From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT  (SPOILERS)
Summary: Story makes me sick
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:08:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.154602.7488@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (mark.r.leeper) writes:
>                           A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT
>                       A film review by Mark R. Leeper
> 
>           Capsule review:  Norman Maclean's autobiographical
>      novella is brought to the screen by the sure hand of director
>      Robert Redford.  I found the characters hard to care much
>      about and the scenery of more interest.  Others' mileage may
>      vary.  Rating: 0 (-4 to +4).
> 
>      As an actor Robert Redford is just not my cup of tea.  He generally
> plays someone handsome and callow and perhaps less than a deep thinker.
> When a film calls for someone to be handsome and callow and less than a
> great thinker, he can be good in a role.  I certainly cannot fault him for
> his contributions to films such as THE CANDIDATE and THE NATURAL.  But
>      In Missoula, Montana, of the 1920s the Reverend Maclean is a dry, stern
> Presbyterian minister of Scottish descent.  He leaves it to be assumed that
> behind his formal crustiness he may even have strong feelings for his
> children.  He expresses emotion for only dry fly fishing and believes there
> is no clean line between religion and fly fishing.  His two sons grow up
> loving each other and in subtle competition.  The older, Norman (played by
> Joseph Gordon-Levitt and later Craig Sheffer), is bookish and tentative,
> while the younger, Paul (played by Van Gravage and later Brad Pitt). is
> handsome, self-assured, and adventuresome.  As they grow older, Norman is
> reserved and religious, while Paul is more inclined to walking on the wild
> side.  Most of the story is set in one summer when Norman returns to Montana
> after graduating college.  The story is generally episodic, relating the
> relationship of the boys over that summer.
> 
>      Redford's direction and Philippe Rousselot's camera capture the beauty
> of Montana but then fails to make the people upstage the scenery.  At least
> this is the all-too-familiar story of the righteous son and the son tempted
> by women and strong drink.  The message is too much like what is real and
> good and true in life is getting out into nature and killing fish.  When it
> was all over, the characters I was rooting for all had gills.  In spite of
> the polish, I give this film only a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale, but that may be
> only that I did not connect with the characters.

I've been avoiding talking about this film, and I have no doubt it's
beautifully filmed and all, but the story is making me sick to my stomach.

I've never heard of Norman McLean, and I've never read his books, but
recently Smithsonian Magazine did a piece on the man, his book, his
family and the film, and then I saw Siskel and Ebert review it
and I've got to say SOMETHING.

First, Norman McLean's family was the sickest thing I've ever heard of.
Well not as bad as some that make the headlines, but Kenny Hardwick
is not likely to write a lyrical novel smoothing over the ugliness
of his life and then live long enough to make sure that any movie
version does not dig any deeper than his self delusions.

Rev. McLean was a bully, living vicariously though his sons and I
never had any doubts as I read this article that Paul would wind
up being beaten to death in a bar fight.  There was some talk that
he owed money to gamblers, and while I don't doubt it, the article
confirms that he was beaten to death on a night when he was out
spoiling for trouble.  How many other nights did someone else stagger
home beaten before he found that one person who would do him in?

The article said that the two boys would often come home drunk and
bruised from bar fights. The next morning their father (the man of
the cloth) would wake them up and ask them one question - who won?
If they said that they had won, he praised them lavishly and let them
sleep in.  If not - they had to get up and go to church as if that
was their punishment.  Notice he didn't ask them if the fight was
necessary, or justified, or even who had started it, only who had
won.  Could anyone doubt that Paul would spend his life finding bigger
and bigger men to beat up to be worthy of his father?  And could
anyone doubt that this quest could only end one way?

The article said that McLean wrote his book after a lifetime of mourning
for his lost brother.  I wonder if in all that time he could admit
to himself who was really responsible for that loss.  There was
a statement in the article that the Rev. McLean was, at one time,
his sons Scoutmaster, and that he threw the boys out of the troop.
What a loving father.

The other thing that really annoys me about this film is the
film critics who are leaping over backwards trying to ignore some
obvious truths.  Ebert even went so far as to say that this was not
really a story of Montana Protestants and fly fishing - but a 
"universal" story.  What a crock!  Tell the cult surrounding this
book that you were going to make movie of the book, but since it
was so universal you were going to move it to Brooklyn, make the
main characters a Rabbi and his sons and take out the fly fishing
and see how "universal" the story is to them.


marc colten