Ragtime

I finished reading Doctorow's novel just before it was announced that production had started on the movie. I remember thinking, "How the hell do you make a movie of a book where the central characters are named 'Mother,' 'Father,' and 'Mother's Younger Brother?'"

Milos Forman showed how: In a word, beautifully.

And "Ragtime" is beautiful, stunning in its recreation of early 1900s New York, utilizing a script which somehow ties together the central events and their effects on its main characters as well as one of the finest, most haunting soundtracks (Randy Newman, who went so far as to compose several original 'ragtime' numbers) in the past twenty years, topped off with a first-rate cast.

James Cagney was the big news, of course, and deservedly so: Emerging from twenty years of retirement, he showed that he'd not only not lost anything but had added to his expertise. Add Mary Steenburgen, Mandy Patinkin, James Olsen, Howard Rollins, Keith McMillan and even Elizabeth McGovern (each of them perfectly cast), to name but a few, and you see where Forman wasn't missing a bet.

"Ragtime" suffers, ultimately, due to lapses in editing -- the most grievous lapse the cutting of a short scene which explains Commissioner Waldo's motivation behind the action he ultimately takes with Coalhouse Walker. Some cuts are always necessarily (especially in a movie as sprawling as this), yet that cut -- and several others -- flaw this beauty of a film.

But not fatally. Not at all. More than twenty years later, "Ragtime" is still gorgeous.

Ragtime is a movie that has obvious aspirations to the epic, but never quite makes it. Multiple plot lines go nowhere, only to be neatly resurrected at some random time in the future, just to remind us that everything is 'linked'. Characters go off on random tangents for no apparent reason, things just happen, you get the idea. The central subplot is actually reasonably compelling, but even then it suffers from being slightly haphazard, with all but the very central characters basically behaving in a completely random manner. All this being said, Ragtime is not a bad movie per se, it's sumptuously shot and the acting is mostly pretty good, once the main subplot gets moving, it's pretty engaging.

Ragtime is based on the book of the same name, I didn't know this when I was watching the movie, but it's pretty obvious that the script has suffered from attempting to compress the book, even then, the movie still weighs in at a hefty two and a half hours, one can't help feeling that they should have just concentrated on developing the main story properly, instead of trying to throw in the kitchen sink.

In conclusion: Well done, a little bit of a mess, probably worth a go if you're looking for a period drama.

'Ragtime' by E.L. Doctorow was one of those important ground breaking books.

It deserved a better translation to film. Having read the book numerous times over the years, what struck me about the film was that it was largely undecipherable if you had not first read the book. The book is a rich tapestry of American society, its values, behaviour and so on of the day. The film focuses on 2 sub-plots only - Nesbit Thaw and Coalhouse Walker Jr. The character - mother's Younger Brother was largely sacrificed - this introverted complex character - was portrayed only as Nesbit-Thaw's lover and a terrorist - with no development of how he became to be these. The relationship between Father and Mother too was badly handled, especially the Mother's leaving with the Russian film maker (silhouette artist).

The film simply does not even begin to scratch this surface. The film is a major disappointment.

A short commentary: Having read through a few of the comments here, I note that there are several which express disappointment that the movie didn't do the book justice. Personally, having read the book some time after seeing the movie, I can understand their point, but realistically it's the type of book which would be nearly be impossible to do justice to, as there are so many broad interwoven threads in the book that it would require at least a 6 hour movie to even scratch the surface, and even then, putting it all together into a singular coherent whole which would hold the viewer's interest for that long would be quite a mean feat indeed. So instead of looking at it as an attempt to fully capture the book, it might be best to simply appreciate it for what it is, rather than what it isn't. And I believe that on its own terms it succeeds admirably, and remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

Another way of looking at this, as an introduction to the book, rather than vice versa it has some value on those terms. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the movie I might never have happened upon the book, and never known what I'd missed.

I read E.L. Doctorow's novel many many years ago and have forgotten a lot of it. I do remember that Emma Goldman was a major and vibrant character, and I believe that Harry Houdini also had a sizable role. Houdini is only glimpsed briefly in context of newsreel footage in the Milos Forman film adaptation of the novel, and Emma Goldman isn't a character at all. This leads me to conclude based on my fuzzy recollection of the novel that the movie pretty liberally adapted its transition to screen, which I suppose will disappoint those who wanted a more faithful version.

I'm glad, though, that I have forgotten the novel so much, because I was able to enjoy the film for what it is rather than for what it fails to be. And what it is is a pretty damn good movie, and one that seems to have been unfairly forgotten. It garnered 8 Academy Award nominations in the year of its release (though it won none of them), so clearly it had fans back in 1981. But you never hear about this movie now.

It's true that in weaving together the many plot strands of Doctorow's novel into a tapestry of American life at turn of the 20th century, the screenplay doesn't do all of its story lines justice. I'm thinking mostly of a plot featuring Mandy Patinkin as a Jewish immigrant who goes from selling street art in a city ghetto to successful filmmaker. The movie abandons his character for such long stretches of time, and doesn't elaborate on how he got from point A to point B, that his story arc is not only jarring but seems implausible. But otherwise the good greatly outweighs the bad in this movie, and we get the central story of radical activist Coalhouse Walker, Jr., a black man whose quest for justice leads him to criminal and bloody places, as well as the tangential story of ditsy movie star Elizabeth McGovern as she moves from one sugar daddy to another. Howard E. Rollins, Jr. received an Oscar nomination for playing Coalhouse Walker, and he anchors the film with a serious, impassioned gravitas. At the other end of the spectrum, McGovern, also Oscar nominated, gives a bonkers performance as Evelyn Nesbit as delightful as it is weird.

But most impressive to me was the performance of James Olson, who you never hear about in connection with anything, as the patriarch of an affluent family and the film's reluctant hero, a man whose own moral sense of justice won't let him sit by and enjoy his position of white privilege.

The film is full of all sorts of good actors giving equally good performances: Mary Steenburgen, Brad Dourif, a barely recognizable Debbie Allen, and, last but not least, James Cagney, clearly old and past his prime, but whose natural charisma nevertheless comes practically pouring off the screen.

In addition to its two supporting acting nominations, "Ragtime" received Oscar nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score, and Best Original Song ("One More Hour"). I'm not a big fan of Randy Newman in general, but his score for this film is one of my all-time favorites, and I could listen to "One More Hour" at least once a day.

Grade: A