This may suffer from having a few too many plot lines and characters (Emily Watson, for example, is a role too far), but most of what's there is excellent. Bill Murray is as good as he has been recently in Rushmore and Lost in Translation, and the Cusacks are at their best. This is a film that lingers with you after you've seen it, and gives a fascinating insight into a turbulent time.
164 Reviews
Smart history
Quinoa198414 July 2000
This is definately Tim Robbins best (directed) film yet. He brings a number of characters together to tell the story of the 1930's. In particular, Orson Wells and his broadway production that caused a controversy and some other things. Though it take liberties in history (that sounds weird), it comes out in the end as good entertainment from an exceptional actor/writer/director/producer. All star cast includes John and Joan Cusack, Ruben Blades, Hank Azaria, Tim Robbins (uncredited), Emily Watson, Susan Sarandon, Paul Giamatti, Angus MacFaden as Orson Wells (in a breakthrough performance) and Bill Murray in a wonderful role as a puppeteer. A+
Long on Agit Prop, But Well Captures Passionate Arts as Politics Times
noralee28 October 2005
While it was fun seeing "Cradle Will Rock" with my mother-in-law who had some memories of the time period, I also did a huge paper on the WPA Arts Projects in graduate school (I recommend Jerry Mangione's book on the Federal Writer's Project as a good introduction) and am quite familiar with the personalities and facts involved so was curious to see it as a docudrama.
But we plus my parents felt the film was too agit-prop and the 20% of it that's over-the-top (aw come on, Hearst -- "Citizen Kane" foreshadowing, Rockefeller and a steel magnate at a Versailles costume party at the climax?) weakens the historical telling of a confluence of happenings -- the strangulation of the Federal Theater Project as a precursor victim to McCarthyism through the Dies Committee (including actual testimony wherein Christopher Marlowe was accused of being a Commie, as were the classic Greek dramatists) and Nelson Rockefeller's benighted sponsorship and then destruction of the Diego Rivera murals at Rockefeller Center.
Effectively written and directed by Tim Robbins is how passionately political the artists were, not as "card carrying Communists" per se, but as committed anti-Fascists and unionists in every aspect of their personal lives--as equally committed as they were to the magic of the theater as a communication device.
It does go over the top (including Susan Sarandon as an elegant Jewish courier to Mussolini selling stolen Old Masters), it is effective to show how TPTB were sympathetic to and profited from alliances with the fascists and how much they hated That Cripple in the White House.
Amidst the politics, the art for art's sake oversize egos of John Houseman and Orson Welles are also well portrayed, if a shade as buffoons compared to the grimness of everyone else around them, most of whom needed these WPA jobs to keep from starving (there's a toss away line that barely explains that FDR had to throw the Theater Project to the wolves in order to save his whole alphabet soup of programs for the vast majority).
It's also a bit over the top in painting those who testified at the Committee as probably crazy, but who knows. The Vanessa Redgrave character is silly but I guess it's making a point that Radical Chic is not new.
The climax of the factual occurrence, the one and only original performance of Marc Blitzstein's "ThreePenny Opera"-inspired political musical "Cradle Will Rock" is a delightful recreation, and from what I've read, true to the real story. This is definitely a very un-1990's story.
(Additional recommended background reading: "Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century" by Michael Denning (Verso, 1998, 556 pages)
(originally written 1/2/2000)
But we plus my parents felt the film was too agit-prop and the 20% of it that's over-the-top (aw come on, Hearst -- "Citizen Kane" foreshadowing, Rockefeller and a steel magnate at a Versailles costume party at the climax?) weakens the historical telling of a confluence of happenings -- the strangulation of the Federal Theater Project as a precursor victim to McCarthyism through the Dies Committee (including actual testimony wherein Christopher Marlowe was accused of being a Commie, as were the classic Greek dramatists) and Nelson Rockefeller's benighted sponsorship and then destruction of the Diego Rivera murals at Rockefeller Center.
Effectively written and directed by Tim Robbins is how passionately political the artists were, not as "card carrying Communists" per se, but as committed anti-Fascists and unionists in every aspect of their personal lives--as equally committed as they were to the magic of the theater as a communication device.
It does go over the top (including Susan Sarandon as an elegant Jewish courier to Mussolini selling stolen Old Masters), it is effective to show how TPTB were sympathetic to and profited from alliances with the fascists and how much they hated That Cripple in the White House.
Amidst the politics, the art for art's sake oversize egos of John Houseman and Orson Welles are also well portrayed, if a shade as buffoons compared to the grimness of everyone else around them, most of whom needed these WPA jobs to keep from starving (there's a toss away line that barely explains that FDR had to throw the Theater Project to the wolves in order to save his whole alphabet soup of programs for the vast majority).
It's also a bit over the top in painting those who testified at the Committee as probably crazy, but who knows. The Vanessa Redgrave character is silly but I guess it's making a point that Radical Chic is not new.
The climax of the factual occurrence, the one and only original performance of Marc Blitzstein's "ThreePenny Opera"-inspired political musical "Cradle Will Rock" is a delightful recreation, and from what I've read, true to the real story. This is definitely a very un-1990's story.
(Additional recommended background reading: "Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century" by Michael Denning (Verso, 1998, 556 pages)
(originally written 1/2/2000)
fascinating slice of history
Buddy-5110 July 2000
Although ultraconservatives will undoubtedly dismiss `The Cradle Will Rock' as blatant leftwing propaganda, the rest of us will see it as a fascinating rumination on the intricate relationship that has always existed between politics and art. Writer/director Tim Robbins, whose left-leaning sympathies are common knowledge in the film industry, has managed to create a screenplay of amazing complexity and depth, functioning on an enormous number of levels - political, historical, aesthetic, personal - without ever losing clarity and focus. He has set up a dizzying array of characters, yet each one is fleshed out with enough depth and particularity to make him or her a vital part of the overall tapestry.
Set in the turbulent 1930's, Robbins' tale focuses on the National Theatre Company, an organization set up by Roosevelt during the Depression to provide out-of-work artists a vehicle through which to ply their trade and culture-starved audiences a chance to revel in the glories of live theatrical performances. Unfortunately, it was also a time of great civil and political upheaval, with Communism and Fascism battling for supremacy abroad and many Americans divided along similar lines in their loyalties. With passions running deep, it was only a matter of time before many in the United States Congress began suspecting the NTC of Communist sympathizing - and it was a short road from there to the eventual dismemberment of the organization. The film centers on the production of a controversial musical play called `The Cradle Will Rock' that portrays the glorious coming of unionism to a steel factory, a scenario that parallels the events in the lives of several of the characters in the film.
Given this fascinating historical background, Robbins has filled his film with a rich assortment of characters, from Orson Welles, as a fledgling young actor who sees unions as the ruination of artistic purity, to Nelson Rockefeller, as a well-meaning art patron who balks at the mural Diego Rivera has painted for him only after Rivera refuses to remove the image of Lenin from Rockefeller's monument-to-capitalism lobby. In fact, the cast of characters is so enormous, with each one taking a crucial part in the narrative proceedings, that it is quite impossible to mention them all here. Suffice it to say that Robbins covers the social spectrum from industrialists and capitalists to union workers and the unemployed, from sympathetic patrons and patronesses to the little people eager to root out the seeds of Communism even at the expense of their own ostracism. And not a one is uninteresting.
Robbins has assembled an all-star cast that reads like a who's who of contemporary movie acting (albeit of a non-blockbuster variety). Although at the beginning of the film, the casting of such familiar faces seems a bit disconcerting - leading to what critic Judith Crist refers to as the `hey there' syndrome, i.e. destroying the verisimilitude of a work by parading too many recognizable people before the camera - this technique actually helps the audience to differentiate the many characters who might otherwise pass by in a confusing and disorienting blur. Hank Azaria, Ruben Blades, John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Cary Elwes, Bill Murray, Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, John Turturro and Emily Watson comprise this truly fine cast.
Liberal as his leanings might be, Robbins is able to focus on the bitter ironies that abound on both sides of the political spectrum. For instance, while Susan Sarandon portrays a Jewish ally of Mussolini, abandoning her pro-worker principles to act as his capitalist representative in the States, Ruben Blades plays a Diego Rivera who has subordinated - if only temporarily - his own revolutionary ethos to the power of the almighty buck. Also, there is a certain paradox to the fact that, when the government has decreed the theater closed and thereby forbidden the premiere performance of the play, it is the actors' UNION that threatens the performers with firing if they carry out their plan to stage it furtively. Robbins is even somewhat evenhanded in his treatment of the `enemy' - the rich capitalists and the anti-communist members of the theatre organization - portraying them with good-natured humor and pathos. Joan Cusack, as a clerk at the employment office and Bill Murray, as a vaudeville ventriloquist, seem like decent people, only hopelessly misguided and lonely. (Unfortunately, Murray's sudden change of heart at the end seems inexplicable and unmotivated). As for the elite in the story, Robbins does a lovely job of spoofery at the end of the film; as the play is finally being performed at a nearby theatre - representing the triumph both on stage and in the world at large of the common man over the oppressive tyrants of industry - the tycoons, dressed in masquerade ball costumes of the 18th Century aristocracy and Catholic hierarchy, mull over their plans to retain control of the art world by bankrolling only those paintings depicting the scenes of utmost blandness and banality. Thus, these men of corporate power are portrayed more as amusingly quaint pests than malevolent or malicious despots.
