Reds begins in 1915 in Portland, Oregon, where Reed (Beatty), budding radical and chronicler of Pancho Villa's Mexican uprising, makes the acquaintance of Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), proto-feminist and aspiring writer. He and Louise become lovers amid the intellectual ferment of Greenwich Village and Provincetown, but her affair with the brilliant, melancholy Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) cleaves them asunder. Still, inspired by tumultuous events in Russia, they re-team for a mission to Moscow, where they rekindle their ardour and wind up storming the Winter Palace. Back in the US, Reed composes Ten Days That Shook the World while Louise discovers her own formidable voice. But Reed's factional feuds within the American Socialist Party lead him back to Moscow, where disillusion and heartbreak lie in store. Two years in production, shot across six countries, Reds was a massively risky undertaking. Producer-director Beatty hired the brilliant Trevor Griffiths as screenwriter, but other hands massagedthe script. Still, this is an epic in which the dialogues are as thrilling as the panoramas. Reed's dialectical tussles with Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton) and Grigory Zinoviev (writer Jerzy Kosinski) are worth the cost of a video, as are Keaton's stinging exchanges with Nicholson. This rathermagisterial endeavour won Beatty the Best Director Oscar in 1982. --Richard Kelly The film is very long, which could put off many- though it shouldn't as the material is of immense interest. This highly ambitious film opens with Reed living among bohemians/radicals in New York & Provincetown and charts his love affair with both Louise Bryant and communism. The first part of the film is more successful, where Bryant/Reed's affair goes up & down and Jack Nicholson comes between them in a brilliant portrayal of playwright Eugene O'Neill. This section is wonderfully photographed by Vittorio Storaro, the photographer of such brilliant films as The Conformist and Apocalypse Now Redux. Then as the relationship develops into marriage, various spectres rise: the conflict between love & principles, World War I and the complex world of socialism in America at that time (the so-called red decade). The latter half of the film, which sees Reed and Bryant go to Russia, where the revolution occurred and Reed wrote his classic account of it Ten Days That Shook the World. Again, Moscow looks stunning- though the film descends into a more conventional form- we get a sub-Zhivago reunion , Keaton's proto-feminist character is neutueured by devotion and we even get an action sequence (though this does end with the symbolic Reed chasing after a cart- the same shot as we saw from the opening shot of Reed in Mexico). The final scenes, where Reed is TB afflicted and Bryant sees a young child (the obligatory one they never had) is extremely conventional and melodramatic. The best feature of the film is the use of the 'witnesses'- people from the contemporary life of Bryant & Reed who offer opinions and perceptions on them. These are wonderful as they contradict each other and can be seen as Beatty stating that the sections where he & Keaton play Reed & Bryant it is fiction and the definitive notion of truth & realism in the biopic is impossible. Though Robert Rosenstone in Visions of the Past questions this technique- which could just be a result of being 'used' by Beatty for research purposes. The film was even satirised by Keaton's ex-lover Woody Allen with 1983's Zelig. Reds is one of the great films of American cinema, that would influence later directors such as Oliver Stone- the only criticism is that it tries to be too many things. Still, when was the last time you saw a high-budget film that tackled communism,sexual equality ,feminism, revolution and socialism? At this price it would be offensive not to watch this film- though to read behind the film, it might be pertinent to read the books Romantic Revolutionary & Ten Days that Shook the World. Having said that, the latter (Reed's masterpiece) fictionalised actual events- which puts into question the historian's frequent criticism of this film and the biopic in general. I suppose the equivalent film to Reds in the 1990's was Titanic, which demonstrates how far American cinema has sunk regarding ambition. Reds is one of Beatty's finest works also and a labour of love that was well worth making - even if it caused Beatty to vanish from cinema for several years following. A true classic.
Our Price: £15.14 (subject to change)
Editorial
Amazon.co.uk Review
In 1980, as President Reagan commenced his loony rhetorical war on the "the evil empire" ofSoviet Russia, thoughtful heartthrob Warren Beatty was labouring over Reds, a three-hour homage to the Bolshevik revolution, backed to the tune of $33 million by the Gulf + Western-owned Paramount Pictures. Beatty had long admired John Reed, the American journalist who witnessed Lenin's finest hours and was buried in the Kremlin after his death in 1920. To Beatty's great credit, he delivered a picture that is both epic pageant and tragic romance, replete with affectionate respect for the best traditions of socialism.
Beatty's wonderful epic .
Review date: 2002-10-22 Rating: 10 out of 10
Reds is the brilliant biopic of journalist/radical John Reed that Warren Beatty directed in 1981. This was a labour of love for Beatty, who had built up power in Hollywood to make this suitably epic film on such films as Shampoo and Heaven Can Wait.