Dalton Trumbo

I have seen so many documentaries about this era. The Hollywood blacklist, McCarthyism.

However, this takes a fresh, personal look at what happened. It shows how folks actually handled this, rather than just the circumstances of the time and newsreels of Congress hearings. How did they do it? This shows the how and when, the risks. Of course, Trumbo captures the full story of the persecution.

Stay to the very end of the film, stay for the credits as some of the clips they show are so meaningful.

I don't know if Trumbo was the person shown in the film, but if he was, he was an American hero. I think films like this represent the spirit, the best or worst of the spirit of what happened.

Trumbo wasn't just a hero from the look of it, he was also a survivor who made his way through the worst of it and came out on the other side.

I happened only 70 years ago and so many young people have never even heard about it. How can it be? And, how dangerous. Not to know will always put you at a disadvantage, oh yes, sooner or later. Trumbo feels like a story set in a totalitarian Country and yet...The spread of fear is a powerful weapon used by self-aggrandizing sociopaths. Joe McCarthy's success is still a mystery to me and Trumbo proves, in the most riveting way, how easily we can fall in that trap. Bryan Cranston is simply, sensational portraying a true American in all its contradictions. I never really thought of the actual degradation Trumbo and the other blacklisted writers went through until I saw it in Bryan Cranston's face. David James Elliott portrayal of John Wayne is chilling and disturbing, specially because id true. I've heard from people who knew him, what a nice man Duke was and yet...Helen Mirren as Hedda Hopper was another chilling and unexpected portrait of utter ignorance. I've only recently found out that she was behind the forces that wanted Charles Chaplin out of the Country. Congratulations to director Jay Roach and to a spectacular cast. Let's hope everyone pays attention.

Okay. I'll admit that I gave this film a ten because it should have a higher score altogether than the 7.3 it has, and I wanted to up it. But a solid 8 at least or even a 9, for sure. There are at least two reasons why this fine film is not getting a higher rating, I believe. One is that there are many people (including critics) who look only at it from a political standpoint, both left and right. And those on the right are not going to like it no matter what, fine acting, writing or whatever. The same in the left but conversely (and a smaller number). Secondly, this is a slow and thoughtful film that will not go over with many young viewers who are used to fast paced action and CGI content. they will find neither in Trumbo.

But, for students of history and for people who like a good story, without the fluff, it is all here. Classic good vs evil dynamics coupled with the inherent contradictions. The struggle of lost faith and eventual redemption. And perhaps mostly, excellent social dynamics especially centered around family loyalty and the struggle of holding to ones personal values.

As for the history, there is much here. As stated above more than any film ever having dealt with the subject. Films like "the Front" and "Guilty by Suspicion" are indeed good films that, especially at the time where breaking ground for a more nuanced exploration of the subject. That Trumbo is a biography is advantageous. A real biography, not a overly fictionalized and caricatured profile of the era. This despite that fact that some of the characters are fictionalized, they nonetheless represent the experiences and attitudes of real people. Louis C.K.'s Arlen Hird character being one. Dalton Trumbo may have had a better time of it than most, such as Hird. It is thought by some that the rising star of John Garfield was killed (literally-a heart attack) by the effect of the HUAC on him. This was a time, as the film states when people were fighting for their professional and personal life against what could be called a creeping fascist tendency in the US political environment. The fear and reaction and self promotion of many (ie John Wayne, Hedda Hopper et al.) is evident here.

The writing is excellent. My hat goes off to John McNamara and Bruce Cook for their adherence to historical accuracy and verisimilitude. The dialog is remarkable and keep you involved. It keeps you thinking and hits at an emotional level that few films do at all anymore. But it all comes together with the excellent direction of Jay Roach. To bring together the historical and personal is such a way is no small feat. He deserves an Oscar (as do McNamara and Cook).

I could go on...but just see the movie. You won't regret it. You can still watch Star Wars at Xmas...

I give this movie an 8 out of 10. I think, technically, it deserves a 6 or 7. It hinges on the modern notion that a biopic isn't complete unless we see all the nuances regarding the protagonist's family life. That is not necessarily the fault of the filmmakers. I don't think a picture can get funded if it doesn't adhere to these modern foibles. I give it an 8, however, and, for its purpose alone, it deserves a 10.

It takes guts to make a movie like this today.

In the United States, we tend to get comfortable and forget that the concept of freedom of speech is the most important idea any human being has ever put forth. We tend to forget that the powers that be don't like that idea.

They really, REALLY don't like that idea.

They want us lowly masses to be good little sheep and do what we're told and think exactly the way they want us to think. We tend to forget that fighting against that tendency of power is a struggle, a painful, sometimes lethal struggle. Folks in other countries know about it. They know all too well. That's why, in spite of all the other problems they may have with the U.S., they still want to live here.

