Nobody's Fool (1994)
A stunning mix of moving, touching performances and dialog with some awkward directing and editing. The movie feels a bit cheap or sloppy, even, and yet there are moments when it shines and when you feel its depth and it's potential.
And then there is Paul Newman. He's the lead throughout, the title character no doubt, and he gives an utterly convincing, nuanced, unflinching portrayal of a tough old guy in a small town. He isn't quite the lovable one that everyone loves despite his flaws--that would be too much of a cliché, and the movie avoids at least that one big cliché perfectly. With Newman's help. He's a bit too gruff and makes too many truly hurtful decisions to automatically make him a diamond in the rough, a sweetie with a leather exterior. But the viewer can see soon enough how genuine he is, thoroughly thoroughly genuine.
He doesn't coddle, he doesn't waffle. He knows what he's about. And he really is admirable for steadily getting small things done for the good of others, though you can hardly tell sometimes. The fact that he ignores common decency (like driving his pickup truck on the sidewalk) is not quite charming, but it adds to his honesty, ironically.
The rest of the cast sounds impressive but doesn't have nearly as much to do, not with any depth, though with sincerity in the performances. Bruce Willis has a role that constrains him more than you'd think, as a younger building contractor who is a bit of a rake. Jessica Tandy is a sharp, lovable older woman who rents to her upstairs to Newman. Melanie Griffith has a small role and is charming in her distinctive way, and we even see, briefly, Philip Seymour Hoffman in an unlikely role as the local cop.
The director (and screenwriter) is Robert Benton, who is best known (to me) as the director (and writer) for "Kramer vs. Kramer." I'm guessing it was because of that, and the kind of interpersonal story at stake, the allowed him to gather such an impressive cast. It would be a wild guess to understand why it doesn't quite work--my first inkling is merely that he was screen writing about someone else's original story and it was something he didn't know about first hand. Some of the lines are off, some of the humor gets silly, and in one or two cases you just want to say, no way.
Even with the elevating humor to the tale you expect it to maintain its realism which it mostly does. It's set in the mid-Hudson Valley, where I've lived for 30 years, and there were lots of familiar places. They got the feel of the little towns slightly down on their luck really nicely, and the damp cold of winter adds to the overall ambiance. (There are directing quirks here, too, like never plowing the streets, and anyone who lives in an area with snow knows that the main streets, and even the smaller ones, get plowed often and well. But hey, it looks good, all that white.)
What's to take away from this? A beautiful sense of integrity. The father-son dynamics are too forced to work, the seeming true friendships that exists or not between some characters isn't always fleshed out, and the weird relationship between Newman and Willis is crude and off-kilter. It's not a great film on many terms. But the development of Newman as a persona, as a type of person, is amazing. And he's amazing. Enough to see the movie just for his contribution.
A stunning mix of moving, touching performances and dialog with some awkward directing and editing. The movie feels a bit cheap or sloppy, even, and yet there are moments when it shines and when you feel its depth and it's potential.
And then there is Paul Newman. He's the lead throughout, the title character no doubt, and he gives an utterly convincing, nuanced, unflinching portrayal of a tough old guy in a small town. He isn't quite the lovable one that everyone loves despite his flaws--that would be too much of a cliché, and the movie avoids at least that one big cliché perfectly. With Newman's help. He's a bit too gruff and makes too many truly hurtful decisions to automatically make him a diamond in the rough, a sweetie with a leather exterior. But the viewer can see soon enough how genuine he is, thoroughly thoroughly genuine.
He doesn't coddle, he doesn't waffle. He knows what he's about. And he really is admirable for steadily getting small things done for the good of others, though you can hardly tell sometimes. The fact that he ignores common decency (like driving his pickup truck on the sidewalk) is not quite charming, but it adds to his honesty, ironically.
The rest of the cast sounds impressive but doesn't have nearly as much to do, not with any depth, though with sincerity in the performances. Bruce Willis has a role that constrains him more than you'd think, as a younger building contractor who is a bit of a rake. Jessica Tandy is a sharp, lovable older woman who rents to her upstairs to Newman. Melanie Griffith has a small role and is charming in her distinctive way, and we even see, briefly, Philip Seymour Hoffman in an unlikely role as the local cop.
The director (and screenwriter) is Robert Benton, who is best known (to me) as the director (and writer) for "Kramer vs. Kramer." I'm guessing it was because of that, and the kind of interpersonal story at stake, the allowed him to gather such an impressive cast. It would be a wild guess to understand why it doesn't quite work--my first inkling is merely that he was screen writing about someone else's original story and it was something he didn't know about first hand. Some of the lines are off, some of the humor gets silly, and in one or two cases you just want to say, no way.
Even with the elevating humor to the tale you expect it to maintain its realism which it mostly does. It's set in the mid-Hudson Valley, where I've lived for 30 years, and there were lots of familiar places. They got the feel of the little towns slightly down on their luck really nicely, and the damp cold of winter adds to the overall ambiance. (There are directing quirks here, too, like never plowing the streets, and anyone who lives in an area with snow knows that the main streets, and even the smaller ones, get plowed often and well. But hey, it looks good, all that white.)
What's to take away from this? A beautiful sense of integrity. The father-son dynamics are too forced to work, the seeming true friendships that exists or not between some characters isn't always fleshed out, and the weird relationship between Newman and Willis is crude and off-kilter. It's not a great film on many terms. But the development of Newman as a persona, as a type of person, is amazing. And he's amazing. Enough to see the movie just for his contribution.