Absence de malice

I taped this lauded 80's movie months ago and prompted by the recent death of Paul Newman, finally made time to watch it, only realising as I did so that its director too, Sydney Pollack, has also lately taken his last bow. The film is about the corrupting power of trial by newspaper to damage and sometimes destroy innocent lives and in this particular case of one man's courage and ingenuity in fighting back, even for what seems in the end a Pyrrhic victory against his malefactors. Pollack's favoured ouevre certainly seemed to be contemporary thrillers, often positing a faceless establishment body, personified by dehumanised no-names and their usually destructive oppression of innocent individuals. Although dated by things like contemporary fashions and background music, (no-one surely can defend this era for its style and music!) these films (and there were loads of them in the mid 70's and early 80's - "All the President's Men", "Dog Day Afternoon", "The Verdict", to name but a few, often directed by the two Sydneys, Pollack and Lumet, and peopled by acting heavyweights like Pacino, Redford, Newman, Winger and Fonda) represent a largely neglected sub-genre of quality movie-making rarely seen today. The film at hand here, "Absence of Malice" occasionally lacks narrative drive and suspense but makes up for that with everyday realism, for example drawing in themes on disparate subjects like abortion and trade-union relations. With Pollack's usual high-standard cinematography, particularly his naturally-lit interiors and indeed exteriors, you always feel that this fictional story could actually be happening here and now. It's helped by good dialogue and the skills of the ensemble acting cast. Newman walks away with the acting plaudits, effortlessly drawing the viewer's sympathy and admiration although I was very impressed by Melinda Dillon's underplaying of her part as Newman's "close personal friend", caught in the cross-fire and also Wilford Brimley's cameo as the State Department official who effectively acts as judge and jury at the mini-courtroom climax. Sally Field, who was briefly, at this time, the it-girl for modern-day character parts, lacks some heft alongside the predominantly male cast and at times plays the part more like Jean Arthur than Faye Dunaway. You can also see her acting at key points, particularly in the scene when Newman loses his temper and almost assaults her. Despite a brief (perhaps unnecessary) romantic liaison between the two leads, the film ends satisfyingly with an enigmatic shot of Newman sailing (literally) into the sunset leaving a chastened Field behind. In conclusion then, an intelligent, thought-provoking, well-structured and plotted movie, its main theme still relevant today in tabloid-land.

To begin with, I had intended to include this in my tribute to director Pollack in June but somehow couldn’t trace the VHS I had it taped on; in the meantime, I acquired the film on DVD and, watched now as a valediction to recently-deceased star Paul Newman, it easily emerged as the most significant title of the lot. The picture itself had given new impetus to his career – though it would be overshadowed by his next effort, THE VERDICT (1982) – which had dwindled since the block-busting box-office performances of both THE STING (1973) and THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974).

An absorbing and uniformly well-acted blend of newspaper movie, political thriller, character study and romance (with the latter being the least successful i.e. most disposable and unconvincing element), the film deservedly earned Oscar nominations for Newman (his sixth – playing a longshoreman who starts being investigated about the murder of a rival simply because of his parental link to mobsters and the damage it causes to his integrity and daily existence), Melinda Dillon (as a friend of Newman’s who’s brought in to supply an alibi for him but which would expose the guilt in her own personal matters and which lead her to commit suicide!) and Kurt Luedtke’s fine, incisive script. Sally Field isn’t an actress I’m particularly fond of (for the record, I’ve watched neither of her two Oscar-winning performances in NORMA RAE [1979] and PLACES IN THE HEART [1984]: their directors, Martin Ritt and Robert Benton respectively, would coincidentally prove crucial to Newman himself!), though she’s perfectly cast here in a role encompassing resourcefulness, tenacity, awkwardness, tenderness and, finally, humility. She’s the star reporter who initially ‘leaks’ the news of the investigation on Newman thinking it as her duty, but doesn’t stop to ponder the consequences…as a result of which, her relationship with Newman proves a troubled one (in the film’s most intense sequence, he physically assaults her when she turns up before him after Dillon’s death!).

The title is a reference to a legal clause which basically states that newspapers are free to print anything they like, and that the people involved can do nothing against them because their reporting is accurate (even if it may not ultimately prove to be factual). The film’s climax – which plays like a dry-run for THE VERDICT itself and is highlighted by a scene-stealing turn from Wilford Brimley, it’s revealed how Newman has cleverly rebounded the affair on itself (so that it’s the reporters, the investigating committee and the D.A’s office who get their gooses cooked, as it were!). A nice surprise is Luther Adler’s appearance as Newman’s mobster uncle – and also worth mentioning is Dave Grusin’s fine score.

There's really no other word for it. I find the whole of this movie compelling, from Sally Fields' naivete to Paul Newman's innocent who turns the tables on his prosecutors, to the various supporting characters who all have their little niche. The best of all is Wilford Brimley, who gets to chew scenery and totally steal the scene he's in. It's an intelligent drama, addressing a subject as relevant today as it was in '81, with just enough humor to leaven the whole thing.

This movie looks to have all the elements of a classic but somehow falls short. Unscrupulous prosecutor dupes reporter Field into creating (false) impression that businessman Newman was involved in a murder, in the hope that will somehow help his investigation. The lie has unexpected and tragic consequences, after which Newman turns the tables. Field is fine as liberated yet vulnerable thirty-something, Newman is also good if a little obscure in a difficult role; but Brimley as Asst US Attorney steals the show when he finally blows the whistle on everyone. Brimley's short time in this movie really is classic and Oscar-quality. The overall problem here is a little too much soapbox and not enough real emotion from nearly everyone.

This movie provides a clever insight into the principles the press live by. Reporters sometimes lose their basic humanity because they're not looking at the human interest, but at covering all the angles. What's newsworthy is what's in the public domain as fact, not gossip. It's definitely something to think about in this age when large sections of the media are intent on muckraking over the affairs of those who are deemed to be 'high-profile'...

The movie asks us, though, to keep in mind that sometimes there's more going on than meets the eye, and that certain acts function as a means to an end. It can be seen as an extension of that great 70's movie tradition where acclaimed directors make polished films exposing high-level corruption. "Absence of Malice" is an involving exercise in paranoid mystery, with Newman in fine form as always, and Sally Field providing capable support.