Daniel

Daniel, dear fellow movie lovers, is my favorite movie of all time.

I can barely list all the reasons why I love this movie. I have recommended it to many people, and frankly no one has basically reacted to it as enthusiastically as i have.

But guess what, I don't care. This movie resonates with me. Thanks to E.L. Doctorow, Lumet provides us -- specifically -- with a devastating examination of the nature of political martyrdom and its effect on the martyr's family. We look at the critical intersection between family and ideology.

Beyond the scorching power of the plot and the highly ambitious story line, the Daniel cast is superb and they play their roles to tremendous effect, with a couple of minor exceptions. I don't remember how Paul Isaacson was portrayed in Doctorow's novel, but the casting of the powerful and macho Mandy Patinkin as the Pauly character directly modeled on Julius Rosenberg (who at least from his photos appeared to be nebish-y and not projecting any degree of the virility Patinkin offers) was perfect. What a wonderful liberty Lumet took.

First-rate acting also comes from the tortured siblings Timothy Hutton and Amanda Plummer, plus Ed Asner, Lindsay Crouse, Tovah Feldshuh, Ellen Barkin and numerous supporting players.

The target audience for Daniel, perhaps, is the person who (like me) at some time(s) in their life has allowed political action to become more important than ostensible self-interest or family interest. Unless you have personally had this experience, I am guessing you will relate less to this movie.

But please don't let that stop you! This is a martyr movie I am sure many non-martyrs can enjoy.

I can rattle off no less than a half dozen scenes that I consider timeless and priceless. Don't get me started.

OK, I relent. I will say that the Peekskill riot scene is memorable and special. Every time I am on a bus, and it makes a turn or goes through the woods or whatever or whatever, I think of this scene. The scene's intense crucifixion/climax is excruciating to watch.

And the kids' return to the shuttered Bronx apartment -- and attorney Ed Asner explaining to the befuddled aunt that, 'Lady, these people are in trouble!' -- and the Union Square rally -- and the Sing Sing scene -- and omigod the Paul Robeson score -- and and and and...

When Lumet got his special Oscar a yr or so ago i thought, oh good, finally, the world will hear about Daniel, my #1 movie. But I was deflated when it got mentioned maybe not at all or at best in passing. Some newspaper movie critics covering the award, alluded to the 'underrated' Daniel. Sigh ****.

Well, dear friends, lemme just say that 'underrated' is a gross exaggeration. In my mind, I cannot overrate this movie.

Thus -- I exhort all IMDb people to watch this movie, get past the early Patinkin Russian folk dance scene in the apartment, and stay with it! I hope you will begin to appreciate Daniel just half as much as I do.

And thank you, Sidney Lumet.

Daniel (Timothy Hutton) is the son of two radical parents. I don't mean radical like it was used in the 80's, but radical as it was used in the 60's and earlier. They were heavily active in the Communist Party as it was represented in America. Their involvement and even their lives came to an end when they were accused of selling atomic secrets to the Russians.

You can imagine the effects on a child when his/her parents are executed. And in this case Daniel had a sister, so two children were negatively affected. The movie bounces back and forth between the late 30's/early 40's and the 60's which was pre and post Daniel's parents' death. Susan (Amanda Plummer), Daniel's sister, has taken her parents' death a lot harder than Daniel. She's convinced that the government executed them unjustly whereas Daniel needs more proof.

"Daniel" is politically charged with the politics of 1940's America. The acting performances were good even if the script was a bit lacking. I like Sidney Lumet as a director which is why I even watched. It's a dense topic, but nothing Lumet can't handle. I think the movie's biggest failure was to move me. There was a little bit of mystery and a lot of drama, but none of that truly drew me in.

