Dalton Trumbo

This movie is important. It tells the story of the struggles faced by the people who sought to have a differing political view in the 1950s and 60s. Their decision to think differently left them facing prejudice and hatred in America. This is the focus of this movie.

The story follow Dalton Trumbo, portrayed by Brian Cranston,a successful screenwriter in Hollywood in the 1950s. Cranston carries this movie on the shoulders of his performance. It is truly phenomenal how he brings such life and energy to this character. He captured my attention anytime he was on-screen and is without a doubt one of the major reasons you should see this movie.If you are a fan of any of Cranstons previous works you should love this movie for that reason alone. Cranston was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, a nomination I believe was well deserved.

The movie is of course based on a true story. while I cannot attest to the validity of the facts, I can confidently say that anyone interested in this period of history will find this movie much more enjoyable then reading a Wikipedia page.

Overall I give Trumbo 8/10 for its compelling plot and excellent performances. i would highly recommend it.

I've seen some mixed reviews of Trumbo, and in a way I can understand why it wouldn't impress some film critics. It is a movie where the movie business, and especially movie personalities, are given over to actors to play. It's not unlike a few years ago with the Anthony Hopkins Hitchcock: you got a big cast and they all have roles to play from people who, if you're a big movie buff (or even someone who just knows who Kirk Douglas or John Wayne were, and that's probably a lot, whether or not you know who Dalton Trumbo was entirely), there's an aspect of 'Oh, he's or she is playing HIM or HER!' But I think with a sharp enough script that sort of thing goes by the way-side, especially if it gives the right actors some good stuff to play. There's nothing about Trumbo that is especially complex, as it has the message that most of us in 2015 would agree with: the Hollywood Blacklist, not just what happened to the Hollywood 10 but many others, was a horrible thing, and the thesis comes down to the idea that there were good and bad people in it but it also came down to the nature of it all making people victims... well, except for Hedda Hopper.

The movie is fun though whether or not you know a lot about the history because of who is in the cast and especially Bryan Cranston as Trumbo. He's a man who makes a lot of money in the 40's in Hollywood writing scripts and yet is an avowed Communist (he makes the case to his daughter in such a way early on in the film that some might question but most of us would go 'huh, that's it then'). A lot of the conflict comes because of what the history had right there: HUAC went after people in Hollywood who were suspected 'traitors', but in reality were just writers and (some) actors and directors who had affiliations with the party, and thanks to pressure by columnist Hedda Hopper (played here by Helen Mirren in a role that's deliciously evil) and John Wayne (actor I can't remember but does a good impression without being caricature-ish), a group got pressured. They didn't name names, were held in contempt of court, found guilty and did time. Well, unless if you were Edward G. Robinson (though he's shown in a somewhat sympathetic light, maybe just by Michael Stuhlbarg being in the role).

The bulk of the story is about the 'front' that Trumbo led for himself and other blacklisted writers such as stubborn/cancer-ridden Arlen Hird (Louis CK, always a pleasure to watch, but especially in scenes with Cranston). They used fake names to get their scripts made, even as they had no choice for a while but to team up with filmmakers who were out to just make "crap" (an echo in a way for me of Burton's Ed Wood with the John Goodman character). There's some predictable drama that unfolds - the all-business-all-writing part of Dalton that conflicts with being a father and family-man and clashing with his daughter and wife (very good Elle Fanning and Diane Lane respectively) - but what helps it along all the way is just a sharp script and direction that keeps things thematically strong.

This is serious stuff what happened to these people in Hollywood, and director Jay Roach and writer John McNamara know that, all the way up to a final speech from Trumbo upon winning a WGA award that puts things into a perspective that (almost) makes Trumbo too fair to those who really wronged him and his friends. But it's just full of wit an clever lines; if you're a sucker for that, as I can be sometimes, then Trumbo makes for a balance of the light and dark stuff. Again if nothing else, Cranston makes someone who can easily be seen as a CHARACTER in bold letters (and by many accounts that is who Trumbo was) and gives him three dimensions and perspective on the situations that unfold. He does things that may be wrong and provocative, in both bad and good ways, and is told off enough that any of his short-comings become kind of charming. I could've spent more time with his Trumbo and been happy, especially in light of the history that unfolds here (i.e. Roman Holiday, Spatacus, Exodus, other productions like The Brave One).

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.

This is a well-made film, despite omitting some uncomfortable truths -- namely that Dalton Trumbo, while rightly fighting for free speech, also collaborated with the government to silence views he opposed.

Still, TRUMBO stands as a powerful indictment of McCarthyism and blacklisting -- one that feels uncannily relevant today. Those who mindlessly champion cancel culture might want to watch this film ... before they find themselves on the wrong end of the next punitive trend.

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...