Considering the subtlety and intimacy of this drama, a lot of the effectiveness rests on the shoulders of screenwriter Alvin Sargent, whose script is rather monotonous in its dramatic and structural excessiveness, but clever enough to carry respectable grace, and a degree of subtlety with it, which humanizes thorough characterization and dramatic scene structuring as genuine. The film's story concept is familiar and rather straightforward in its dramatic momentum, but the themes of this drama are of great importance, focusing on how terrible of an impact a tragic event can have on a family and its individual members, on an emotional and cerebral level that is by no means as ordinary as the victims of these personal turmoils supposedly are. The film would have made that descent if all of the meanderings weren't punctuated so sharply by solid heights in storytelling which shine a light on just how worthy this drama's subject matter is. The film takes so long to get its points, losing a sense of progression that more it circles around a formulaic and relatively simple path in a limp manner that wears you down, almost to the point of driving the final product into underwhelminginess.
I've already dealt with how simple this story is in a lot of ways, so, naturally, the runtime of over two hours is a little questionable achieved through a whole lot of inconsequential, or at least meandering material whose excessiveness is stressed by its getting to be just plain repetitious, if not monotonous after a while. As a matter of fact, I don't know if extremes to the directorial thoughtfulness so much overcompensate for the subtlety issues, as much as the subtlety issues break up overly subdued direction, whose consistency begets flat style and sober atmosphere that gets fairly dull upon find a point in storytelling in which material really falls out. The subtlety lapses are rare, and hardly considerable once they do fall into play, but whether they be within some theatrical writing, or within obvious imagery, they stand overemphasizing ambitious themes, at least until Robert Redford's direction overcompensates for the dramatic missteps. Kramer", but this film takes from a lot of distinguished dramatic properties in its vein and time frame, being almost hopelessly predictable, particularly when it goes so deep into formula that it loses subtlety. I joke about this being some sort of an answer to "Kramer vs. Though plenty interesting, this film's subject matter is relatively simple, with certain major characters whose intrigue is not truly realized until they really find their place into a tale of dysfunction which has only so much momentum and extensive consequentiality, and isn't even unique. It helps that the film is actually good, at least about as much as it can be, even with its natural shortcomings. Seriously though, I'd say that this was a pretty successful debut for Redford as a director, although, in all fairness, we are talking about Robert Redford, and in 1980, everyone was still on a high for films about brutal family dysfunction from "Kramer vs. Not even the film's director looks like an ordinary person, although, outside of Hollywood, you might be more likely to find people who look as funny as the leads sooner than someone who looks as pretty as Robert Redford, which would explain why Redford chose to hide behind the camera with this film.
Man, as weird-looking as Mary Tyler Moore looks now, and as weird-looking as Donald Sutherland and Judd Hirsch have always been, I don't know how ordinary these people are. "I've seen all ordinary people turn their heads each day! So satisfied, I'm on my way!" I'm not going to reference the John Legend song that is actually titled "Ordinary People", nor am I going to reference the more fitting song of the same name by "The Kinks", because I think everyone would kind of like to forget about the "Soap Opera" album.
0 kommentar(er)
