A central theme in Warren Beattyâs work as star/producer-turned-writer/director is what happens when romantic, political or personal ideals meet a hostile or more complicated reality, and how that lays bare all their charactersâ flaws and failures. Itâs less a rejection of the believer than recognition that the circumstances that shape their fortunes are often contingent and beyond their control, and how quickly time leaves them by. This obsession, further explored later in Bulworth and my beloved Rules Donât Apply, is best articulated in Reds.
The domestic arguments between the two are not disconnected from the political bull sessions and internecine arguments, theyâre a reflection of how each relationship (personal or political, individual or collective) is a series of navigations of often conflicting needs and interests. I find the parallel between their attempts to reject traditional social expectations and their belief in the revolution especially effective, as I donât think the film simply rejects these things as impossible and foolhardy. Instead, it takes these ideas and convictions seriously while showcasing the gulf between what we envision for ourselves and what happens in practice
The use of documentary interviews (âWitnessesâ) as a sort of Greek chorus only further underscores the filmâs deceptive slipperiness. The presence of Hugo Gellert, George Jessel, Henry Miller et al gives the film a greater texture and historical perspective, but their perspectives are limited, useful but also usefully imperfect on a thematic and formal level. Witnesses contradict each other and themselves, misremember things, praise or bury Reed, and often work as an ironic counterpoint to what we actually see or simply as another voice in Redsâ choir of contrasting interests. Dirty old Miller is especially funny and sometimes incisive, but are we meant to take his contention that âa guy whoâs always interested in the condition of the world and chancing it has no problems or refuses to face themâ at face value? No more than weâre meant to take Eugene OâNeillâs analysis of Jack and Louise at face value, Iâd wager
seeing this on film >