From: rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Subject: REVIEW: HOFFA
Reply-To: rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:05:33 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01679
Keywords: author=Hogan

				 HOFFA
		   A ten-step film review by Ron Hogan
			Copyright 1993 Ron Hogan

1)  Readers of my review of GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS know about how I took to
a description of David Mamet as our "goombah Pinter."  We're somewhat
fortunate to have two Mamet-scripted films released so closely together,
but even a Mamet fan such as myself has to admit that this isn't his
strongest work.  Though I think that part of the reason that this is the
case is that Mamet is either writing against his best qualities or that
those qualities were ignored during the transformation from script to
screen.  As I noted before, one of Mamet's best assets is the ability to
show character not through grand action, but naturalistic dialogue.  And
while some scenes of HOFFA display that asset, most notably the framing
sequence outside the diner on the last day of Hoffa's life, there are
many other cases in which characters prove themselves through speaking
not as a natural outflow of the situation, but as mouthpieces for some
position or standpoint.

2)  In his book ON DIRECTING FILM, Mamet calls for the same minimalism
is film technique that he does in writing.  He describes film as "a
succession of images juxtaposed so that the contrast between these
images moves the story forward in the mind of the audience," and argues
that "you should always be striving to make a silent movie."  He
directly acknowledges his debt to Eisenstein for this notion of film
art.  Which becomes relevant to the discussion of HOFFA not only because
of Mamet, but because HOFFA, like Einsenstein's best films, is about the
politics of labor and class struggle (which I'll address more fully in
#7).  On the stylistic level, Danny DeVito does seem to borrow some
visual tropes from Eisenstein, especially in the strike scenes.  I'm
thinking of the trial sequence in particular, told primarily through
overlapping close-ups and other purely cinematic flairs: dissolves et
al.  Getting the story told through the way that the shots are
connected, rather than having everything explained.  As Mamet says, "the
audience requires not *information* but *drama*," and HOFFA provides
more of the latter than the former.

3)  But since this is a biographical film, information is required.  I
have noticed a very strong resurgence in the biographical film within
the last few months.  Early in the fall, of course, we had the Columbus
films, then MALCOLM X, now HOFFA and CHAPLIN.  As these films, and the
biographical films of Oliver Stone (to pick another recent example)
show, a biographical film is *always* a political film.  Of course, any
film is a political film in that it presents an ideological position,
but this is especially true of films that make a claim to represent
history.  They are equivalent to saying "this *is* the way the world
is."  Because of film's powerful mimetic qualities, the images in
historical/biographical films attain a certain level of reality within
our culture.

4)  In my review of MALCOLM X, I mentioned that the film was positioning
Malcolm as a role model, a positioning that is fairly standard within
the biographical film.  If a film doesn't call for direct emulation of
its biographical subject, it generally calls for appreciation.  I caught
some flak for this from one reader, on the argument that Malcolm X isn't
his idea of a great role model.  I imagine that if I were to make the
same claim in the same way for Jimmy Hoffa, I would receive the same
kind of complaints.  So I'll have to say that while the historical Jimmy
Hoffa leaves a lot to be desired as a role model, the protagonist of
HOFFA is clearly meant to have heroic qualities that the audience is
intended to appreciate.  He's a tough guy, a nobler version of the
characters I was talking about in earlier reviews--capitalist warriors.

5)  And not just a warrior, but a general, an organizer of the army of
workers.  In this respect, I see a very strong parallel with MALCOLM X:
both protagonists organize a disenfranchised group in the struggle to,
as Hoffa puts it, "get what we came down here for."  The scene in which
Hoffa makes his, "In every conflict there are casualties" speech feels a
lot like the scene in MALCOLM X in which Malcolm organizes the show of
force outside the police station and the march to the hospital.  In both
cases, it's an issue of "what has been lost?  what has been gained?"
And, as the police officer says of Malcolm, Hoffa is dangerous precisely
because of the amount of power he holds--"that's too much power for one
man."  Odd that both men had to be deposed from their positions of
power, and then silenced by assassination.

6)  The thing about Hoffa is that he "a man who isn't afraid to get his
hands dirty."  His particular claim to power in HOFFA is that he is a
working man, like the working men that he represents.  But even more so.
"I'm gonna do what I gotta do"--takin' care of business isn't just a
job for Hoffa, it's the core of his being.  Arguably, he is not only the
leader of the forces of labor, but the archetype of Labor itself.  As I
said, though, this point is open to a lot of debate.

7)  Now, on to the issue of class struggle.  The banquet speech in which
Hoffa claims that the Teamsters have brought the workers into the middle
class is one of the most telling of the film.  It starts with the riot
outside the factory, where the capitalist overlords look down on the
rabble from the top floors of their "castle."  (By the way, one of the
most classically Eisensteinian sequences of the entire movie)  At that
point, the workers *are* just the rabble, but Hoffa and the Teamsters
struggle to raise the class level of labor.  Pensions for laborers and
so on, culminating in visions such as retirement villages for Teamsters.

8)  Robert Kennedy makes a very interesting statement with regard to
this point: the statement that there is a danger of "co-option of the
field of labor" by Hoffa and his cronies.  So what Hoffa sees, and the
audience is supposed to see, as the liberation of the working class, is
characterized by its opponents as a "co-option."  RFK becomes a figure
representing the "ruling classes" holding the workers in ideological
bondage, and becomes a quasi-"bad guy" within HOFFA because of his
opposition to the methods in which Hoffa attempts to liberate the
working class--or is that opposition not just to the methods, but to
the very concept of a liberated field of labor?

9)  Politics enters into play again with Hoffa's pardon by Nixon, and
the special deal worked out between Teamster leaders and Charles
Coulson, Nixon's special counsel.  I don't have enough of a background
in Nixon history to comment too much on this, but the power dynamics--
further connection between government and labor--point in interesting
directions.

10) I've saved the ending of the film for the end.  Since this is a 
biographical film, and everybody knows Hoffa is dead, I don't consider
that revelation a spoiler, though I will refrain from revealing the
means posited within the film.  I will say, however, that any historical
film has to deal with the issue of portraying that which is known and
that which is not known about its subject, and the creation of an
effective (i.e., narratively seamless, in the Classical Hollywood Cinema
tradition) union of the two.  By that nature, all historical films are
conjectural, as is all history for that matter.  Interesting historical
criticism on these points includes Hayden White, Michel de Certau, Simon
Schama, and Carlo Ginzburg.  As for specific discussion of biographical
film, I'd recommend George Custen's BIOPICS.  A useful introduction to
the issues at stake in biographical motion pictures, though it limits
itself to the heyday of the studio system, and makes the (in my humble
opinion) mistaken claim that the biographical film has since diminished
in importance.  As I said in point #3, it's very strong now, and I feel
it's here to stay.

Ron Hogan
rhogan@usc.edu
comments welcome

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews