew exactly what he was doing, and he never overplayed his cards. The novel by Judith Guest, which as you know is still part of the high school curriculum across the country was a no brainer to adapt, and the appeal was universal.
Sam: Why would you say that Bill? After all, this is about an upper middle class WASP family living high off the hog in Lake Forest, a posh suburb of Chicago with seemingly no monetary restrictions. They can take vacations at a whim to any location in the world, enjoy country-club memberships, own two cars and reside in a super large house that’s way too expansive for the Jarret family. The father is a successful tax lawyer, and the socialite mother gives new definition to organization.
Bill: That’s true Sam. But what happened to the Jarrets when they were torn asunder by unthinkable tragedy can happen to anyone, anywhere and at any social level. Smug with success and contentment can disappear at the bat of an eyelash. Being privileged means nothing when emotional devastation is added to the mix. To this end I will quote a critic (I forget who) who described it best: “Privilege is a plywood tree house in a hurricane.”
Sam: That’s a great metaphor indeed!
Bill: At the risk of sounding hokey, I’d say that grief and tragedy are not alien to any social class, if anything the wealthier would seem to be less equipped to handle such a horrific event, since they would seem to have everything that money can by. Further, I’d add that the disintegration of the Jarret family can be felt deeply by all who see the film, not just by those who relate to these types of families. Sorrow, anguish, desolation, heartbreak, all are truly omnipresent.
Sam: (applauds) Great show there Bill. Similarly, there is nothing about marriage dissolution that is exclusive to any class, obviously, and in both Guest’s spare novel and in the film adaptation, the strains of denial, guilt and mental breakdown are all too real; the vast majority have experienced these singularly or in completion.
Bill: Absolutely Sam.
Sam: Keeping the discussion on this point, I’d like to mention that while the Jarrets seem to be coping (in the opening chapters of the book and first quarter of the film) they are structured, studious, in control, and to beckon the book’s title, they are “ordinary” in the sphere of affluence they inhabit. Conrad reads Hardy while being driven to school; Beth sturdily engages in tennis and golf; Calvin moves forward with his profession, serving the family and the understanding patriarch. But beneath the surface the unmanageable anger and seething resentments threaten to rip this family at the seems, and as the film moves towards its shattering conclusion its clear these differences are inconsolable.
Bill. Nice that you mention “control.” That is exactly what Jarrett was trying to gain during his session with Berger the psychiatrist.
Sam: Aye Bill. Of course Berger admitted at the start that control was a “tough nut.” But those scenes in the office were brilliantly written and acted – they really had emotional impact. For example who could every forget the line when Conrad tells Berger that his mother will never forgive him because his suicide attempt ruined her bathroom rugs. As I recall he said “She had to pitch it out. They even had to regrout the tile floor.”
Bill: Yeah, Beth Jarrett was as cold as ice, and Mary Tyler Moore gave an astonishing performance that most didn’t think she could pull off. Some of the seemingly smaller moments are what I especially remember about the film – like when Jarrett doesn’t move fast enough on eating his French toast, and Beth liquidates it, or when she fumbles over whether or not she took “trig” in high school after Conrad interrupts her Ingmar Bergman-like meditative interlude in her dead son’s bedroom -a powerful scene for sure- and the crucial refusal to address the son’s heartfelt attempt to reach out to her, opting instead for the safety of answering a phone call from a friend. Throughout the film Beth seems far more concerned with returning things to “normal” that to help facilitate Conrad’s healing.
Sam: Yeah those are telling examples Bill. Of course a much “bigger” scene occurs when Beth interrupts Calvin, asking for the camera as he tries to photograph mother and son, a proposition she abhors. It leads to a profane outburst that finally makes Calvin see the light as to who is to blame for the impasse. I agree that Moore doesn’t register a false note, and she later is electrifying on the golf course when she rebuffs relatives with a reference to the effects of the tragedy on her psyche. Still she pretty much maintains her composure until the scene near the end when she breaks down while packing the suitcase in her bedroom. I have always thought Moore’s character was riveting to behold -and the actress’ success as a comedian made her work here especially intriguing- but for me, it was Conrad -Timothy Hutton- who was the most interesting.