There is certainly no denying that `The Cradle Will Rock' is, at heart, a bit of a leftwing diatribe. However, it is not a cruel or unreasonable one. And Tim Robbins' extraordinary skills as both a storyteller and filmmaker make this clearly one of the most interesting and impressive films of 1999.
Set in the turbulent 1930's, Robbins' tale focuses on the National Theatre Company, an organization set up by Roosevelt during the Depression to provide out-of-work artists a vehicle through which to ply their trade and culture-starved audiences a chance to revel in the glories of live theatrical performances. Unfortunately, it was also a time of great civil and political upheaval, with Communism and Fascism battling for supremacy abroad and many Americans divided along similar lines in their loyalties. With passions running deep, it was only a matter of time before many in the United States Congress began suspecting the NTC of Communist sympathizing - and it was a short road from there to the eventual dismemberment of the organization. The film centers on the production of a controversial musical play called `The Cradle Will Rock' that portrays the glorious coming of unionism to a steel factory, a scenario that parallels the events in the lives of several of the characters in the film.
Given this fascinating historical background, Robbins has filled his film with a rich assortment of characters, from Orson Welles, as a fledgling young actor who sees unions as the ruination of artistic purity, to Nelson Rockefeller, as a well-meaning art patron who balks at the mural Diego Rivera has painted for him only after Rivera refuses to remove the image of Lenin from Rockefeller's monument-to-capitalism lobby. In fact, the cast of characters is so enormous, with each one taking a crucial part in the narrative proceedings, that it is quite impossible to mention them all here. Suffice it to say that Robbins covers the social spectrum from industrialists and capitalists to union workers and the unemployed, from sympathetic patrons and patronesses to the little people eager to root out the seeds of Communism even at the expense of their own ostracism. And not a one is uninteresting.
Robbins has assembled an all-star cast that reads like a who's who of contemporary movie acting (albeit of a non-blockbuster variety). Although at the beginning of the film, the casting of such familiar faces seems a bit disconcerting - leading to what critic Judith Crist refers to as the `hey there' syndrome, i.e. destroying the verisimilitude of a work by parading too many recognizable people before the camera - this technique actually helps the audience to differentiate the many characters who might otherwise pass by in a confusing and disorienting blur. Hank Azaria, Ruben Blades, John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Cary Elwes, Bill Murray, Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, John Turturro and Emily Watson comprise this truly fine cast.
Liberal as his leanings might be, Robbins is able to focus on the bitter ironies that abound on both sides of the political spectrum. For instance, while Susan Sarandon portrays a Jewish ally of Mussolini, abandoning her pro-worker principles to act as his capitalist representative in the States, Ruben Blades plays a Diego Rivera who has subordinated - if only temporarily - his own revolutionary ethos to the power of the almighty buck. Also, there is a certain paradox to the fact that, when the government has decreed the theater closed and thereby forbidden the premiere performance of the play, it is the actors' UNION that threatens the performers with firing if they carry out their plan to stage it furtively. Robbins is even somewhat evenhanded in his treatment of the `enemy' - the rich capitalists and the anti-communist members of the theatre organization - portraying them with good-natured humor and pathos. Joan Cusack, as a clerk at the employment office and Bill Murray, as a vaudeville ventriloquist, seem like decent people, only hopelessly misguided and lonely. (Unfortunately, Murray's sudden change of heart at the end seems inexplicable and unmotivated). As for the elite in the story, Robbins does a lovely job of spoofery at the end of the film; as the play is finally being performed at a nearby theatre - representing the triumph both on stage and in the world at large of the common man over the oppressive tyrants of industry - the tycoons, dressed in masquerade ball costumes of the 18th Century aristocracy and Catholic hierarchy, mull over their plans to retain control of the art world by bankrolling only those paintings depicting the scenes of utmost blandness and banality. Thus, these men of corporate power are portrayed more as amusingly quaint pests than malevolent or malicious despots.
There is certainly no denying that `The Cradle Will Rock' is, at heart, a bit of a leftwing diatribe. However, it is not a cruel or unreasonable one. And Tim Robbins' extraordinary skills as both a storyteller and filmmaker make this clearly one of the most interesting and impressive films of 1999.
Conflicts and controversies during the Depression and much later
SimonJack16 February 2019
The story behind the making of this movie is more interesting than the film itself. Orson Welles had written an autobiographical screenplay about his time with the Federal Theater Project. It was especially about the effort in 1937 to stage a pro-union operetta. Composer Marc Blitzstein wrote "The Cradle Will Rock."
Welles began work on a film in 1983 but stopped when his funding fell through. He died in October 1985. He had divided his estate between his wife of 30 years, Paola Mori, and his mistress of 20 plus years, Yugoslav-Croatian actress, Oja Kodar. They fought prolonged legal battles over the ownership of this and several other unfinished films.
Then, in 1999, Tim Robbins made this film that is not based on Welles's screenplay and story. Rather, it is a fictional montage of 1937. It covers many of the cultural clashes and conditions of the Great Depression. It's centered around the Federal Theater Project and the Blitzstein play that many people were working on at the time. So this film, "Cradle Will Rock," with its slight change in title, is a separate fictional story about that event and time. It incorporates several smaller plots into a panoramic shot of the Great Depression in the Manhattan of 1937.
The film covers a myriad of subjects. It has the Federal Theater Project itself, which was one of several in the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of the New Deal. It shows congressional hearings and the fears about Communist inroads in America. It has scenes about the effort to form labor unions and its effect on the theater of the time. It's about the unemployed in the theater as well as the general population. And, it touches on politics in the various and New Deal efforts to get the country through the depression.
While these subjects are wound into this film - indeed, they can't be missed, the film's focus is more on the struggle the cast and sponsors have to bring the play to the stage. Along with all of this are some subplots of individuals. The best of these is a tragic drama and unspoken love story that develops between two people. Bill Murray is Tommy Crickshaw who has been a vaudeville entertainer as a ventriloquist. Joan Cusack plays Hazel Huffman, an employment clerk for the WPA.
Another separate subplot is about the controversy over the mural for the foyer of the Rockefeller Center in New York City. This incident occurred several years before the 1937 play, "The Cradle Will Rock." John D. Rockefeller hired Mexican artist Diego Rivera in 1932 to paint a mural for all to see in the Rockefeller lobby. But when Rivera included a likeness of Lenin, the Rockefellers wanted it painted over. Rivera refused and in 1934, the mural was chiseled off the wall. It would be replaced later by the current mural by Jose Maria Sert, "American Progress."
Thus, the filmmakers for this movie pulled together a number of things from the general period as though they all took place in 1937. This was done to highlight the theater and the arts during the Depression. So, the film should be considered a fictional story about several real events.
The film has a huge cast. It has roles for the major people involved in the 1937 project. And it has more roles for the other subplots. Hank Azaria plays Marc Blitzstein, Cary Elwes plays John Houseman, Angus Macfadyen plays Orson Welles, Ruben Blades plays Diego Rivera and John Cusack plays Nelson Rockefeller. Cherry Jones is very good as Hallie Flanagan who headed the theater project. And there are other big names of the silver screen and well-known performers. Among them are Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, John Turturro, and Emily Watson.
As a political film itself, this is also a good social satire. If this movie were made in 1937, it surely would have been considered a good propaganda film. But not so now, or since the start of World War II. That's when the world first learned of Joseph Stalin's effort to obliterate the Ukrainian farmers by a forced famine. It killed millions, and when the real famine struck next, it lead to millions more starving to death in the Soviet Union.
The film does a good job showing the contrast between the haves and have-nots of the Great Depression. It inserts several scenes of the Rockefellers and the very rich of New York. They are at art shows, in high-class restaurants, at the theater, and in other rich surroundings. And, there's no little amount of irony in that. Because the rich of the early 20th century were the sponsors, promoters and theatergoers of that day.
Well, this is a fun film to watch, even with a plot that bounces from subplot to subplot without any real connection. The costumes and sets give something of a sense of the late 1930s. The performances are mostly good, but nothing special jumps out. I wonder about reviewers who are greatly enamored by this film - or any film for that matter. It's hardly a film that will change one's life, or a great artistic piece in itself.
