Un uomo oggi

"WUSA" is extremely difficult on us in so many ways that to reach a final conclusion on why we like it or feel it relevant is something that demands a lot from viewers. You have a jaw dropping stellar cast (Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Anthony Perkins, Cloris Leachman, Laurence Harvey, Pat Hingle); a director who never extracted a bad performance with his films, the great Stuart Rosenberg ("Cool Hand Luke", "Voyage of the Damned", "Brubaker"); a story working with great basic elements involving the power of media, political and inner conflicts, rich vs. poor and more. What turned this perfect merge into a near let down was its writer Robert Stone, adapting his own novel, writing his first film screenplay and the blame is on him. That was exactly the problem. Stone didn't get the mechanics and language of cinema, over complicated a scenario that could and should be a little palatable to audiences, at least to generate interest for the characters. As said, "WUSA" is a near let down; gladly, we had the cast to save it from ruins and achieve a good cult status.

In it, Newman plays the cynical and drunk Rheinhardt, a drifter who accepts a job at a radio station controlled by influential politicians whose motto seems quite familiar in our current times (Make this country Great Again). The WUSA station is one with a point of view, says Hingle character and that distorted point of view destine to include only a certain parcel of New Orleans population and excludes the rest in the majority, it starts to raise some concerns on a fellow named Rainey (Perkins), an idealist survey worker trying to discover the welfare problems faced by the black communities of the place. Rheinhardt and Rainey are neighbors who frequently clash at each other (cynicism vs. idealism; reality vs. utopia) and their quarrels are meddled by Geraldine (Woodward), of whom Rheinhardt has a more intimate involvement, and one that seems to get a grip on this wild drunkard who fail to notice that his bosses are planning something bad as local politics in upcoming elections, and worst of all...his editorials during the radio program are the main force behind the power WASP's success.

Such overview of the film seems attractive, specially for those who love those kind of movies about inner conflicts and different schools of thoughts. However, the screenplay jumble up with practically every possible element and device needed to further the plot along with ones that doesn't add up to much. Examples: the radio thing takes an awful lot of time to happen and when it does, it's a huge disappointment that the film never shows what kind of material Newman's character presents to his listeners except "the future of America is up to you". The film allows us to see Rheinhardt shouting about being a liberal but blocks itself when it comes to present what are the actual plans of the powerful and their conservative speech. Perkins with the survey thing occupied a good portion of the film and could have been trimmed down just as much as some of the most tender scenes between the main couple (great chemistry though). Less with the romance, more with the politics and sinister plans, then we'd have a better film than what we've got.

And let's face it: the movie doesn't show anything new. If you think "WUSA" is explosive, daring and ahead of its time, then you know very little of this world. "WUSA" just show something called the system and the system is controlled by a minority with money and power on the top of the pyramid, and below there's everyone else following their orders, directly and indirectly; and to avoid giving the appearance of a fascist organization they throw something called democracy, divides itself into parties that look and think different, begs us to vote but whenever there's a shift in the power gear it's always the same corrupt and crooked thing. It never changes, only small fractions but it's always the same and it cannot be challenged because they always come back to haunt or kill your opposition (Rainey defies a businessman at a party in one of the greatest sequences). True in the 1970's and before that, and a more harmful truth now. Obviously the film isn't on the nose with such idea but it's there whenever Rheinhardt opens his mouth, specially when it comes to belittle Rainey, of whom he calls a whiner. But the film keeps it real: the cynic drowns himself under the liquor; the idealist finally does something after spending too much time on a lethargic state (but obviously a wrong act) and the mediator in between them couldn't find the strength in herself to join them, debate ideals and find possible solution to their problems and the ones from the community. But she also had a past and problems of her own, many of which she can't seem to escape.