Bill: (nodding) I really can’t argue with that Sam. Conrad’s rehabilitation was the main focus of the story, and the arc of the narrative plays off his inability to deal with the loss of his beloved brother Buck. Just to divert here a minute Sam, but I would like to ask you what you thought of Redford’s use of the flashbacks of the boating accident that haunt Conrad throughout. Do you think they were largely effective?
Sam: I do Bill. Redford’s direction for most of the film was a kind of non-direction if you know what I mean. He allowed the actors and the screenwriter (Alvin Sergeant) to carry the film without stylish intrusion – a very smart move in my opinion- but decided that he would use the flashbacks as the sole directorial device, and they had a jarring, powerful impact. The visualizations that were punctuated by feverish waking effectively showcased the very images that have left his unnerved and despondent for the months since the accident.
Bill: Agreed Sam.
Sam: In any case, Hutton is never anything less than deeply troubled, always on the brink of a second suicide attempt, yet with the remarkable support of Berger – Moore told one of her kin in response to the question of his seeming Jewishness, that he might indeed be Jewish, or “maybe just German” Ha! – he begins to see an emotional light at the end of the tunnel. Bill do you remember the exact moment Berger finally diminished Conrad’s incessant notions of guilt?
Bill: Ah, let me see. Didn’t he -Berger- tell Conrad something along the lines that he might have been “stronger” than his brother, but holding onto the boat, while his brother lost he grip and went under? He added I think, that Conrad was needlessly torturing himself, but feeling culpable over surviving.
Sam: Right on. I am thinking much the same. Berger and Conrad came a long way since those early meetings when the young man told the shrink he didn’t really want to be there, that he jacked off a lot (“What else is new?” responds Berger) and that he just didn’t connect with his mother. Berger gets the boy to open up, even at the expense of some of the most painful memories surfacing. (pause) As played by a marvelously effective Judd Hirsh -who brings a sharp-wit and an edge of cynicism to a compassionate interior- Berger is lightning fast to perceive and respond. When Conrad tells him that his father “likes everybody” Berger shoots back “Oh I get it, the guy has no taste!” When Berger arrives at his office in response to a frantic call from Conrad, he learns that the boy’s friend from the hospital has killed herself – he looks down and utters “Jeez” but rebuffs Conrad when he tell the doctor that she was “well.” After a thorny doctor-patient association, the two bond in the film’s most cathartic passage – an embrace after Berger tells Conrad “You bet, you can count on it” in response to the boy’s question “Are you my friend?” Its a genuine and heartfelt moment, very well earned and a culmination of how an unconventional approach can achieve the best results -in this case a common understanding that seemed impossible early on. I’ll add that it is common knowledge that psychiatric chit chat often represents an easy way out for the writer, but in this film it acute examines the all-encompassing disaster brought one by unconscionable loss.
Bill: I also have never forgotten the two girls in Conrad’s life – the intense but charming and cute Jeannine -played by Elizabeth McGovern, and the troubled Karen – played by Dinah Manoff. Both are beacons in Conrad’s haunted existence.
Sam: Both actresses are wonderful indeed Bill. Ordinary People is one of those rare films where even the bit parts are superbly chosen. Adam Baldwin is the convincing loquacious high school jock, whom Conrad pummels in a fist fight near the school. Fredric Lehne Ray, revealed as a very close friend of both Buck and Conrad, tries hard to reach his psychologically maligned friend. Who could not remember the domineering swim coach played by the ever-reliable M. Emmet Walsh, who tells the boy he is “screwing up his life” by quitting the swim team. I think we forget to discuss Donald Sutherland. There can be little doubt the actor got one of the best roles of his career, and made the most of it. Initially serving as a referee between his beloved wife and younger son, he is devastated by the family unraveling, though he eventually realizes it is his wife who is the essential culprit and the obstacle to effective reconciliation. My favorite Sutherland scene -aside from the final sequence in the yard with Hutton- is the one where he asks Beth after arriving at house after a session with and requested by Berger- how ludicrous it was for her to ask him what he was wearing to their son’s funeral. The actor registers the incredulous nature of his wife bizarre affectations in the shadow of the worst kind of tragedy known to mankind.