Daniel is one of Sidney Lumet's favourites of his own films. He cites it even before Dog Day Afternoon, Network and 12 Angry Men. I guess when a film isn't as assimilated into pop culture as they are you can keep it closer to your heart. It's a shame, the film deserves so much more attention. This is no half hearted venture. It's emotionally charged and meticulous in all its details. From the textured cinematography (great use of colour changes for past and present), slick editing and rousing performances, you can feel the heat of the passion poured into it. And it hits some real movie magic moments, especially with Mandy Patinkin. Perhaps the problem is that it lacks a real hook to real you in. Its purpose is clear, the activism is justified, but it feels quite specific to its two time periods and struggles to resonate the same way now. It's a film that really needed to strike its chord when it was released. But that doesn't hold it back from being a deeply poignant experience, the highlight being Timothy Hutton's powerful performance as the titular protagonist.

8/10

Excellent, fictionalized account of the Rosenberg story. Looked at from all perspectives from the early 1950's to the late 60's. We come away not caring if they did it or not! Lindsay Crouse stands out in her role as Rochelle. Mandy Patinkin is excellent. as always. They seem to steal the show from Hutton. The Paul Robeson (Monitor label) recordings also add to the picture's stunning realism. This is certainly one of the better movies of the early 1980's. The E.L. Doctorow screenplay is better than the novel, "The Book of Daniel" which I thought was rather strange. If I hadn't seen the movie first, I would have been lost just reading the book.

In 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried and convicted of conspiring to deliver atomic secrets to Russia during the 40s (when the U.S. and Russia were wartime allies). The trial took place in an atmosphere of anti-Communist hysteria.

Prior to their arrest, the following events took place: State Department official Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury, Senator Joseph McCarthy launched a campaign to rid the State Department of "subversives", British physicist Klaus Fuchs was convicted of spying for the Russians, Russia exploded an atomic bomb, and the Korean War broke out.

The chief prosecution witnesses were chemist Harry Gold who admitted he had never seen or known either Rosenberg, and Ethel's brother David Greenglass, a machinist working on the Manhattan project in Los Alamos, who provided the jury with details of the Rosenberg's involvement in espionage. Ethel's guilt was based solely on Greenglass' testimony that she had typed up classified secrets (this account was later acknowledged by Greenglass to be false).

In 1953, Julius and Ethel were executed after numerous appeals for clemency had been rejected. The executions caused deep divisions among the American people and the Rosenbergs were the last Americans to be executed for sabotage. Fifty years later, we are still trying to come to terms with the case.

Daniel, a 1983 film based on the novel "The Book of Daniel" by E.L. Doctorow, is a fictional account of the trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (called Paul and Rochelle Isaacson in the movie) focusing on how these events affected their children. Turning in a strong performance, Timothy Hutton plays their son Daniel, who is searching for the truth about his parent's guilt or innocence. Amanda Plummer is his sister Susan (in reality, the Rosenbergs had two sons Robert and Michael) who suffers a mental breakdown as a result of the execution, and Ed Asner portrays the Isaacson's lawyer who did his best for the parents, who are shown as self-righteous and uncooperative.

The movie unfolds in numerous flashbacks delineated by color filters (blue for current, orange for past). Lumet shows the Isaacsons (Mandy Patinkin and Lindsay Crouse) participation in protest movements and Communist Party activities and depicts their arrest, confinement, trial, and execution. The film does not make any statement as to their guilt or innocence. However, in an emotional scene with their accuser's sister, Daniel speculates that Rochelle's brother Selig Mindish (Joseph Leon) fingered the Isaacsons to protect other Party members.

Most of the film centers on the parent's relationship with the children. While showing how much the parents loved them, it also makes clear that their dedication to political causes transcended everything else in their lives (they could have been freed if they named names but their politics dictated that they would not cooperate with the FBI).

Daniel successfully captures the hysteria of the period and the suffering of the children who were shunted between overburdened relatives, children's shelters, and foster parents. In one of the most moving scenes in the film, Daniel and Susan run away from the shelter to walk the streets of New York looking for their old home, while in the background Paul Robeson sings, "This Little Light of Mine".

Though Daniel is a powerful and moving drama, the film is flawed by Patinkin's over-the-top performance, fake Jewish accents, and confusing jumps between different time periods. I also thought Susan's character was created solely to manipulate the emotions. Is Daniel is a great film? No, I don't think it is, but I do love it for its passion and for the courage it shows in bringing to life a difficult and troubling episode in American history.