Life and art are so much more than a single film of any type. I remind myself, when I particularly enjoy a film, that it's fiction that's meant to entertain. And, that real life and greatness are found outside the theater doors.
Welles began work on a film in 1983 but stopped when his funding fell through. He died in October 1985. He had divided his estate between his wife of 30 years, Paola Mori, and his mistress of 20 plus years, Yugoslav-Croatian actress, Oja Kodar. They fought prolonged legal battles over the ownership of this and several other unfinished films.
Then, in 1999, Tim Robbins made this film that is not based on Welles's screenplay and story. Rather, it is a fictional montage of 1937. It covers many of the cultural clashes and conditions of the Great Depression. It's centered around the Federal Theater Project and the Blitzstein play that many people were working on at the time. So this film, "Cradle Will Rock," with its slight change in title, is a separate fictional story about that event and time. It incorporates several smaller plots into a panoramic shot of the Great Depression in the Manhattan of 1937.
The film covers a myriad of subjects. It has the Federal Theater Project itself, which was one of several in the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of the New Deal. It shows congressional hearings and the fears about Communist inroads in America. It has scenes about the effort to form labor unions and its effect on the theater of the time. It's about the unemployed in the theater as well as the general population. And, it touches on politics in the various and New Deal efforts to get the country through the depression.
While these subjects are wound into this film - indeed, they can't be missed, the film's focus is more on the struggle the cast and sponsors have to bring the play to the stage. Along with all of this are some subplots of individuals. The best of these is a tragic drama and unspoken love story that develops between two people. Bill Murray is Tommy Crickshaw who has been a vaudeville entertainer as a ventriloquist. Joan Cusack plays Hazel Huffman, an employment clerk for the WPA.
Another separate subplot is about the controversy over the mural for the foyer of the Rockefeller Center in New York City. This incident occurred several years before the 1937 play, "The Cradle Will Rock." John D. Rockefeller hired Mexican artist Diego Rivera in 1932 to paint a mural for all to see in the Rockefeller lobby. But when Rivera included a likeness of Lenin, the Rockefellers wanted it painted over. Rivera refused and in 1934, the mural was chiseled off the wall. It would be replaced later by the current mural by Jose Maria Sert, "American Progress."
Thus, the filmmakers for this movie pulled together a number of things from the general period as though they all took place in 1937. This was done to highlight the theater and the arts during the Depression. So, the film should be considered a fictional story about several real events.
The film has a huge cast. It has roles for the major people involved in the 1937 project. And it has more roles for the other subplots. Hank Azaria plays Marc Blitzstein, Cary Elwes plays John Houseman, Angus Macfadyen plays Orson Welles, Ruben Blades plays Diego Rivera and John Cusack plays Nelson Rockefeller. Cherry Jones is very good as Hallie Flanagan who headed the theater project. And there are other big names of the silver screen and well-known performers. Among them are Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, John Turturro, and Emily Watson.
As a political film itself, this is also a good social satire. If this movie were made in 1937, it surely would have been considered a good propaganda film. But not so now, or since the start of World War II. That's when the world first learned of Joseph Stalin's effort to obliterate the Ukrainian farmers by a forced famine. It killed millions, and when the real famine struck next, it lead to millions more starving to death in the Soviet Union.
The film does a good job showing the contrast between the haves and have-nots of the Great Depression. It inserts several scenes of the Rockefellers and the very rich of New York. They are at art shows, in high-class restaurants, at the theater, and in other rich surroundings. And, there's no little amount of irony in that. Because the rich of the early 20th century were the sponsors, promoters and theatergoers of that day.
Well, this is a fun film to watch, even with a plot that bounces from subplot to subplot without any real connection. The costumes and sets give something of a sense of the late 1930s. The performances are mostly good, but nothing special jumps out. I wonder about reviewers who are greatly enamored by this film - or any film for that matter. It's hardly a film that will change one's life, or a great artistic piece in itself.
Life and art are so much more than a single film of any type. I remind myself, when I particularly enjoy a film, that it's fiction that's meant to entertain. And, that real life and greatness are found outside the theater doors.
"I support your art, but that does not mean that I must support your revolution"
ackstasis2 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Cradle Will Rock" is not a very exciting title for a film, and my eye would most certainly have slid past its listing in the TV guide if it were not for the one-sentence plot synopsis below: "Orson Welles attempts to stage a controversial play in Depression-era America." My attention was immediately captured, and even more so during the very impressive one-take opening shot, which also boasts a lengthy line-up of casting credits that features everybody from Hank Azaria to Emily Watson, with no less than two Cusacks to seal the deal if there's one thing to be said about actors-turned-directors, it's that they can certainly bring in the big names. 'Cradle Will Rock (1999)' was Tim Robbins' third directorial effort, and he courageously tackles a wide assortment of political and social issues from 1930s America, as well as providing a commentary on the importance of art and culture as a means of expressing one's personal beliefs. It is only fitting that a film about the role of art be directed by a man who is obviously very passionate about his craft, and Robbins has produced a mature and intelligent comedy/drama.
The film, based on the true story of Marc Blitzstein's 1937 musical "The Cradle Will Rock," was originally planned as Orson Welles' final project, and pre-production commenced in 1983. However, not unusually for the great director, financial support was withdrawn shortly afterwards, and Welles passed away in 1985. Marc Blitzstein (Hank Azaria), a delusional playwright, pens a leftist labour musical based on his experiences with poverty-stricken households and the emerging union powers. Hallie Flanagan (Cherry Jones) of the Federal Theatre Project recognises the dramatic brilliance of the play and agrees to finance it, much to the consternation of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which is attempting to wheedle out anything that might possibly be construed as Communism. The dramatic prodigy Orson Welles (Angus Macfadyen) is hired to direct the play, and he impulsively decides to cast a homeless stagehand (Emily Watson) in the lead role, even though she can't sing. Meanwhile, Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusack) commissions artist Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) to paint a mural in his lobby, but is dismayed at the final result.
Though Orson Welles merely plays a supporting role in the proceedings, he is played with delicious verve by relative unknown Angus Macfadyen. His portrayal is completely overplayed, presenting the director and performer as a flamboyant caricature, probably the only approach if one is to capture a personality as outrageous as that of Orson Welles. Though the film itself lacks some narrative focus in that it attempts to cover too many themes and characters, all the loose-ends satisfactorily come together for the climax, the incredibly-energetic opening performance of "The Cradle Will Rock." I was once again reminded of the considerable talents of John Turturro, who brilliantly and convincingly evolves from the shy, humble Italian family man off-stage to his character of the strong, assertive union leader. Robbins also intercuts the play performance with the heartless desecration of Diego Rivera's politically-charged artwork mural, ironically contrasting the presentation of great art with its inevitable destruction by those who could never appreciate its importance to human culture.
The film, based on the true story of Marc Blitzstein's 1937 musical "The Cradle Will Rock," was originally planned as Orson Welles' final project, and pre-production commenced in 1983. However, not unusually for the great director, financial support was withdrawn shortly afterwards, and Welles passed away in 1985. Marc Blitzstein (Hank Azaria), a delusional playwright, pens a leftist labour musical based on his experiences with poverty-stricken households and the emerging union powers. Hallie Flanagan (Cherry Jones) of the Federal Theatre Project recognises the dramatic brilliance of the play and agrees to finance it, much to the consternation of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which is attempting to wheedle out anything that might possibly be construed as Communism. The dramatic prodigy Orson Welles (Angus Macfadyen) is hired to direct the play, and he impulsively decides to cast a homeless stagehand (Emily Watson) in the lead role, even though she can't sing. Meanwhile, Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusack) commissions artist Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) to paint a mural in his lobby, but is dismayed at the final result.
Though Orson Welles merely plays a supporting role in the proceedings, he is played with delicious verve by relative unknown Angus Macfadyen. His portrayal is completely overplayed, presenting the director and performer as a flamboyant caricature, probably the only approach if one is to capture a personality as outrageous as that of Orson Welles. Though the film itself lacks some narrative focus in that it attempts to cover too many themes and characters, all the loose-ends satisfactorily come together for the climax, the incredibly-energetic opening performance of "The Cradle Will Rock." I was once again reminded of the considerable talents of John Turturro, who brilliantly and convincingly evolves from the shy, humble Italian family man off-stage to his character of the strong, assertive union leader. Robbins also intercuts the play performance with the heartless desecration of Diego Rivera's politically-charged artwork mural, ironically contrasting the presentation of great art with its inevitable destruction by those who could never appreciate its importance to human culture.
