Beautiful Dreamers

I found the one and only comment about this movie entirely uninformative and altogether too harsh, so I have decided to write my own. I first saw this movie when it came out and have caught it a few times more since then. First of all let me say that, overall, the things that this movie gets RIGHT are what make it worthwhile. It doesn't matter that it has some low budget quirks and other faults. It is worth watching. The idea of basing a movie on Walt Whitman's visit a restrictive, narrow-minded Anglo-Canadian community in Southern Ontario and bringing people to life is a brilliant mis-en-scene. The movie is about the kind of humanizing catalysis Whitman inspired in people. And in that sense it is exactly accurate. The acting - especially by Rip Torn (Whitman) and Colm Feore as the doctor - is very good. The scripting and dialogue are strong and pay proper attention to the mores and inflections of the time. Overall, what's not to like? Besides, name another film in which Whitman is brought so vividly to life?

This was a complete disappointment. The acting isn't bad, but the production was just so bad that at times I felt I needed to stop it, but I sadly made it through and was able to finish it a bit embarrassed by the whole poor movie. It is o.k. if you are o.k. with cheesy moral plots and don't mind watching a movie that vastly misconstrues Whitman. If you want a cheesy fictional story go for it.

Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.

This movie treats the mentally ill as human beings, and presents a fictionalized but more-or-less historical encounter between the director of a mental institution in Canada and the very controversial Walt Whitman. If you dislike movies that ask you to think AND feel, you will not like this movie. But for anyone with any knowledge of how the mentally ill have been treated throughout history and who have actually known people who are mentally ill, this movie touches something that as human beings we all share. You do not have to be religious at all to recognize the fundamental truth of Matthew 36 - 40 (or at least 39 - 40). Have a look before you jump to any conclusion.

This little film had long been on my "keeper" list. Do people realize how stressed out, menopausal, emotionally abused women (as well as the mentally retarded) were REALLY treated by the medical profession at the turn of the century??!! All of the pious uptight Christian attitudes of that time were deadly to exploring TRUE emotional feelings that would allow us to embrace suffering souls, let alone explore what it means to embrace our humanity. Can you really imagine (by today's standards) that Walt Whitman's books were banned because he acknowledged women as having feelings and emotional responses as great as a mans? Think about that! The sensitivity of this movie still gets me and I give credit to the director for capturing this through his eyes.