The cast gathering is fine, despite the lack of involvement we have with the characters they play (no one gets saved, they're all critical but substantially real); the ideas carry some relevance but most of it gets torn apart and lost along the way making the experience of seeing "WUSA" a weary endeavor. The good qualities out-weight the bad at the end - I respected that conclusion despite being a predictable cliché. Watch with reservations and low expectations. 6/10

WUSA (1970)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Heavy-handled political drama about a radio host (Paul Newman) who gets a job in New Orleans and quickly starts a relationship up with a former prostitute (Joanne Woodward). It doesn't take long for the host to realize that his radio station has some right-wing views and are using him to spread some not so innocent things. All the time one man (Anthony Perkins) has been collection survey data on welfare but it turns out he too was just being used to try and get people kicked off the system. WUSA has some terrific performances in it but the film is so over-the-top and melodramatic that you can't help but finally give up on it and especially once we hit the final twenty-minutes when everything pretty much gets thrown out the window. There's no question that the filmmakers and producer Newman wanted to get their message across and there are many ways to do this without having to be so heavy and dramatic. I won't ruin what happens in the final twenty-minutes but it's a real shame that the film spent so long building up the characters and only to have what happens bring them down so low. I think the biggest problem with the screenplay is that we've basically got three different movies rolled into one and each story is pulling in a separate direction. You have a romance between Newman and Woodward. You have Perkins realizing that someone bad is trying to hurt the poor. You then have these two connected to the third story dealing with the radio station and its owner (Pat Hingle). The problem is that all three stories are just way too far over-the-top that you can never really believe anything you're seeing and especially all the political stuff. Instead of telling a realistic story, it seems as everyone felt no one would understand what they were trying to say so they just went as far as they could to make that point. It really wasn't needed. The one strong point are the terrific performances led by Newman playing one of the darkest and meanest characters in his career. I really thought the actor did a tremendous job in the part, which is unsympathetic and at times rather hateful. Just check out the scene where Newman is ripping into Perkins on his "good" heart and it's certainly a side of Newman that we didn't get to see him play too much. Woodward also turns in a marvelous performance as she's pretty much the heart of the picture. I thought she was extremely effective as the down-on-her-luck prostitute early on but she also handles the more dramatic stuff later in the pic. Perkins too is very good in his part as is Hingle, Laurence Harvey, Bruce Cabot and Cloris Leachman. Shockingly, I think the best portion of the film is the romance between Newman and Woodward. The two obviously have great chemistry and I thought the scenes with them just sitting around drinking and talking were the best and most memorable in the film. Its said that originally this 115-minute movie clocked in over three hours and I can't help but think what hit the editing room floor. WUSA is well made and well acted but sadly it just tries way too hard to get its message across.

When I first saw this movie in 1971, it impressed me, and my friends, very much. I saw it at least 4 or 5 times. This is one of the most important films of the '70, a political fiction of its time... but in a revision a few days ago in VHS, a film that seems as new as before, very actual. Although I think that Rosenberg was not the most indicate director for this film (Frankenheimer seems to me a most appropriate election, due to his asphyxiating atmospheres), the strong of the story and the interpretation of an extraordinary Anthony Perkins, among the others actors, gives its force to the movie. It is a pity that there are no DVD edition (I suspect that the Spanish exhibition in its time was very censured...) for to see that film in good conditions. The people that doesn't know are missing a very notable film. I liked so much that in my blog I have written a long essay about the film, for the benefit of the young people that doesn't know it.

It is easy to go to 1970's and recapture the era. So many movies wanted to deal with the politics of the time. Parallax View with Warren Beatty, Twilight's Last Gleaming with Burt Lancaster, This movie was part of that attempt. However, unlike the excellent political movies of the 1960's, this movie lacked the quality of writing a Rod Serling and his peers brought to the table. So to truly enjoy this movie,overlook the heavy handed dialogue. Ignore the 1970's film making style and enjoy the excellent cast of actors. For its time it was an excellent movie. Looking at it today I still see the excellence but it has an eerie familiarity to today. Replace WUSA and there staring back at you is Murdoch and his Fox team. That sends a shiver up my spine.

I have to agree with those who praise this film and realize that its not everyone's cup of tea. Although I appreciate the criticisms that some reviewers have leveled, it is wise to keep in mind that it is unfair to criticize a film 30+ years after its release through a contemporary lens. The sense of humor that some have found "lacking" is something that develops with the objectivity of lapsed time. During the late 1960's, many of us found little humor in the assassinations and general insanity that seemed to fill the political landscape. Like the previous reviewer, I, too, have been looking for this film for years and hope to see it on DVD one day soon. I found it to be a powerful piece.