A film that will change your life.
peacham1 February 2000
Tim Robbins has created a masterpiece. A film that stands up in the face of adversity and squashed freedom.Robbin's telling of the legendary events surrounding the Orson Welles production of Marc Blitztien's Labor Opers, THE CRADLE WILL ROCK, not only puts forth the events but he masterfully presents his film in the style of a Brecht theatre piece. The emotional level in the theatre when I saw this film was high,Applause rang out during the films climax. But this film is not only about artistic freedom, it is about freedom as a whole,about standing up for your freedom of belief and expression,could you imagine that there was actually a time in this "free" nation of ours when armed guards actually locked the doors of a theatre ,trying to prevent a show from being mounted.This film is an important one,and what Robbins accomplishes is to present it as entertainment as well,this is not a history lesson but a well executed work of art. As perfomances go everyone was splendid. Hank Azaria wins best honors as Blitztien,Cary Elwes and Angus McFadden as Houseman and Welles are also brilliant in their stellar portrayals.Vanessa Redgrave,Susan Sarandon and Bill Murray also lend their imense talents. John Turrturo deserves special mention for his touching portrait of actor Howard DaSilva. Some critics have pointed out what they felt was a lack of character development in the film. These critics have greatly missed the point. the film is presented as a Brecht (or Blitztein ) style play. Blitztein's CRADLE included characters named for their role in society,or personality, Jimmy Forman,Mister Mister,Reverend Salvation etc. it is this type of acting Robbins successfully evokes from his actors. This film is more than a movie,it is an emotional experience that will change the way you look at society.It is an inspiration,telling us to fight for what you believe in.
Lots of fun and educational, up to a point
xredgarnetx11 May 2008
An all-star production, CRADLE WILL ROCK chronicles the events leading up to the debut of Mark Blitzstein's "The Cradle Will Rock," a labor-oriented drama with music, written in the turbulent 1930s. It is to be performed at the WPA Federal Theater, but the government gets cold feet at the last minute and closes the theater. So the players take their production to a private theater and perform before an SRO crowd. Oddly enough, the performance turns out to be the least interesting part of the film, done up in a "Let's fix up the old barn and put on a show" routine seen in countless Andy Hardy and Little Rascals films. It is what happens before that is fascinating, as we shift back and forth between New York and Washington and are exposed to the "isms" of this post Depression/pre-WWII time: communism and fascism. One supposes most of what writer/director Tim Robbins portrays here is real enough, but keep in mind Robbins is an avowed leftist and so the film is probably best taken with a large dose of salt. But what a cast: John and Joan Cusack, Susan (Mrs. Tim Robbins) Sarandon, Cary Elwes, John Turturro, Jack Black, Bill Murray, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades and Hank Azaria. All play real-life figures of the era, including Orson Welles and John Rockefeller. A must-see for art-house film lovers and those interested in the period. All others, beware.
What is YOUR price?
Bill-2761 February 2000
This is a classically written piece about the corruptability and compromises of politicians, businessmen and yes even artists. Tim Robbins is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers. I'll admit I had a hard time trying not to misinterpret the dialog, but at least the movie made me think. I also commend Robbins for tackling the hypocrisy involved in being an artist. It's slow, but give it a chance. By the end of this movie the levels and themes he's hitting on tie together very, very well.
Overly ambitious film by a man with a mission
FlickJunkie-212 June 2000
Poor Tim Robbins. An anachronism born 50 years too late, he endures as a passionate liberal crusader in an age of capitalistic dominance. The Cradle Will Rock', written and directed by Robbins, is a pining for the glory days of the socialist and labor movements in the United States. It is a nostalgic piece with leftist sensitivities, written by one who wishes he had been there.
This is a well assembled but bloated ensemble piece, based on fact, that centers on the federal theater program of the mid 1930's. This program was an outgrowth of the WPA from the depression years that gave federal funding to the arts to give employment to out of work actors, with the thinking that good theater would be good to boost the moral of the masses. Unfortunately, Robbins was overly ambitious in this collage, attempting to weave together no less than four virtually unrelated stories. The result is a whirlwind of disjointed jump cuts that distracts the viewer from the only engaging storyline, namely the production of Marc Blitzstein's play. The disparate barrage of stories, assembled carefully to wax nostalgic about the leftist movement, had little appeal to anyone but those with a predilection to such waxing. For everyone else, it just diluted the effectiveness of the main storyline, which is a pity because it was a good human interest story.
That story shows a young Orson Welles directing a new play sympathetic to the labor movement. The play and the federal theater program come under scrutiny of the U.S. Government. The play is closed down on opening night and federal troops sent to barricade the doors of the theater, because the play is believed to have a communist message.
In a defiant act, Welles finds another theater and herds the audience from the front door of the garrisoned theater to the new one where the play is to be performed as a one man show by the author, the only man not in the union. All the other actors are under orders not to perform lest they lose their jobs, a daunting thought in depression times. The play goes on with a dramatic and uplifting twist at the end.
The whole ensemble did a terrific job. All the actors gave wonderful performances, though they needed to find someone with a voice better than Emily Watson's for the singing role. Though I have been critical of John Turturro in the past (Illuminata' for instance) his was a standout performance in a very talented ensemble. Ruben Blades was also terrific as the eccentric Diego Rivera.
Overall, it was a decent effort at tackling a subject that simply no longer has an audience. Robbins did a good job on the period props and sets, and the scenes brought forth frankly many of the real issues of the day (with a decidedly leftward slant). But the film dissipates itself on irrelevant scenes designed to serve as a catharsis for every injustice Robbins saw in the times. That jihad annuls some good performances by rendering the film a mediocre hodgepodge.
I rated the film a 6/10. It had greater potential but flubbed it. If you are a staunch conservative capitalist type, don't waste your time with this film. It will just aggravate you. If you long for the days of passionate liberal activism, you will love it, but if you are just looking for entertainment, you will probably be disappointed.
This is a well assembled but bloated ensemble piece, based on fact, that centers on the federal theater program of the mid 1930's. This program was an outgrowth of the WPA from the depression years that gave federal funding to the arts to give employment to out of work actors, with the thinking that good theater would be good to boost the moral of the masses. Unfortunately, Robbins was overly ambitious in this collage, attempting to weave together no less than four virtually unrelated stories. The result is a whirlwind of disjointed jump cuts that distracts the viewer from the only engaging storyline, namely the production of Marc Blitzstein's play. The disparate barrage of stories, assembled carefully to wax nostalgic about the leftist movement, had little appeal to anyone but those with a predilection to such waxing. For everyone else, it just diluted the effectiveness of the main storyline, which is a pity because it was a good human interest story.
That story shows a young Orson Welles directing a new play sympathetic to the labor movement. The play and the federal theater program come under scrutiny of the U.S. Government. The play is closed down on opening night and federal troops sent to barricade the doors of the theater, because the play is believed to have a communist message.
In a defiant act, Welles finds another theater and herds the audience from the front door of the garrisoned theater to the new one where the play is to be performed as a one man show by the author, the only man not in the union. All the other actors are under orders not to perform lest they lose their jobs, a daunting thought in depression times. The play goes on with a dramatic and uplifting twist at the end.
The whole ensemble did a terrific job. All the actors gave wonderful performances, though they needed to find someone with a voice better than Emily Watson's for the singing role. Though I have been critical of John Turturro in the past (Illuminata' for instance) his was a standout performance in a very talented ensemble. Ruben Blades was also terrific as the eccentric Diego Rivera.
Overall, it was a decent effort at tackling a subject that simply no longer has an audience. Robbins did a good job on the period props and sets, and the scenes brought forth frankly many of the real issues of the day (with a decidedly leftward slant). But the film dissipates itself on irrelevant scenes designed to serve as a catharsis for every injustice Robbins saw in the times. That jihad annuls some good performances by rendering the film a mediocre hodgepodge.
I rated the film a 6/10. It had greater potential but flubbed it. If you are a staunch conservative capitalist type, don't waste your time with this film. It will just aggravate you. If you long for the days of passionate liberal activism, you will love it, but if you are just looking for entertainment, you will probably be disappointed.
too many historical inaccuracies
vnline28 May 2014
too many historical inaccuracies. the movie is set in 1937
1. fascism wasn't anti-semitic until the mid thirties, and the first racial laws were passed in 1938 on account of the pressing ideological pull of the dominant ally, Nazi Germany. Hitler needed the Italians to get on par with the racial discrimination, otherwise he couldn't justify to the Aryan German people being allied with an inferior people, and all the propaganda efforts put into making the Germans feel as a unite comradeship against their many inferior enemies would promptly fail its purpose. Mussolini obediently submitted to his requests and promulgated the race manifesto, despite counting many Jews among his friends and acquaintances himself, like his ex lover the writer Margherita Sarfatti
2. Margherita Sarfatti was a strong supporter of Mussolini, but that changed when the racial laws were passed. She soon left the fascist party and went to Argentina. So if she ever went to the USA to promote Mussolini, this was surely before the regime turned anti-semitic.