Bill: What greatly impressed me about the film was the cinematography and the score. Fall colors were a consummate match for the film’s grim austerity, and John Baily’s palette is painted by an enviable portrait of a lush suburb that masks family disintegration.
Sam: Definitely Bill. It was lovely work, no doubt guided on by Redford. I also appreciated the corresponding mood established by composer Marvin Hamlisch who brought new meaning and recognition of one of classical music’s most identifiable compositions – Pachebel’s “Canon.” Used over the opening credits and subsequent shots autumn foliage and the church chorus where we first see Conrad, and them at the end, it was an inspired choice to help capture the mood of the film, especially with the solemn complicity of the piano, the instrument that more than any other gives aural authenticity to this psychological picture.
Bill: I know some of the film’s critics -a minority- have claimed the ending was maudlin. I completely disagree with that contention.
Sam: It is a beautiful final scene, and packs an emotional wallop. And it is very well earned. When Calvin tells Conrad that he shouldn’t admire people so much, as they will disappoint you, Conrad turns and acutely declares “I’m not disappointed. I love you.” They then embrace. It is one of the most deeply felt scenes in all of the cinema. I practically tear up just thinking about it.
Bill: Sam, I’ll tell you what. This discussion has me really wanting to watch the film again tonight. Yes it is gloomy, but what film about the death of the beloved oldest son and the subsequent suicide attempt by the surviving son of a once tightly knit family wouldn’t be a difficult film to watch again. But at the end the new family dynamic seems sure to succeed, and some valuable life’s lessons have been learned. Many families have suffered through some variations on this wrenching theme, and could relate. But beyond that the film’s craftsmanship is impeccable and the acting and writing extraordinary effective.
Sam: Amen Bill. This is one of the most penetrating and resonant of American dramas, and well-deserves the accolades it won decades ago. (end of discussion)
Another one of your novel approaches to explore a film. You and “Bill” made for a fascinating duo! And you’ve covered the film from every conceivable angle. I have always though Sargeant’s screenplay from Judith Guest’s novel was outstanding; I have some of the lines committed to memory. Mary Tyler Moore and Judd Hirsch are excellent, but I would have to agree that Hutton is really the star. A haunted performance.
A spectacular post.
Thanks so very much for the exceeding kind words Peter! Needless to say I am pretty much in total agreement on your observations. Yes the screenplay was exceptional and Mr. Hutton gave a deeply affecting performance.
Cool post! It’s interesting that Ordinary People and Paper Moon are next to each other from an Oscar trivia POV. I always group these 2 films together because they both have young actors winning Supporting Oscars for essentially lead performances. Tatum O’Neal is pretty much every scene in Paper Moon, and Hutton is very much the lead in Ordinary People. Paramount was very strategic in their placement–the company people knew that they couldn’t win Lead (especially if Hutton had gone up against DeNiro). Hutton definitely deserved the accolades for this performance, which was like a punch in the gut when I saw it as a teen. His performance and Michael O’ Keefe’s in The Great Santini (up the same year as Hutton) both made an impression on me as a young lad.
Brian my friend, I couldn’t agree with you more! Both Hutton and O’Neal really deserved top billing, as they were in nearly every scene in their films! But as you and I know that is the way Oscar does things. Ha! Like you I am a huge fan of THE GREAT SANTINI, which I previously reviewed at the site, but which missed out on this countdown unfortunately!! Thanks so much for the fabulous comment!! 🙂
Celeste and Frank—-(below!!!!)
Hutton WAS the lead indeed. paramount deliberately posed him in supporting so as not to challenge Robert DeNiro as Brian rightly contended above.
I would like to declare my own believe that Hutton was the lead in the film, and though he was excellent, won in the wrong category.
I can’t see how the performance could ever be considered as anything but lead.
