Ragtime

A short commentary: Having read through a few of the comments here, I note that there are several which express disappointment that the movie didn't do the book justice. Personally, having read the book some time after seeing the movie, I can understand their point, but realistically it's the type of book which would be nearly be impossible to do justice to, as there are so many broad interwoven threads in the book that it would require at least a 6 hour movie to even scratch the surface, and even then, putting it all together into a singular coherent whole which would hold the viewer's interest for that long would be quite a mean feat indeed. So instead of looking at it as an attempt to fully capture the book, it might be best to simply appreciate it for what it is, rather than what it isn't. And I believe that on its own terms it succeeds admirably, and remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

Another way of looking at this, as an introduction to the book, rather than vice versa it has some value on those terms. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the movie I might never have happened upon the book, and never known what I'd missed.

I read E.L. Doctorow's novel many many years ago and have forgotten a lot of it. I do remember that Emma Goldman was a major and vibrant character, and I believe that Harry Houdini also had a sizable role. Houdini is only glimpsed briefly in context of newsreel footage in the Milos Forman film adaptation of the novel, and Emma Goldman isn't a character at all. This leads me to conclude based on my fuzzy recollection of the novel that the movie pretty liberally adapted its transition to screen, which I suppose will disappoint those who wanted a more faithful version.

I'm glad, though, that I have forgotten the novel so much, because I was able to enjoy the film for what it is rather than for what it fails to be. And what it is is a pretty damn good movie, and one that seems to have been unfairly forgotten. It garnered 8 Academy Award nominations in the year of its release (though it won none of them), so clearly it had fans back in 1981. But you never hear about this movie now.

It's true that in weaving together the many plot strands of Doctorow's novel into a tapestry of American life at turn of the 20th century, the screenplay doesn't do all of its story lines justice. I'm thinking mostly of a plot featuring Mandy Patinkin as a Jewish immigrant who goes from selling street art in a city ghetto to successful filmmaker. The movie abandons his character for such long stretches of time, and doesn't elaborate on how he got from point A to point B, that his story arc is not only jarring but seems implausible. But otherwise the good greatly outweighs the bad in this movie, and we get the central story of radical activist Coalhouse Walker, Jr., a black man whose quest for justice leads him to criminal and bloody places, as well as the tangential story of ditsy movie star Elizabeth McGovern as she moves from one sugar daddy to another. Howard E. Rollins, Jr. received an Oscar nomination for playing Coalhouse Walker, and he anchors the film with a serious, impassioned gravitas. At the other end of the spectrum, McGovern, also Oscar nominated, gives a bonkers performance as Evelyn Nesbit as delightful as it is weird.

But most impressive to me was the performance of James Olson, who you never hear about in connection with anything, as the patriarch of an affluent family and the film's reluctant hero, a man whose own moral sense of justice won't let him sit by and enjoy his position of white privilege.

The film is full of all sorts of good actors giving equally good performances: Mary Steenburgen, Brad Dourif, a barely recognizable Debbie Allen, and, last but not least, James Cagney, clearly old and past his prime, but whose natural charisma nevertheless comes practically pouring off the screen.

In addition to its two supporting acting nominations, "Ragtime" received Oscar nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score, and Best Original Song ("One More Hour"). I'm not a big fan of Randy Newman in general, but his score for this film is one of my all-time favorites, and I could listen to "One More Hour" at least once a day.

Grade: A

I never saw this film until 2005 and after I had become a big James Cagney fan and wanted to see the movies of his I had missed. Thus, I had to check this out, especially since it was his first film he had made in over 20 years.

En route to getting a glimpse at the 80-year-old star, I found out (1) he wasn't on screen until 45 minutes were left in this 155-minute movie; (2) his absence didn't upset me that much because I was absorbed in this interesting story (plus, to be fair, I was told in advance he didn't appear until the last part!), (3) the sets, clothing, etc. of this "period piece" were fantastic to view.

Anyway, in my opinion, the star of the film was a guy who hardly got any billing: James Olson. He is the key figure in this story and very interesting to watch. Actually, just about everyone is interesting which makes for good storytelling. Nonetheless, Olson's fine performance is unfairly overlooked.

Howard Rollins was good as the black "victim" of the profane slob Kenneth McMillian and Elizabeth McGovern certainly kept ones attention although I wasn't quite sure how her character tied into the story.

By the way, to rate this movie "PG" is ludicrous since McGovern is seen in a 3- to-4-minute scene casually talking away with bare breasts for all to see. And - contrary to a popular rumor - nothing of her was cut out of the DVD.

Meanwhile, Cagney showed he hadn't forgotten how to act. It was a pleasure to see him again, just a few years before he would pass away. It's a cliché, but I doubt if anyone was in his class as an actor and a dancer, a tough guy or a comedian. He was the best and went out in style here, too, although he did do one last made-for-TV film a short time after this.

1906, to be specific, is when Stanford White was shot -- which of course marks the beginning date bookmark of the movie.

The "declaration of war" -- WW I -- as announced in a Newspaper headline at the end of the film, bookmarks the end of the movie -- and of the era.

Not trivial points, since a good part of the interest of this movie lies it it's serving as a relatively rare window into this period. Which unlike the 1930s or the 1920s which the plot summary and first comment confuse it with, is not a period which is much portrayed in film.

I'd say it's a pretty good, although not great, "costume" film. The first half is much stronger than the second half, both in historical interest and in character development.

Worth seeing though. Perhaps try seeing it right after "Age of Innocence", which is set primarily in the New York of the 1870s (although entirely among the upper upper class, instead of the somewhat broader class look, and city/near country look of Ragtime).

This a truly terrific period piece directed by Milos Forman(Cuckoo's Nest, Amadeus) and starring terrific cast. The film takes place in the very early 1900's and follows the lives of at least four different people/families. As the movie gets going, it begins to focus mostly on an African American man and his struggle to be heard in society after he is mistreated by a group of firemen. Everything that follows is equally powerful and fascinating as the man tries to find justice in the turn of the century America. This fine film is richly textured with turn of the century atmosphere, music and actual newsreels from the period which all contribute to this fascinating story. Also nice to see James Cagney one more time. This is a film that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in what life was like at the turn of century. A fantastic film. ***3/4 out of ****.