Joshua Then and Now

Joshua Shapiro (James Woods) is a famous writer caught in a scandal. His wife has left and his kids are inconsolable. He recalls his life starting with his childhood in the tough Montreal neighborhood during WWII. His father Reuben Shapiro (Alan Arkin), involved in some sketchy stuff, goes on the run. His mother is a performer who does burlesque stripping for his friends. Reuben gets out of prison. Joshua wants to go to the Spanish Civil War but ends up in London. Nobody wants his writing and he befriends Sidney Murdoch. His writing finally gets into the newspaper as he pursues a mysterious blonde. Pauline turns out to be the wife of a wannabe communist Colin Fraser and daughter of Senator Hornby. Her brother Kevin is troubled. Joshua would steal Pauline away and be married with kids.

This is a Canadian art-house film based on Mordecai Richler's novel. Canadian director Ted Kotcheff continues after doing the previous Richler movie. The look has more in common with a 70's movie. It's a long fictional biopic. There is limited drama or tension. It's fun to see James Woods and even better to have Alan Arkin in supporting role. The movie excels when Arkin is on the screen. This life is too rambling to be concise. There are bits of great scenes like his mother stripping for his childhood friends. This is an interesting part of Canadian cinema.

I love the way both Joshua & his father rip right through the arrogant BS of religiosity & the stuffy uptight pretentiousness of the rich & powerful. Most refreshing to watch these rare & delightful characters call spit "spit."

Josh's mom is a real down to earth treat as well, while the relationship between Joshua & Pauline is really touching with its openness & authenticity.

Alan Arkin at this funniest.

i love mainstream movies just like the next guy.. gladiator, traffic, usual suspects, shawshank redemption etc. this is a movie very different from those.. but still a great movie. alan arkin is very funny. james woods makes his best role.. and gabriell lazure is a stunning woman...

This movie creates a real and engaging feeling for the title character's life -- his ridiculous childhood, with seedy parents each pretending in their own perverse ways to give him wholesome roots, followed by his self-led path into adulthood and sincere, anti-authority liberalism. That it creates an authentic and engaging world is the best I can say for the movie as a whole, because the story lacks a real "hook" (the fake scandal that's meant to hook you and anchor the story never amounts to much and it's not even interesting), and the plotting of that misfired story sort of ambles wherever it feels like going, without any belief in itself. The acting is good (often very good), so there's never any question that the characters themselves care about the story, but they rarely reach through the screen and make you care too.

It's only when the movie stops narrating a story and instead admits to being simply a pastiche of one man's big house of a life, that it really pulls you in and make you glad to be ambling through its comfortably unconventional rooms.

At the heart of this film's big house of a life is not Joshua (he's too busy thinking the story is important) -- no, the real heart of this movie, when it's honest, is Alan Arkin's thoroughly delightful, effortlessly expert, full incarnation of Joshua's father. Reuben is a mid-level crook who breezes through his shady life with a flashy white suit, a profound love for his son, a Talmudic view of the big picture, and an interpretation of the Bible that sounds like the treatment for an old boxing movie. He is an absolute treat every moment he's on screen. I'm tempted to quote some of his best lines here, but it's not the lines that do it; it's Arkin's subtly hilarious and fully human expression of this completely original character that makes you want to rewind after each of his scenes and watch it again.

In fact, if the story doesn't hold your interest (and it probably won't), I recommend giving up and simply forward-searching from one Arkin scene to the next, maybe stopping to watch the bizarre strip-tease Bar Mitvah party scene.

Michael Sarrazin is the second gem in this movie, but his brief screen time is only enough to show you that he is one brilliant actor. His delivery of a two-word line ("Excuse me," in tennis whites) fully conveys an entire character -- privileged childhood, screwed-up adolescence, class arrogance that he wears with perfect grace over his complete failure as a grown-up, and all of this in just two words. His other moments are just as good; I wanted more of them.

Now, about James Woods. Critics said he gave a "creditable" performance as Joshua, but I don't want "creditable" in the lead role -- I want to care about him, and I never once cared about Joshua (except in childhood scenes, played by more likable actors). The adult Joshua is supposed to be a charmer, and Woods' Joshua might charm the other characters, but that's only because the script says he does. He never charms the viewer, and this is the film's biggest flaw.

I recommend this movie not for its story or lead performances, but for its ambiance and especially for Arkin. This may be his finest comic performance on film.

I was a James woods fan since Videodrome.

My best friend and I went to our local movie theatre and saw this movie. As a kid but a fan of film at a really young age. My mother and I would watch movies that are now only on TMC now.

That's how I started learning film instead of watching movies.

Now I go from so bad it's good stuff to seeing techniques that were poorly reviewed to the same shots in other films to be "oh my goodness that is great". I'm paraphrasing obviously. 🙄 Anyway to rewatch this film is a conundrum ... Do I look at it as the new me sees the art or do I not and use the memory as a way to assess film now ?

This movie drew me in on one level only but made me look at Allen Arkin as another actor to follow.

So that's my dilemma.

The film to me was so out of my depth as I watched it. Then there was a sad strange feeling that I knew this story. I had seen it in standard TV series at the time but only ever touched on.

I was 17 and finally found that the joy of film is the most satisfying thing that became my escape to let my mind wander and reason to dig deep and realize that art is art and to judge a piece for its time.

Ok I think I've ranted enough.