When it comes to cinema, the 1980s have a bad reputation. Yes, the New Hollywood movement was put on life support in 1980 when Michael Cimino’s hubristic (and utterly brilliant) western epic “Heaven’t Gate” was pulled down with Francis Ford Coppola’s commercial fiasco “One from the Heart” (which is actually a masterpiece), but a new generation of film school kids like Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch and the Coen brothers rallied to bring cinema into the mainstream. exciting new directions. The artistic rebellion of the 1970s was not suppressed; it just became independent.
Meanwhile, Hollywood studios have settled into a formulaic groove. High-profile blockbusters were all the rage, while prestige pictures grew ever higher and ever more important. Just look at the Oscar winners for best picture of the decade. There are some great films in the mix (“Ordinary People,” “Amadeus,” “The Last Emperor” and “Platoon”), but even those films were loaded with messages heavy with meaning. These filmmakers had serious ideas and their films could change the way you see the world. There was a void in your life if you weren’t waiting in line to see these very important films at your local multiplex.
Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert, the decade’s most prominent cinematic voice, bought what Hollywood was selling. He gave four stars to every film that won Best Picture between 1980 and 1989 – except one. Ebert gave Barry Levinson’s 1988 best picture winner “Rain Man” a three-and-a-half star review. I think it’s a much better movie than Oscar darlings like “Chariots of Fire,” “Gandhi,” “Out of Africa” and, my goodness, “Driving Miss Daisy.” Why did Ebert consider it the least of the best films of the 80s?
Roger Ebert had difficulty understanding the theme of Rain Man
It’s a three and a half star review, so clearly Ebert had a very high opinion of “Rain Man.” Tom Cruise has his star power turned up to 11 as Charlie Babbitt, a sketchy Los Angeles operator whose business is quickly going south. He receives what appears to be an unexpected financial windfall when his formerly wealthy father returns East, but leaves him only an automobile. The old man’s fortune goes into a trust for an autistic brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), whose existence Charlie was unaware of.
Hoffman fades into the role of Raymond, but Cruise gives what remains the performance of his career as Charlie. He’s a man who has lived his entire life on his charisma, and now the only person who could give him the jackpot he desperately needs is impervious to his charm. Ebert identifies this dynamic in his review, but he seems more interested in Raymond’s problem. What is going on in this brain? The opening paragraph of his review poses this issue in a somewhat problematic way. By Ebert:
“Is it possible to have a relationship with an autistic person? Is it possible to have a relationship with a cat? I don’t want the comparison to be demeaning to the autistic person; I’m just trying to understand something. I have useful relationships with my two cats, and they are important to me. But I never know what cats are thinking.”
Obviously, our understanding of the autism spectrum has advanced enormously since 1988, but even then, I’d like to know what was going on in Ebert’s brain when he decided to compare the brain of an autistic man to that of a house cat, and suggested that it was impossible to have a relationship with an autistic person! Bad Roger!
Otherwise, Ebert offers no real criticism of “Rain Man”, but he has difficulty understanding what it is about. I’d prefer a puzzle like that to a bloated, pre-solved epic like “Gandhi” and “Out of Africa.” And certainly for an old woman who discovers that racism is a bad parody like “Driving Miss Daisy”.
