criterionforum.org

I've long been a huge Bob Roberts fan and had been meaning to check this film out for the longest time, but I was still very surprised and impressed with the aesthetic virtuosity displayed by Robbins as a director in this film. That opening ten minute "unbroken" crane shot is insane, and the cast is astonishing-- I didn't even realize how many great actors were involved beforehand. I knew it was a bomb both financially and critically, but I kept thinking two things while watching the film:

01 This must have cost a fortune to make and

02 What producers were insane enough to think a film this specific in its political message would ever recoup or garner enough critical/award nods? I think while those in the industry are overwhelmingly liberal, mainstream critics split about the same as the country, 50/50, and few big films like this wear their left-leaning politics quite so transparently on their sleeves. I think it's tempting to say those opposed to the film were opposed for ideological reasons, but that's not really fair. I enjoy a lot of conservative films and am able to recognize them as being conservative without rejecting them outright, so surely it must go both ways?

The film is earnest and sincere to the point of being a little on the nose at times, but I don't think you can represent the times and events of this film without backing the left-- at least I'd hope not! The film assumes that audiences will be familiar with the New Deal, the first wave of the Red Scare, the federal funding of theatrical performances, the Diego Rivera mural, and mid-30s national and international politics. Cradle Will Rock proceeds so swiftly that I found myself respecting Robbins for moving quickly and not holding the audience's hand-- and then I read these trite negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that claim he does just that and what's more, supposedly "condescends to the audience"? If I may retort: "Unh unh." Undeniably this film can be at times both inspiring and indulgent, but I found myself welcoming the sensation all the same.

I also want to add to the praise of this unjustly neglected film. I think earnestness is a quality that is often derided in Hollywood film today, and while Robbins' film is, like Domino said, indulgent at times, its sheer energy makes one ignore its flaws.

I always am curious to see films directed by actors, because often they understand how to get great performances out of others (Kevin Costner excluded). I thought for the most part "Cradle Will Rock"'s cast was great, especially Hank Azaria as Blitzstein and John Turturro as the fictional actor, and Ruben Blades was a pitch-perfect Diego Rivera.

I, however, thought Angus Macfadyen's Orson Welles was all wrong (Welles was far from the drunken idiot made out to be here), and I was a little bothered by the casting of Hearst, seeing as how the real Hearst weighed about three times the size of the frail old man in this film.

I think "Cradle Will Rock" succeeds completely as a film meant to be representational of ideas. The characters are meant to be symbolic, but Robbins weaves them together in such a loving and intricate way they rarely seem solipsistic. They aren't real people, exactly, but I didn't care; i was too busy falling in love with their spirit. Anyone who has ever been a part of a small, uphill battle known as "community theater" should be able to relate to "Cradle"'s positive vibes.

I won't go into it here, but the WPA is a fascinating part of theater history, and the poster and design work of the time is breathtaking. Feast your eyes on these!

This film has a vitality and sincerity most Hollywood prestige pictures lack.

Edit: Wow, I need to stop beginning my sentences with 'I." Dammit...