3. Italy and Germany did not attack Spain. They aided and military and politically supported the nationalist rebels leaded by Franco, who tried a coup during the civil war to restore a conservative regime which had been subverted by the late socialist government and numerous anarchist riots. IE Spain was already a mess. Many Italian Marxists, communists and socialists also went and fought in Spain alongside the republican forces - which were aided by the URSS - against the falangistas and the fascist regular troops.
4. Rivera painted that mural in 1933, so all dates and facts happening in the movie mismatch.
5. In my understanding there was wide sympathy and support for Italian fascism in the American parlors, which isn't as apparent watching the movie. They favored fascism in juxtaposition to communism, as the latter was founded on class conflict, and the first on induced/enforced social peace and corporatism - which was already part of the American culture and economy, although in a more liberal form (and it still is). The fascist ideology found ground in the frightened middle and upper classes in all of the world, as the unions were getting stronger and the rich were scared of a Marxist revolution.
1. fascism wasn't anti-semitic until the mid thirties, and the first racial laws were passed in 1938 on account of the pressing ideological pull of the dominant ally, Nazi Germany. Hitler needed the Italians to get on par with the racial discrimination, otherwise he couldn't justify to the Aryan German people being allied with an inferior people, and all the propaganda efforts put into making the Germans feel as a unite comradeship against their many inferior enemies would promptly fail its purpose. Mussolini obediently submitted to his requests and promulgated the race manifesto, despite counting many Jews among his friends and acquaintances himself, like his ex lover the writer Margherita Sarfatti
2. Margherita Sarfatti was a strong supporter of Mussolini, but that changed when the racial laws were passed. She soon left the fascist party and went to Argentina. So if she ever went to the USA to promote Mussolini, this was surely before the regime turned anti-semitic.
3. Italy and Germany did not attack Spain. They aided and military and politically supported the nationalist rebels leaded by Franco, who tried a coup during the civil war to restore a conservative regime which had been subverted by the late socialist government and numerous anarchist riots. IE Spain was already a mess. Many Italian Marxists, communists and socialists also went and fought in Spain alongside the republican forces - which were aided by the URSS - against the falangistas and the fascist regular troops.
4. Rivera painted that mural in 1933, so all dates and facts happening in the movie mismatch.
5. In my understanding there was wide sympathy and support for Italian fascism in the American parlors, which isn't as apparent watching the movie. They favored fascism in juxtaposition to communism, as the latter was founded on class conflict, and the first on induced/enforced social peace and corporatism - which was already part of the American culture and economy, although in a more liberal form (and it still is). The fascist ideology found ground in the frightened middle and upper classes in all of the world, as the unions were getting stronger and the rich were scared of a Marxist revolution.
Artsy, elegant manifesto with fascinating sub-plots and details.
Silverzero1 August 2003
Based on the events that occurred in post Depression era New York in 1936, `The Cradle Will Rock' is a spectacular extravaganza of people, places, and most of all, cultures. Truly an exemplary take on the battle of radicals and corporates, art and politics when they could be united in a common bond. Thus, it is only suiting that such a film be directed by uber-liberalist Tim Robbins. This picture simply wouldn't have worked without him.
From an overhead point of view, this is the cinematic equivalent of a protest- a real bite on shady politics. But in actuality it is something far deeper, focusing on numerous interesting sub-plots and taking in everyone's point of view. The backdrop is the closing down of a theatrical play when it is accused of being communist. Throughout the 135 minutes, we take in all of the different `isms'- fascism, capitalism, communism, Nazism, Catholicism and Judaism. Not only does this require a passing knowledge on these people and events; one must have an interest in the proceedings to get the most out of it.
One reason why there have been some negative reviews is because people are confused as to why Diego Riviera, Margherreta Sarfatti etc. are in the story. I can explain. Rather like `Magnolia (which followed on totally dissimilar outlines), you have to read the sub-text. This is a movie about passion for art and music. Marc Blitzein, Hazel Huffman and Diego Riviera (and all connected) had a deep passion for their work that the authorities would soon destroy because of rules and regulations.
Interesting is the fact that all the characters are based on true life people, and Robbins has assembled a fine cast who give noteworthy performances all across the board. One of the hardest to portray has to be Orson Welles. It's a true fact that 21-year-olds from the 1930's look much older than those from the 90's. No one wanted to see James Van Der Beek/ Casper Van Dien in the role. Thus, Angus MacFadyen was a superb choice, portraying Welles as an egotistical, self-centred man. Equally impressive is Susan Sarandon (with an impeccable exotic accent) as a Jewish Fascist art dealer. She knows exactly what she's doing and highlights some of the best scenes. Other standouts include John Cusack's aristocratic Nelson Rockafeller and Cary Elwes' interpretation of flamboyant producer/ soon-to-be Oscar winner (`The Paper Chase'- 1973) John Houseman.
If there were a flaw, it would have to be the last 15-20 minutes. What, for the most part, is an illustrious, brilliant character study later dissipates into a shiny-smiley low glitz `Singin In the Rain' effort. Such a shame, because the film was doing so tremendously up until that point. Then of course, it is 135 minutes long so much of that final sequence could and should have been excised.
Nevertheless, if you can forgive that, you have a remarkable, audacious film on hand. `The Cradle Will Rock' truly is an overseen landmark in ensembles, biopics and interweaving. By far Robbins best movie yet, the sub-plots are equally impressive from Blitzstein's paranoid delusions to Constance La Grange's over-the-top characteristics. If you are in any way interested in fascism, communism etc. then don't miss this polished, spirited picture. My IMDb rating: 7.6/10.
From an overhead point of view, this is the cinematic equivalent of a protest- a real bite on shady politics. But in actuality it is something far deeper, focusing on numerous interesting sub-plots and taking in everyone's point of view. The backdrop is the closing down of a theatrical play when it is accused of being communist. Throughout the 135 minutes, we take in all of the different `isms'- fascism, capitalism, communism, Nazism, Catholicism and Judaism. Not only does this require a passing knowledge on these people and events; one must have an interest in the proceedings to get the most out of it.
One reason why there have been some negative reviews is because people are confused as to why Diego Riviera, Margherreta Sarfatti etc. are in the story. I can explain. Rather like `Magnolia (which followed on totally dissimilar outlines), you have to read the sub-text. This is a movie about passion for art and music. Marc Blitzein, Hazel Huffman and Diego Riviera (and all connected) had a deep passion for their work that the authorities would soon destroy because of rules and regulations.
Interesting is the fact that all the characters are based on true life people, and Robbins has assembled a fine cast who give noteworthy performances all across the board. One of the hardest to portray has to be Orson Welles. It's a true fact that 21-year-olds from the 1930's look much older than those from the 90's. No one wanted to see James Van Der Beek/ Casper Van Dien in the role. Thus, Angus MacFadyen was a superb choice, portraying Welles as an egotistical, self-centred man. Equally impressive is Susan Sarandon (with an impeccable exotic accent) as a Jewish Fascist art dealer. She knows exactly what she's doing and highlights some of the best scenes. Other standouts include John Cusack's aristocratic Nelson Rockafeller and Cary Elwes' interpretation of flamboyant producer/ soon-to-be Oscar winner (`The Paper Chase'- 1973) John Houseman.
If there were a flaw, it would have to be the last 15-20 minutes. What, for the most part, is an illustrious, brilliant character study later dissipates into a shiny-smiley low glitz `Singin In the Rain' effort. Such a shame, because the film was doing so tremendously up until that point. Then of course, it is 135 minutes long so much of that final sequence could and should have been excised.
Nevertheless, if you can forgive that, you have a remarkable, audacious film on hand. `The Cradle Will Rock' truly is an overseen landmark in ensembles, biopics and interweaving. By far Robbins best movie yet, the sub-plots are equally impressive from Blitzstein's paranoid delusions to Constance La Grange's over-the-top characteristics. If you are in any way interested in fascism, communism etc. then don't miss this polished, spirited picture. My IMDb rating: 7.6/10.
Like some sort of photography of some really existed people
bellino-angelo20143 June 2022
During the Great Depression playwright Mark Blitzstein (Hank Azaria) is working on the musical THE CRADLE WILL ROCK but doesn't have much inspiration for finishing it unless he has a vision of his former wife and Bertolt Brecht that recommend him to adjust the play and making it more adequate for the actual times. At the same time the WPA (Works Progress Administration) has to cut funding for all the FTP productions including the one by Blitzstein. After some failed shows and the destruction of a mural after Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) is suspected of communism support, John Houseman (Cary Elwes) and Orson Welles set up an improvised performance with all the cast members that are in the audience that play without putting foot on the stage. Soon after this they play a fake funeral going to Times Square where there are lots of billboards of new plays.
