Reds (1981)

"Reds" in one of the most strangest but magnificent films ever to come out of the category "epics". It is a grand political epic, but I say it is strange because it actually is much more than that. It spends a larger amount of its 3h10 minutes with a human and humorous portrayal of its lead couple, in a fantastic and funny screenplay and a large array of superb supporting characters, and only half way through does it plunge head on into politics, without leaving the thread of its humane side. It may not be grandiose as Lean's epics, or lavish or melodramatic, but its a work from the heart which strikes a powerful chord without being condescending nor imposing on the audience. This is the labor of love of actor-turned-director Warren Beatty (initiating a long tradition of such famous actors who won recognition and Oscars for directing and not for acting, such as Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson), which was nominated for 12 Oscars and won 3 (director, cinematography, and supporting actress). Actually its the last movie ever to be nominated for the 4 acting categories, which reflects the magnificence of its cast. It tells the real life story of John Reed (convenient name!), a political journalist who in the 1910s became fascinated with the communist teachings and revolution and eventually lead the movement for the Communist Party in the USA, ending up being prossecuted by the US government and ending his days in Russia. Beatty tells the story as a semi-documentary, with real interviews to persons who knew him being shown from time to time, as the "movie" itself portrays episodes of his life, in a brilliant flowing way, with clever editing and a fabulous, and I mean fabulous, use of voice-off narration for the time-passing sequences. Most notably, as I said, the first hour and a half portrays his relationship to Diane Keaton, a free spirited writer who would become his wife, in the 1910s society at the point of the first world war. The screenplay is amuzing and slowly gives some inklings of the communist "threat" but maintaining the focus on the couple and the social environment they live in, with the likes of playwriter Eugene O'Neil (played to perfection by Jack Nicholson, with whom Keaton's character eventually has an affair), and revolutionaries Edward Herrmann and Maureen Stapleton (unnoticeable for 2 hours almost, but powerful enough in the last stretch of the film to clench her the Oscar). After the Russian Revolution and when Reed goes there to be recognized as the leader of USA's communist party, the movie becomes, then yes, much more political, as he struggles to keep true to the principles of communism and propagate them, when all the world around him falls apart. Keaton lives her life but always comes back to him, and their love is powerful, and we don't need any scene to show us that. We just know it. Warren Beatty became, as its known, very much politically involved in his middle age, but here he was clever enough not to be clouded by a full frontal attack nor judgement. He created a movie masterpiece, a story centred on characters and not ideologies, a story centred on people and not on politics. Yet, at the back of it, the principles are there and try to penetrate at various points of a picture, but you can accept them or not, its up to you. "Reds" is a 3 hour epic about a love of a man and a woman, who happened to live at a time of great social uproar, and who tried to make a statement whilst trying to hold to their relationship. There is a political message inherent, yes. It attacks some of the base traditions of the american system, yes. But it wouldn't have won the Oscars it did if it was not above all those things. It is. It is indeed. This is the last great stand of Warren Beatty, both as a director or an actor, but what a great stand it is, especially the first half. I am a non political man myself, and I loved this picture. The second best "russian epic" ever, after, off course "Dr. Zhivago".