It really captured our memories of the time

Rating: 9/10 (30 October 2007)

My partner and I went to see Across the Universe without knowing very much about it. We both liked it very much and agreed that it really captured our memories of the time. I liked it so much that later that night I went on line to download some images from the film in order to print up a little 'promo' for the bulletin board in my shop which has a younger clientèle. I was totally taken aback when I began to come across an incredible amount of very negative reaction to the film. The Ann Hornaday review in the Washington Post was one of the nastiest pieces I have ever read in a mainstream paper.
Looking again at her review the next morning it seemed to me that it said more about the writer than about the film itself. And today, looking at some of the external reviews linked here on the IMDb this question comes to mind: Why has a movie so often dismissed as vapid, dull, and kitschy generated such an outpouring of venomous bile?
One theme seems to be that the film appeals to 'know-nothing' kids and 'nostalgic, aging boomers'. I might suggest (though I certainly can't prove) that the crowd that rejected all that 'Sixties nonsense' and brought themselves back down to earth to deal with practical matters are precisely the people who reject this movie. (You might check out the Ella Taylor review in the Village Voice which is linked in external reviews on the left-hand side of this page.) I think they hate it because the characters aren't properly punished at the end for all their idealism and they hate it because it makes them uncomfortable to see what they themselves have chosen to leave behind.
After all, George W. Bush could be a character in this film. He could have been any one of the Max's friends at Princeton, or even Max himself had Max 'sensibly' chosen to stay in school and pursue a career in politics. This country has 'sensibly' chosen to follow such a man who still seems to be driving golf balls off the roof without a thought to where they might land. But to use a roof for a free concert? Free for God's sake!! That would be unprofitable, illegal and so very naive!
To put it bluntly, this film 'sends the wrong message'. These days it makes many people feel uncomfortable to suggest, even for a moment, that perhaps Governor Moonbeam was more of a pragmatist than the Great Communicator. But look at a graph that charts the rise of the national debt. Was trickle down (voodoo) economics actually a 'realistic' policy? We're still dragging that huge bronze Statue of Liberty across foreign landscapes. Isn't that at least as unrealistic as "All you need is love..."? And Lucy's mother pleads that she just wants her daughter to be safe... such a post 9/11 thing to say... but isn't that at the price of her son's life at risk in Vietnam. The plot of this film is only vapid, dull and kitschy if you choose to block out anything meaningful it has to say.
OK... so my partner and I are both about 60 and we met on a rooftop on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1967 (and we're both guys). My shop 'promo' read: "To get a notion of how I remember the Sixties see: Across the Universe". We both loved this movie and urge you to see it too.