I liked the concept and the cast as is full of many famous faces (Azaria, Elwes, John Cusack, Susan Sarandon, Bill Murray, Jack Black and some others) and I really appreciated that everyone was dressed like it was used back then. Kudos to director Tim Robbins for this. My problems were that at times the pacing was a bit dull and a few performances looked stilted. Despite this, I still liked it for what it is. A snapshot of a period in US history... nothing more, nothing less.
I liked the concept and the cast as is full of many famous faces (Azaria, Elwes, John Cusack, Susan Sarandon, Bill Murray, Jack Black and some others) and I really appreciated that everyone was dressed like it was used back then. Kudos to director Tim Robbins for this. My problems were that at times the pacing was a bit dull and a few performances looked stilted. Despite this, I still liked it for what it is. A snapshot of a period in US history... nothing more, nothing less.
Robbins' "homage" to Altman
bo-8514 August 2005
This film is another example of Tim Robbins pushing his version of reality on the movie going audience. He paints the 1930's as an era where the rich and powerful attempt to squash the downtrodden.
Orson Welles was a giant not only in his film work but also on the stage. Robbins effectively reduces Welles to an alcoholic homophobic buffoon with zero tolerance for an actor's personal needs.
I never heard of this film until reading about it on an Orson Welles web site. The audience apparently stayed away in droves. It is not surprising to learn that the film recaptured less than ten percent of its budget at the box office. The film's commercial failure it seems has ended Robbins career as a writer/director.
The film contains dozen of characters and numerous plot lines none of which generate any degree of sympathy for the audience to create an engaging story. Robbins' homage (or plagiarism) of Robert Altman's ensemble format fails badly as he tries to push his spin on historical fact. At least he posts a disclaimer, during the opening credits, that the film is mostly true. His message seems to be that those on the left are oppressed holders of the truth while those on the right are corrupt censors of artistic freedom.
Another weak spot of the film is that the musical play itself is of dubious quality in both words and music. Robbins, to his credit, shows very little of the play's weak content.
The cinematography in the film is very good as is the production design. But if Robbins ever gets the chance to write another film he should study up on screenplay structure and read Lajos Egri on character development.
Orson Welles was a giant not only in his film work but also on the stage. Robbins effectively reduces Welles to an alcoholic homophobic buffoon with zero tolerance for an actor's personal needs.
I never heard of this film until reading about it on an Orson Welles web site. The audience apparently stayed away in droves. It is not surprising to learn that the film recaptured less than ten percent of its budget at the box office. The film's commercial failure it seems has ended Robbins career as a writer/director.
The film contains dozen of characters and numerous plot lines none of which generate any degree of sympathy for the audience to create an engaging story. Robbins' homage (or plagiarism) of Robert Altman's ensemble format fails badly as he tries to push his spin on historical fact. At least he posts a disclaimer, during the opening credits, that the film is mostly true. His message seems to be that those on the left are oppressed holders of the truth while those on the right are corrupt censors of artistic freedom.
Another weak spot of the film is that the musical play itself is of dubious quality in both words and music. Robbins, to his credit, shows very little of the play's weak content.
The cinematography in the film is very good as is the production design. But if Robbins ever gets the chance to write another film he should study up on screenplay structure and read Lajos Egri on character development.
A Wonderful, Intelligent Film
djsadegh3 May 2000
Cradle Will Rock has everything I like in a movie - great characters, humor, suspense, depth, and music. The many subplots are woven together in perfect balance, leaving you wanting more of everything at the end, even though the film is over two hours.
The acting is excellent all around, especially Cherry Jones' portrayal of Hallie Flanagan, the head of the Federal Theater. Ruben Blades and Angus MacFadyen give us Diego Rivera and Orson Welles, respectively, and do not disappoint. It's rare to see so many charismatic, likeable people in a movie with a real story. There is no one star of the film - everyone is sharing the spotlight equally. Tim Robbins has really done a magnificent job of putting all the pieces in the right places.
And perhaps best of all, this is a film with real controversy - one that will get you thinking about art and politics and unions and the influence of money on everything. Cradle Will Rock is such an ambitious piece of work, it could have failed in so many different ways, and yet it succeeds on every level. Check it out.
The acting is excellent all around, especially Cherry Jones' portrayal of Hallie Flanagan, the head of the Federal Theater. Ruben Blades and Angus MacFadyen give us Diego Rivera and Orson Welles, respectively, and do not disappoint. It's rare to see so many charismatic, likeable people in a movie with a real story. There is no one star of the film - everyone is sharing the spotlight equally. Tim Robbins has really done a magnificent job of putting all the pieces in the right places.
And perhaps best of all, this is a film with real controversy - one that will get you thinking about art and politics and unions and the influence of money on everything. Cradle Will Rock is such an ambitious piece of work, it could have failed in so many different ways, and yet it succeeds on every level. Check it out.
The Cradle is certainly rocking.
johnnyboyz25 May 2009
In 1992, Tim Robbins played the lead role in a Robert Altman film called 'The Player', a film about an egotistical film producer in contemporary Hollywood; a man who was forced to face a reality check as a somewhat disgruntled situation closed in on him. With 1999's Cradle Will Rock, Robbins returns to the territory that sees people in the entertainment business struggling to lead the lives they would desperately like to. Only this time, he is directing a film about a group of people that do not so much need a reality check and to go through a blender of facing the repercussions one brings upon one's self, as much as he directs a bunch of characters trying to survive as the Great Depression consumes everything around it and desperation threatens creeps in.
Like The Player, Cradle Will Rock opens up with a wonderful long take in a theatre, detailing the necessary surroundings; the sorts of people the film will be spending time with and gets across a general feel for the era in which it's set by having a news reel play in the background. It's a slow and deliberate opening, hovering and focusing on one individual as they lie there, back stage; capturing what will follow: a hovering and a focusing on people within an industry the stereotypical image of which might be glitz, glamour and riches. These people are just trying to get by.
Cradle Will Rock is set amongst those in the theatrical business in 1930s America, as opposed to the film industry in the 1990s. While systematically looking at art-forms and the want for some to censor art within this world, director Robbins paints a wonderful canvas of the class system within this time and how different struggles affect each and every one of the different layers of life. The film is often quite funny, even surrealistic in its gags, but it never trivialises the bigger picture of the situation and nor does it exploit those struggling for means of entertainment even though they are working within the boundaries of an entertainment medium.
Amongst the all star cast is Marc Blitzstein (Azaria), a deep thinking and spiritual piano player desperately looking for inspiration and a tune to nail to his upcoming musical entitled Cradle Will Rock, the very piece everyone will come together and find solace with. We also get a steady turn from Bill Murray, as he plays Tommy Crickshaw, an ageing puppeteer who is tied to two young protégés. Then there is Angus Macfadyen's wonderfully eccentric portrayal of Orson Welles, as a young and energetic director so desperately trying to succeed in completing a play with his producer John Houseman (Elwes). On another equilibrium, John Cusak's Nelson Rockefeller gets into all sorts of bother with a Mexican artist that paints a wonderful mosaic on the wall of Rockefeller's theatre only to refuse removing Lenin's face he has included. Robbins effortlessly taps into the growing fears of Communism at the time but additionally finds time to present an argument on censorship without taking sides.
Cradle Will Rock is essentially a feel-good piece. Its title suggests potential disaster, an ominous event about to occur, particularly if we think back to what follows 'cradle will rock' in the popular rhyme. To give away whether things come crashing down or not is a spoiler of sorts if you're not familiar with how the real 1937 events eventually transpired. Each character is given enough time for us to be able to resonate with them. The film is concerned with different aspects of certain artists and their fields. Blitzstein's face and hands as he plays the piano are given more attention than anything else as he goes through all the emotions in trying to write his musical. This is accompanied by the very sporadic and energetic Welles, whose body language and hand all-over-the-place-hand-gestures gets across most of the urgency in regards to his respective situation. Further still, the Mexican artist that paints Rockefeller's wall, as well as Tommy Crickshaw, use their tired and experienced hands to carve a living out of what are, essentially, art forms in themselves; those being painting and ventriloquy.
The Mexican artist's painting forces the film to raise some interesting issues. Rockefeller wishes to censor the inclusion of Lenin so as not to confuse onlookers; so as not to force contextual analysis of why the head might be there. It is a tampering of art, something that echoes what drives the final third which is a cancellation of the show and the stopping of an art-form from playing out in its true form. This oppositional reading idea is hit upon a second time in the film when a newspaper reads what seems to be a harmless children's play about beavers, in an entirely different fashion. Thankfully, common sense prevails and something transpires; an event that the old phrase 'the show must go on' could well have derived from.