I saw this when it was released in theater in 80’s, with cast like that, who would not wish to see this film! To witness Mary Tyler Moore be more then just “Mary” or Laura, a tv Mom and New age woman coming to her own. Her performance here was definitely not Ordinary. She was Mother choosing between son’s, with a loss of one, could not see the need of the other.
Donald Sutherland’s role here gave him a role that would move him into the range of great actor. Timothy’s performance as an angst teenager, second son, always overshadowed by a brother who excelled at everything, it seemed, until his death, he could not excel at living, giving the family and Conrad an opportunity to discover who they really were.
As I read your discussion, I kept linking this to “American Beauty” the picture of the perfect family…. until others come along to test their perfection, blowing it all to heck.
I most likely had seen this film a few times and the last time was in the early 2000’s as a class assignment in Behavioral Health and Psychology on family behavioral study. That viewing offered a different mindset not only as a film but has a family study of trauma that can cause an ordinary family to implode or strengthen their bonds.
Jeff, I can’t thank you enough for this banner response!! Your analysis of the acting is superlative, but your framing of the characters they play is just as accomplished! I also agree that Sutherland’s performance here was a deal breaker, and left him to choose his parts. Yes I can see some validity in the comparison to AMERICAN BEAUTY! The characters there were more dysfunctional, but the downward spiral has many parallels. Wow, you watch ORDINARY PEOPLE in that class? Most interesting. But I can see it being favored by many in the field, absolutely! Many thanks for this fascinating anecdotes my friend!! Have a great upcoming weekend!!
Always loved the movie, and agree that it’s been unfairly maligned by people who, frankly, are more interested in movies with violent imagery anyway (they wouldn’t watch a movie like Ordinary People if their lives depended on it–no one gets their head chopped off or beaten in in it). At any rate, it’s a great film–Redford’s best as a director, easily. It’s so quiet and still it almost feels like an Americanized Bergman film at times. The entire cast is superb, the photography is burnished and autumnal, and the film is honest and moving. What more could one want from a movie? Great conversation, fellas…
Tha Fuck? People who don’t like ORDINARY PEOPLE don’t like it because it’s devoid of head-choppings? Film buffs are ISIS glitterati in disguise Dean, sometimes they just want good films. Either way, back to the Strawmen gents!
opps, should read ‘Film buffs aren’t ISIS glitterati in disguise Dean…’
Thanks very much for the response there Jamie! Much appreciated
Dean, I have indeed remembered you valued this film highly from your decade and annual lists. I like the description of “quiet” and the photography as “burnished and autumnal,” and that in the end the film is honest and stirring. the film made a lasting impression on me back in 1980, and has lost nothing in all the ensuing years. Thanks for the exceeding kind words my friend.
Enthralling discussion. You and Bill had me nodding my head over and over. Ordinary People is a great film, and one that fits the countdown. Timothy Hutton gives a brilliant performance. Mary Tyler Moore is excellent. An intense drama with a powerful conclusion. Awesome post Sam!
Agreed, agreed and agreed Frank. Many thanks for the very kind words my friend!
Sammy, judging from my comments elsewhere today about the virtues of “The Deer Hunter” as against those of “Heaven’s Gate”, I would guess you can surmise that I have very deep affection for “Ordinary People”, whose effect on me is somewhat analogous when compared with that of “Raging Bull”. This is one of those rare instances, too, where the film for me transcended the novel (which I’d read some time beforehand) in bringing all its elements (cast, cinematography, musical score, content) into such a moving whole. I’ve never for a moment begrudged OP a single one of its Oscar wins, which in today’s climate, seem like a minor miracle. Thank you for bringing this great work into such broad and sharp focus all over again. Afterthought: for most anyone who’s ever sought therapy, Dr. Berger may be a bit idealized, but that portrayal is rather offset by the encouragement the existence of such as he may give.
Thanks so much for posting this spectacular response Van!!! So much appreciated!! I agree with everything you say here right down the line!! I concur that the film is even better than the very fine novel, and that all the components you site are magnificently applied!! And yes, i too could never argue about a single one of its Oscar wins!! A huge favorite of mine!! Thanks again my friend!
I never thought the end was “maudlin” Sam, but I did think it was a bit forced. It may have been “earned” as you suggest, but that does necessarily mean it was the best way to go. But I believe this was suggested by the source material. Anyway (I’ll use it too!) this was an amazing and creative way to tackle the film!
The film is superb, whether or not it won this award or that award. I think that the great reception back in 1980 probably hurt it down the line, though it really needs to be judged solely on the merit. The scenes with the psychiatrist still work. Hutton captures the character impressively, and the film compellingly shows how affluences can be brought down to the point where nothing of a material nature means anything.
Redford would never reach these heights again.
Tim, I respect your position on the finale, and much appreciate your passionate view of the film in general. I do of course agree with you on the scenes with Dr. Berger, which were powerfully rendered. Your other astute observations are dead on. Thanks for the kind words my friend.
Ordinary People is a good film with solid acting. It doesn’t hold a candle next to other 1980 heavyweights like Raging Bull, Kagemusha, and The Shining.
Maurizio, I am actually thrilled that you like the film, regardless of how in stands among the very best 80’s crop. Somehow I though you weren’t a fan. Thank you!
This is a terrific conversation about a film that is incredibly perceptive about family dynamics and the sometimes cruel ways some of us come of age. I have a lot of sympathy for Beth, as you know, Sam, from my review, because she just wasn’t equipped to face the hardships of life – hers had been charmed up to the time Bucky was lost. I have much less sympathy for Calvin because he totally misunderstands her. Conrad is the most honest character in the family because he knows all of them are hurting and tries to bring the family together as best he can.
Thanks so very much for that Marilyn! Well, I will admit I am substantially more reluctant to let Beth off the hook, and am more sympathetic than you are to Calvin. I found much of her activity and attitude in the sphere of condescension and entitlement, and she was cruel to Conrad and unable to emote. When the boy complained to Berger about her he stereotyped her, lumping her in with all mothers, saying “You know the way mothers are – they are all surface, etc.” Ironically he was correct, as Beth was a snooty socialite who cared only about the way things appeared and were structured. Similarly she berated Calvin for telling that woman at the party about the psychiatrist visits, and worried about how it would “look” to her friends that Conrad quit the swim team rather than her troubled child’s emotional well being. Worst of all was the appalling concern over the blood in her bathroom and how it impacted the tiles and the rug. She was the consummate narcissist, who seemed to regard everything in the way it applied to her. Calvin had problems without a doubt – he was weak and indecisive, but still came off as a loving man who cared the most about his family’s well-being. If Beth wasn’t equipped to face the hardships of life -and I don’t dispute what you say there- the problem really were self-inflicted the way I see it. Whatever “love” she was able to muster up was feelings that she applied as proper for her role in life. Inside she was more frigid and biting than dry ice. Still I mourned the final break, as I know she had previously shown the ability to impart affection (to her old son Buck).
I re-read your excellent review (linked below) and saw you blamed Calvin for the party visit, when he jokingly suggested that “Beth wanted to go to the movies.” As implied by the author Calvin was rightly bored with all the pretensions associated with that party and of his wife’s sponsorship of them.
Judith Guest made no bones about what she thought of her female protagonist in her acclaimed novel. And Redford remained loyal to that creation in the film.
I completely agree with you on Conrad. Absolutely.
Again the great comment is deeply appreciated here my friend.
Here is Marilyn Ferdinand’s superlative take on the film at FERDY ON FILMS (posted in 2010)
http://www.ferdyonfilms.com/?s=ordinary+people
Sam, I enjoyed your dialogue with Bill Riley for three reasons. You both exude real feeling about how films are received, while expressing your views in interesting ways. It’s nice to hear once again from Bill. And the subject of Ordinary People speaks to me loud and clear these days. (I’ll see the DVD as soon as possible.) The troubled ordinariness of the cast of characters in Blackhat is very interesting to me.
Thanks so very much for the fantastic comment Jim! Yes the subject of the film is surely as topical as ever. Also, your comparison with the “ordinariness” of the characters in Michael Mann’s BLACKHAT is a fascinating one!! Much appreciate the very kind words my friend!
