Die Sensationsreporterin

... as audiences would not relate to anything this cynical prior to Watergate. This was made only seven years afterwards.

Sally Field is an ethically-challenged reporter. With the help of an even more unscrupulous federal investigator, played by Bob Balaban, she writes a story that implicates Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) in the disappearance & presumed murder of a union boss. Gallagher is on the radar because his uncle is a mobster. The film employs a procedural narrative that delivers little dramatic tension. The severest act happens off screen. The characters feel slightly underwritten. The exception is Melinda Dillon's poignant portrayal of Teresa Perrone, Gallagher's best friend, who occupies the moral epicenter.

While everyone else is playing a game of extreme cynicism, not uncommon in journalism and politics, Teresa feels most acutely. I liked the straight-forward approach and lack of style. Of course, director Sydney Pollack was never known as a stylist. I'm not saying this in the pejorative. I enjoy Pollack's work. Wilford Brimley makes a needed, late appearance to munch down on some scenery.

It does have the distinct feel of a film made to make a go for the Oscars, with Paul Newman making repeated failed runs at the Best Actor prize at this point in his career. Still Newman in the lead gave gave a film at that time the same amount of heft that Tom Hanks in the lead gives a film today.

There's really no other word for it. I find the whole of this movie compelling, from Sally Fields' naivete to Paul Newman's innocent who turns the tables on his prosecutors, to the various supporting characters who all have their little niche. The best of all is Wilford Brimley, who gets to chew scenery and totally steal the scene he's in. It's an intelligent drama, addressing a subject as relevant today as it was in '81, with just enough humor to leaven the whole thing.

This movie provides a clever insight into the principles the press live by. Reporters sometimes lose their basic humanity because they're not looking at the human interest, but at covering all the angles. What's newsworthy is what's in the public domain as fact, not gossip. It's definitely something to think about in this age when large sections of the media are intent on muckraking over the affairs of those who are deemed to be 'high-profile'...

The movie asks us, though, to keep in mind that sometimes there's more going on than meets the eye, and that certain acts function as a means to an end. It can be seen as an extension of that great 70's movie tradition where acclaimed directors make polished films exposing high-level corruption. "Absence of Malice" is an involving exercise in paranoid mystery, with Newman in fine form as always, and Sally Field providing capable support.

This movie looks to have all the elements of a classic but somehow falls short. Unscrupulous prosecutor dupes reporter Field into creating (false) impression that businessman Newman was involved in a murder, in the hope that will somehow help his investigation. The lie has unexpected and tragic consequences, after which Newman turns the tables. Field is fine as liberated yet vulnerable thirty-something, Newman is also good if a little obscure in a difficult role; but Brimley as Asst US Attorney steals the show when he finally blows the whistle on everyone. Brimley's short time in this movie really is classic and Oscar-quality. The overall problem here is a little too much soapbox and not enough real emotion from nearly everyone.

Absence of Malice is an alright drama that is smartly casted with Sally Field and Paul Newman. The story is interesting enough and moves along just fine until Wilford Brimley's character, he plays a no nonsense-no BS judge who sets everyone straight. It makes you grateful you sat through this okay film. Great job by Mr. Brimley. He makes it worth the price of admission(or video).