Cradle Will Rock is a brilliantly acted and wonderfully directed film, with a distinct energy and applied assurance on Tim Robbins' behalf – it is a shame he has only very few directing credits following this project. The film is an homage, of sorts, to theatre; set at a time when it was becoming second-fiddle to cinema barely years after the introduction of sound on screen. The rousing and affirming finale rounds off what is, essentially, a rousing and affirming film about a play depicting harsh realities of life, but never underplaying them.
Like The Player, Cradle Will Rock opens up with a wonderful long take in a theatre, detailing the necessary surroundings; the sorts of people the film will be spending time with and gets across a general feel for the era in which it's set by having a news reel play in the background. It's a slow and deliberate opening, hovering and focusing on one individual as they lie there, back stage; capturing what will follow: a hovering and a focusing on people within an industry the stereotypical image of which might be glitz, glamour and riches. These people are just trying to get by.
Cradle Will Rock is set amongst those in the theatrical business in 1930s America, as opposed to the film industry in the 1990s. While systematically looking at art-forms and the want for some to censor art within this world, director Robbins paints a wonderful canvas of the class system within this time and how different struggles affect each and every one of the different layers of life. The film is often quite funny, even surrealistic in its gags, but it never trivialises the bigger picture of the situation and nor does it exploit those struggling for means of entertainment even though they are working within the boundaries of an entertainment medium.
Amongst the all star cast is Marc Blitzstein (Azaria), a deep thinking and spiritual piano player desperately looking for inspiration and a tune to nail to his upcoming musical entitled Cradle Will Rock, the very piece everyone will come together and find solace with. We also get a steady turn from Bill Murray, as he plays Tommy Crickshaw, an ageing puppeteer who is tied to two young protégés. Then there is Angus Macfadyen's wonderfully eccentric portrayal of Orson Welles, as a young and energetic director so desperately trying to succeed in completing a play with his producer John Houseman (Elwes). On another equilibrium, John Cusak's Nelson Rockefeller gets into all sorts of bother with a Mexican artist that paints a wonderful mosaic on the wall of Rockefeller's theatre only to refuse removing Lenin's face he has included. Robbins effortlessly taps into the growing fears of Communism at the time but additionally finds time to present an argument on censorship without taking sides.
Cradle Will Rock is essentially a feel-good piece. Its title suggests potential disaster, an ominous event about to occur, particularly if we think back to what follows 'cradle will rock' in the popular rhyme. To give away whether things come crashing down or not is a spoiler of sorts if you're not familiar with how the real 1937 events eventually transpired. Each character is given enough time for us to be able to resonate with them. The film is concerned with different aspects of certain artists and their fields. Blitzstein's face and hands as he plays the piano are given more attention than anything else as he goes through all the emotions in trying to write his musical. This is accompanied by the very sporadic and energetic Welles, whose body language and hand all-over-the-place-hand-gestures gets across most of the urgency in regards to his respective situation. Further still, the Mexican artist that paints Rockefeller's wall, as well as Tommy Crickshaw, use their tired and experienced hands to carve a living out of what are, essentially, art forms in themselves; those being painting and ventriloquy.
The Mexican artist's painting forces the film to raise some interesting issues. Rockefeller wishes to censor the inclusion of Lenin so as not to confuse onlookers; so as not to force contextual analysis of why the head might be there. It is a tampering of art, something that echoes what drives the final third which is a cancellation of the show and the stopping of an art-form from playing out in its true form. This oppositional reading idea is hit upon a second time in the film when a newspaper reads what seems to be a harmless children's play about beavers, in an entirely different fashion. Thankfully, common sense prevails and something transpires; an event that the old phrase 'the show must go on' could well have derived from.
Cradle Will Rock is a brilliantly acted and wonderfully directed film, with a distinct energy and applied assurance on Tim Robbins' behalf – it is a shame he has only very few directing credits following this project. The film is an homage, of sorts, to theatre; set at a time when it was becoming second-fiddle to cinema barely years after the introduction of sound on screen. The rousing and affirming finale rounds off what is, essentially, a rousing and affirming film about a play depicting harsh realities of life, but never underplaying them.
Robbins should concentrate on acting
msultan11 June 2004
Cradle Will Rock is well-filmed and has a political message. It is, however, boring, predictable, and patronizing. I don't see anything wrong with artists putting politics in their art, in fact I encourage it, but Tim Robbins' characters are like Duracell rabbits who carry their messages without any personality or depth (is 'investment' better?). In Cradle Will Rock, Vanessa Redgrave's character mirrors Susan Sarandon's character in Dead Man Walking. They're filled with a mission and they don't ask questions, but hopefully and cheerfully carry their missions out. Dramatic tension? Nope, they're above it (the scripts, characters, and movies). The parallel between the French monarchy (Louis XVI at the eve of the French Revolution, to be exact) and Gray Mathers and his crowd is plain tacky and void of character development. Robbins' is a very shallow reading of history. He can't figure out if he wants to do high art or reach the masses, and the result is not very good at all.
An American Masterpiece
MichaelORourke16 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Tim and Susan have been on the forefront of our political and artistic landscape for many years, regardless of the personal or artistic costs. They are Hollywood players, and as such, I do not always stand and cheer when I see one of their films. It's taken some time for me to recognize their excellent aspirations. Not to say I haven't embraced their intentions in a general way. With this film, "Cradle Will Rock," however, I embrace them unconditionally.
I have deep theatrical roots, and was simply enchanted by the frame of this story inside Roosevelt's WPA theatre project of the early '30s. As deeply embedded in the theatre as I am, I had no idea, I blush to admit, that I owed so much to the extraordinary legacy of the artists and managers from that era. So, for this alone, I am grateful to the filmmakers.
Within my personal history in the theatre, I have long struggled with the zeal in needing to produce "theatre in defense of civil and human liberties," and reconciling that with the ongoing pressures of making a buck. Not that I insist all artistic need be "liberty" oriented. But I am uneasy in choosing a work to produce or to witness, if I cannot find a pillar of social justice within it. The earth is far too fragile, and the threats to her and her inhabitants are far too imminent, to waste time otherwise.
Back to the film: Not only was I unaware of the WPA theatre project, I was unaware there was a McCarthy-Era-like-witch hunt to dismember the artists and producers and administrators. I kept thinking as I watched the Senate interrogations, "Is that Senator McCarthy? That can't be--that doesn't happen for 30 years!" The parallel is unmistakable (uncanny), and one can't help but ponder its legacy: The McCarthy Era; Senator Jesse Helms' vicious, relentless attacks on public funded arts, media and humanities; the Bush Doctrine, and so on. And as I watched, there was this small voice telling me what we all know: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I was shocked to learn that this hideous bureaucracy has been using every weapon at hand to demolish the arts in the US for at least 80 years. For this revelation alone, I honor these filmmakers.
The history and political science are presented excellently here, and might be subjects for good documentaries. Believe it or not, I do like entertainment, and it's likely I would've missed the lessons had they been presented as documentaries. Instead, Tim has written one of the most compelling screenplays with very diverse human stories interwoven in what must've been a pitch to studio execs that was unwieldy and impossible to track. Not so in the execution. I write screenplays, and I am many times undone by the weight of my convictions. Not so with "Cradle." The writing here is superb.
To climax with a performance of the musical "Cradle Will Rock" booked in a vaudeville house in a last ditch effort after the Feds close down the original venue is divinely inspired. The "show-must-go-on" mentality produced with a pianist and piano on an empty stage, before a standing room only crowd of recently fired performers and technicians, their families, friends, and supporters is just bloody brilliant. When the performers stand up in the house to join the performance--Equity Union rules they cannot step on stage--when these performers step into their roles, rising up from the audience itself, and in spite of very real threats of being black balled--the effect is sublime. It's as though the observers become the observed--that alchemical magic every sincere performer strives to achieve. To accomplish this on film is rare. Sure, you often identify with a character in a film, but you often do it in a kind of hypnotic escapist state. This film achieves something more particular, more active in the way of audience/performer union.
"Cradle Will Rock" is one of the best film arts arguments for democracy. It is a gift to all of us. Let us honor and treasure the filmmakers.
I have deep theatrical roots, and was simply enchanted by the frame of this story inside Roosevelt's WPA theatre project of the early '30s. As deeply embedded in the theatre as I am, I had no idea, I blush to admit, that I owed so much to the extraordinary legacy of the artists and managers from that era. So, for this alone, I am grateful to the filmmakers.
Within my personal history in the theatre, I have long struggled with the zeal in needing to produce "theatre in defense of civil and human liberties," and reconciling that with the ongoing pressures of making a buck. Not that I insist all artistic need be "liberty" oriented. But I am uneasy in choosing a work to produce or to witness, if I cannot find a pillar of social justice within it. The earth is far too fragile, and the threats to her and her inhabitants are far too imminent, to waste time otherwise.