It clearly wasn’t the best film of the year but that’s been a knock that is undeserved. It’s still a great film with great acting. Moore is so chilling. I like this one a lot Sam.
Jon, I would have to contest that statement “it clearly wasn’t the best film of the year.” Nothing is clear when it comes to the best film of 1980. I propose that ORDINARY PEOPLE ranks with RAGING BULL, THE SHINING and a few others, and depending on what day of the week you ask me, I will sometimes put Redford’s film at poll position.
That’s how great a film I think it is. But I am happy you are a fan nonetheless.
Quite a comment section. I always found it more than surprising that a female author (Guest) would portray the mother as so unsympathetic. But that is the story she told, and women have issues like men do. The moving bond between the father and son is what we take away from an essentially bleak story of a crumbling marriage that is exposed as shallow by an unexpected tragedy. I agree that Calvin isn’t blameless, but Mary Tyler Moore’s character like Guest’s Beth is a monster.
Was this a real dialogue Sam? Or was it just you talking for two people? Regardless, it was an ingenious way to approach the film. You had me captive, and largely in agreement. I must show this to Mark, as he loved the film as much as I do.
Celeste, you blew my cover there! hahahahaha!!! From the looks of the thread there are some who honestly believed this was a two-way conversation, when in fact I spoke for myself and “Bill.” Mind you, Bill Riley is a flesh and blood person who is a friend of mine for years (and an occasional commentator at WitD), but he did not engage in any kind of discussion with me. The entire presentation here was a ruse, employed for theatrical impact and as a change of pace. I have been known to do this kind of thing in the past. Bill Riley to be sure is a fan of ORDINARY PEOPLE (surprising since he favors foreign language cinema) but I have yet to get any kind of a comprehensive talk with him on it. In any case I do agree with you on Guest’s intentions with as per Beth, and will your summary judgement my friend! Many thanks!
I get emotional just reading this and remembering what a fine film ORDINARY PEOPLE was. Some truly fine acting by all (I don’t think Elizabeth McGovern was ever this good again, honestly) and a heartbreaking story. I know RAGING BULL is the greater artistic achievement of 1980, but this one hits me where I live, so to speak. Can’t believe I omitted this from my own ballot. Nice work, Sam.
Pat, I completely agree that Ms. McGovern never bettered her work in this searing film. Yes, this is a wrenching film indeed. I have always considered this as great a film as RAGING BULL, though I can understand one preferring the latter’s buffo style. But I hear ya. Many thanks my friend!
A fascinating piece, Sam, and the discussion format works very well here. I saw this on release, and had read the book before that, but I don’t think I’ve seen it again, so I don’t remember it in any detail after all these years. I will aim to revisit it soon, though this countdown is making my list of films to watch longer than ever!
Many thanks for that Judy! I do hope you get another crack at it, so we can compare notes. Though the film won some very big accolades, it was a victim of backlash as I explained above. It remains one of the most beautifully orchestrated of American dramas! Thanks again my friend!
I was completely spellbound by this review. I actually want to watch the film again tonight. I also released that three of the best films in it’s year used classical music, the other two being ‘The Elephant Man, and ‘Raging Bull’. It ranked with the best of it’s year, it’s a pity Redford never got to the same level again.
Wow Bobby!!! That is the ultimate compliment! Thrilled you are aiming to have another look! Great point about three of the year’s most masterful cinematic achievements utilizing celebrated classical compositions – Pachabel’s canon here, and the Barber and Mascagni in those other great films. I thought Redford made some good films after like A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT and QUIZ SHOW, but I do agree with you he never matched his debut! Thanks so much my friend! Great to see you here!
Hey there, I was wondering if I could use some of the “Ordinary People” photos for my blog. I would have course give proper attributions to your site. If that’s not cool, have a lovely day!
Hello. No problem at all my friend. Use whatever you’d like!!
Pretty much my favorite film of all time. I’ve been watching it On Demand lately, and just reveling in what an emotional masterpiece it is, on almost all levels.
RIP MTM – your portrayal of a grieving and detached mother has gone down in cinematic history.
Kudos to you Rick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! R.I.P. MTM.