But we've gotten lazy. Not only are there forces on the extreme right that would like to dictate how we live, think, and even breathe--now we have a warring faction from the left, seen most prominently on college campuses, that embraces censorship and the "shutting down" of alternative opinions like little McCarthys on methamphetamine. The concept of a "safe space," where no "offensive" opinions may be heard, is nothing short of censorship. Defenders of this nonsense often make the claim that the government is not getting involved, therefore, it's not a violation of the First Amendment. Here's what's wrong with that argument:

1. Remember our old friend Katherine Hepburn in Adam's Rib? In her closing arguments, she says the law has two parts--the letter and the spirit. It's true, by the letter of the law, students harassing and banning speakers on campus they don't agree with does not equal the federal government censoring those speakers. But it does violate the SPIRIT of the First Amendment. The government, as the film Trumbo clearly shows, cannot always be trusted to safeguard the LETTER of that particular law. It is up to us, We the People, to safeguard the SPIRIT of that law.

2. Trumbo shows us the horrific world where the government trampled on the First Amendment from the top down. What is happening on college campuses today is that violators of what is deemed "politically correct" (a phrase originating from Mao's Cultural Revolution, which should raise several alarms on that basis alone) are subjected to kangaroo courts on the campus, away from legitimate, LEGAL courts of law. They are harassed and humiliated (just as dissenters in the Cultural Revolution were) with no legal recourse. If this practice becomes accepted in normal society, we will have a political environment no different from the times depicted in the film. The only difference--this time, it we have started with the people and spread to a government ready and willing to enact "speech codes" for its own purposes.

By now, those who still, stubbornly, cling to the notion that there is nothing wrong with what is happening on college campuses today will have dismissed this review. They might even leave typical ad hominem attacks on the message boards to make what attempts they can to silence me (to kill the messenger, if you will). This should very well indicate that what I've said is true.

The sane people reading this, no doubt, are asking what the heck this all has to do with Trumbo.

Answer:

Everything.

Having been subjected to a kangaroo court on a college campus where I was called in to the Title IX office for teaching Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," I couldn't help but think, as I watched Trumbo, of the horrific witch hunt I was subjected to. That the film so easily earned my empathy is a testament to how well it's made.

I wish everyone involved a long, healthy career in the movies. We need more stories like this, stories that remind us the struggle to survive as individuals in a world that so stubbornly clings to collectivism is a never-ending battle. It's happened before. It's happening now. If we don't speak up and resist, it will continue happening in the future.

Trumbo is a period piece set in the late 40s and early 50s, following the life of Dalton Trumbo, arguably the leader of the Hollywood 10 who stood up to congress over what they saw as the illegal investigation and censorship of people's beliefs and free speech during the Second Red Scare after WWII. At the time, Congress and, in turn, members of the Hollywood elite blackballed writers, actors, directors, etc who identified as communists. Not spies for Moscow, but communists by political belief. Some faced jail time. Some lost their homes because they could not find work. Others encountered harsher realities. And Hollywood witch-hunt was merely a small part of a more wide-spread affront to civil liberties.

The time period itself is difficult to portray without seeming to be caricature - or perhaps style and communication have changed so much in 65 years that it just seems like caricature. Added to that difficulty are portrayals of John Wayne and Kirk Douglas, legends of film that, as a young person, I may have gone my whole life subconsciously thinking of as only existing on screen. Trumbo mostly rises to the occasion.

Much of Trumbo is comedic, and with intention, but the film also carries a certain amount of poignancy, if maybe a little less than it could use given the subject matter. Bryan Cranston is incredibly enjoyable to watch, and during the credits you get to watch a clip of the real Trumbo to compare. The portrayal is jarringly realistic (something you may question for the entirety of the film). Helen Mirren is a worthy antagonist, and very effectively displays the fear and anger that result from war - the need to dehumanize the enemy in order to survive the loss you feel as your family is fighting thousands of miles across the world, the need to justify pain through rigid ideology.

Other notable performances come from Michael Stuhlbarg, whose character, Eddie, provides for much of the films poignancy, and Diane Lane as the quiet but strong Cleo Trumbo, the rock of her family. John Goodman, is well cast as the comedic used car salesman of film, and Elle Fanning makes her mark as the rebellious daughter learning to be every bit of a force as her father.

It would be unfair to pin the failings of the film on a single person, but Louis C. K. continues to prove that being a great comedian does not make you a great actor. His portrayal is, in fact, so flat that it pulls you out of immersion in the film, a flaw that is further exacerbated by Bryan Cranston's mastery. Scenes between the two are simply absurd.

As a whole, the film's laughs are well earned and its feelings are well felt. Where the film falls short is to evoke, without personal reflection, the so obvious parallels between the state of our country today and that of the film. But perhaps that is not the goal. Perhaps the goal was to, with a bit of fun, portray a larger than life writer who decided to take on the world...and won. In that, Trumbo is a great success.