Between the Lines

I had never heard of this movie until about two months ago when I was looking up actor John Heard. I had just watched 'Cutter's Way (1981)' and was extremely impressed by his performance having previously only recognized him as the dad in 'Home Alone.' Not only does 'Between the Lines' have John Heard delivering another excellent performance but it also has a terrific ensemble cast of some great actors before they gained popularity; notably Jeff Goldblum, Linsay Crouse, and Marilu Henner. 'Between the Lines' is set up very much the same way as Robert Altman's 'Nashville' with the plot (what little there is) taking a backseat to a picturesque look at a time period and delightful characters. In a nutshell the film is about an independent newspaper group who is about to be bought out by a large company; but more so it's about the relationships between all these people. An absolute breeze to watch because the actors are having so much fun. There are many random funny moments; including an absurd scene where an abstract artist comes into the office and starts wrecking the place referring to each action as art, but the movie also has a great deal to say. A charming time capsule for the late 70's and also for the displaying the talents of the young actors.

***1/2 out of ****

The twenty-something staff of the erstwhile quite radical newspaper "Mainline" are struggling to keep their work relevant as the 1970s give way to the 1980s. I don't know if anyone remembers a television drama called the "Paper Chase" (1973) but a lot of the style and characterisations of that film are reminiscent here. Young people trying to make their own way, defiantly trying to hold on to values and commitments that may be largely on the wain. The thing with this, for me anyway, was I found them all rather shallow and selfish. The combination of their working and social lives are presented in a fashion that is very, very, verbose. Why use one word when you can use eight? As the story drifts along, I felt less and less interested in the characters and their semi-comic antics and started to notice silly continuity errors - that wouldn't ordinarily matter - and to focus more on the tangential aspects of the film - the big collars, bell-bottom jeans - all the things I used to remember from "Starsky and Hutch". Maybe the fact that I'm not an American means that this Bostonian story of intellectual maturity and liberating camaraderie doesn't resonate in the same way - because I found this all rather dull. Will their newspaper be subsumed into a bigger, commercial, enterprise? Well at the start I hoped not, but by the middle I was indifferent.

This note perfect film really must be seen. It is one of the best ensemble pieces ever made.

Viewed as an exercise in character, is is a strong enough . As a comment on its times, it was accurate and prescient. It was once possible to have a newspaper, music, a life that was not co-opted by corporatism.

Some of weaknesses in our culture are manifested in the sell-out, the opportunist, the survivor, the careerist. The real politician who changes political parties out of expedience, even if it means laying down with the dogs, could have stepped out of this picture. The once progressive believer who becomes a lapdog of the powerful was portrayed here.

This movie was too smart and knowing for Hollywood.

"Between the Lines" works far better as a document of its time than as a comedy or drama. The interactions between the characters are what's best here, while the actual "plot" gets lost somewhere between maybe too many characters and too many side plots which do nothing but make the whole thing feel a bit disjointed. It's characteristic of the movie that the funniest scene (about a wannabe conceptual artist) comes out of nowhere and leads to nothing, a complete non sequitur. You might think that in a story about a newspaper there would be ample opportunity for a good plot, but very little of this potential is actually used.

Recommended for the nice performances and overall atmosphere, which I liked, but don't expect anything particularly gripping or hilarious.

You know what happens when you bite into unripe fruit. It is not sweet or juicy; but it is a bit sour. The same is true for this film. Most of the actors in this ensemble went on to much better roles later in their careers, but not the director or writer. That is because several of these actors had talent. But at the stage most of these actors were at when this film was made, most of them were still unpolished, unripe fruit.

Goldblum is good. Heard is interesting, but Crouse was still very raw; and would not peak until House of Games. Worth viewing only to see the development of these kid actors at a very early stage. An interesting side note for this film is the story of Bruno Kirby. He had a very good role in Godfather 2, which was a good three years before this piece of fluff was made. He actually looks younger in this film. Marylou Henner went on to do Taxi in 1978, and she was much sexier and funnier by that time. Sometimes, it takes time for fruit to ripen.