Back to the film: Not only was I unaware of the WPA theatre project, I was unaware there was a McCarthy-Era-like-witch hunt to dismember the artists and producers and administrators. I kept thinking as I watched the Senate interrogations, "Is that Senator McCarthy? That can't be--that doesn't happen for 30 years!" The parallel is unmistakable (uncanny), and one can't help but ponder its legacy: The McCarthy Era; Senator Jesse Helms' vicious, relentless attacks on public funded arts, media and humanities; the Bush Doctrine, and so on. And as I watched, there was this small voice telling me what we all know: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I was shocked to learn that this hideous bureaucracy has been using every weapon at hand to demolish the arts in the US for at least 80 years. For this revelation alone, I honor these filmmakers.
The history and political science are presented excellently here, and might be subjects for good documentaries. Believe it or not, I do like entertainment, and it's likely I would've missed the lessons had they been presented as documentaries. Instead, Tim has written one of the most compelling screenplays with very diverse human stories interwoven in what must've been a pitch to studio execs that was unwieldy and impossible to track. Not so in the execution. I write screenplays, and I am many times undone by the weight of my convictions. Not so with "Cradle." The writing here is superb.
To climax with a performance of the musical "Cradle Will Rock" booked in a vaudeville house in a last ditch effort after the Feds close down the original venue is divinely inspired. The "show-must-go-on" mentality produced with a pianist and piano on an empty stage, before a standing room only crowd of recently fired performers and technicians, their families, friends, and supporters is just bloody brilliant. When the performers stand up in the house to join the performance--Equity Union rules they cannot step on stage--when these performers step into their roles, rising up from the audience itself, and in spite of very real threats of being black balled--the effect is sublime. It's as though the observers become the observed--that alchemical magic every sincere performer strives to achieve. To accomplish this on film is rare. Sure, you often identify with a character in a film, but you often do it in a kind of hypnotic escapist state. This film achieves something more particular, more active in the way of audience/performer union.
"Cradle Will Rock" is one of the best film arts arguments for democracy. It is a gift to all of us. Let us honor and treasure the filmmakers.
Too Much Of Something Will Impress Too Few People
Theo Robertson24 June 2005
CRADLE WILL ROCK is an example of too much going on which comes close to ruining a movie . You really do get the impression that director Tim Robbins has during the production of the movie been receiving phone calls from his socially aware friends pleading politely that they be given a part . Being a very nice man ( Has anyone ever said anything bad about Robbins the person ? ) the director hasn't had the cruel common sense to say " Sorry but we've got everything we need for the project " instead he's replied " Okay I'll get the writers to write you a part "
This is the problem with CRADLE WILL ROCK . We could have had a very memorable biopic of Orson Welles as a struggling actor in a New York theatre company in the 1930s , or we could have had a movie pointing out that it wasn't just Joe McCarthy's UnAmerican congressional hearings that ruined artistic careers , but the whole storyline becomes swamped and ultimately drowned with little character episodes that don't really lead to a bigger picture . Of course some of the subplots will appeal to a lot of people and I was thoroughly entertained by the sub story of Bill Murray's ventriloquist act being stolen by the two homosexuals but you do find yourself wishing that your favourite sub story had taken up more screen time with other subplots being eliminated totally at script stage . A very good example of less being more
This is the problem with CRADLE WILL ROCK . We could have had a very memorable biopic of Orson Welles as a struggling actor in a New York theatre company in the 1930s , or we could have had a movie pointing out that it wasn't just Joe McCarthy's UnAmerican congressional hearings that ruined artistic careers , but the whole storyline becomes swamped and ultimately drowned with little character episodes that don't really lead to a bigger picture . Of course some of the subplots will appeal to a lot of people and I was thoroughly entertained by the sub story of Bill Murray's ventriloquist act being stolen by the two homosexuals but you do find yourself wishing that your favourite sub story had taken up more screen time with other subplots being eliminated totally at script stage . A very good example of less being more
An unbelieveable achievement
fuse-125 February 2001
This movie proved to be a bit ahead of its time, as several films have recently come out that follow a similar structure--that of many important characters, but no main character (Magnolia and Traffic). The film is fact-based, but admittedly takes liberties. The main arc of the film is the story of Orson Welles' production of the play of the same name.
The cast is excellent: Hank Azaria, John Turturro, Bill murray, Joan and John Cusack, the guys from tenacious D, etc. all give brilliant performances. The stroy's characters are mostly upper-class snobs and down and out actors looking for theater work during the depression. This film also hints at the future of film, as Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst are characters in the film, moving in similar circles, seemingly on a collision course that happens later when Welles depicts Hearst in Citizen Kane. Robbins wrote and directed the film, and he should be applauded for meticulously weaving in so many interesting characters and powerful themes into a film. This is unheard of for this media, and many good writers would be hard pressed to communicate this much text in a 500 page novel. This film has been overlooked.
The cast is excellent: Hank Azaria, John Turturro, Bill murray, Joan and John Cusack, the guys from tenacious D, etc. all give brilliant performances. The stroy's characters are mostly upper-class snobs and down and out actors looking for theater work during the depression. This film also hints at the future of film, as Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst are characters in the film, moving in similar circles, seemingly on a collision course that happens later when Welles depicts Hearst in Citizen Kane. Robbins wrote and directed the film, and he should be applauded for meticulously weaving in so many interesting characters and powerful themes into a film. This is unheard of for this media, and many good writers would be hard pressed to communicate this much text in a 500 page novel. This film has been overlooked.
Piece of history given life by Tim Robbins
blanche-212 February 2009
A wonderful, large cast recreates the story behind "The Cradle Will Rock" in this 1999 film, written and directed by Tim Robbins and starring Hank Azaria, Ruben Blades, Joan Cusack, John Cusack, Bill Murray, Cherry Jones, John Turturro, Vanessa Redgrave, Susan Sarandon, Jamey Sheridan, Gretchen Mol, Emily Watson, Bob Balaban - etc.
Before the Depression and the turbulence of the 1930s, plays focused on the upper class. Everyone talked like Katharine Hepburn and people wore beautiful clothes. In the 1930s, the working man began to have a voice with the works of William Sarayoan, Clifford Odets, and Maxwell Anderson, among others. During the Depression, FDR started the WPA, and the Federal Theatre Project was one of its programs. "The Cradle Will Rock" is a leftist labor musical by Marc Blitzstein that is chosen by Hallie Flanagan, head of the FTP, to premiere at the Maxine Elliott Theater in New York. The politics of the FTP come under question, the theater is locked, and the actors are forbidden to appear on stage.
Orson Welles finds another theater for the production, and the story of the opening night performance, spontaneously performed by the cast from the audience as Blitzstein sat up on stage and played, was thought to be one of the most exciting moments in theater history by those who were there.
Robbins focuses on the controversy surrounding the musical but also on several other important events. Maybe, in the end, it is too much content, but fascinating nonetheless. Diego Rivera, an avowed Communist, played by Ruben Blades, is hired by Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusak) to paint a mural at Rockefeller Center. Rockefeller, however, doesn't like the revolutionary tone of the mural. One of the actors, played by John Turturro, has to deal with a family that supports Mussolini's Black Shirts.
Marc Blitzstein, in focusing on a prostitute in "The Cradle Will Rock," asks us who the real prostitutes are, and Robbins shows us in his depictions of Rockefeller, Hearst, and the Senate committee before which Hallie Flanagan testifies, the thin and sometimes nonexistent line between art and politics.
The performances are terrific. Just about everyone is a standout, with John Turturro in an especially showy role as a man who wants to demonstrate principles and ethics to his children. Ruben Blades and Corina Katt Ayala could have been Rivera and Frida Kahlo, the resemblance is so strong. Vanessa Redgrave is excellent as Countess LaGrange, a wealthy woman who gets caught up in the proceedings. The gifted Broadway star Cherry Jones gives another strong performance as Hallie Flanagan, and Emily Watson is marvelous as Olive Stanton. The minute I heard the vocal rhythm of Angus Macfadyen, I knew he was playing Orson Welles. He does a beautiful job, as does Susan Sarandon as Margherita Sarfatti, Mussolini's ex-mistress who came to the U.S. to sell Mussolini to the American people via William Randolph Hearst's newspapers.
Well worth seeing, and the period is well worth reading about.
Before the Depression and the turbulence of the 1930s, plays focused on the upper class. Everyone talked like Katharine Hepburn and people wore beautiful clothes. In the 1930s, the working man began to have a voice with the works of William Sarayoan, Clifford Odets, and Maxwell Anderson, among others. During the Depression, FDR started the WPA, and the Federal Theatre Project was one of its programs. "The Cradle Will Rock" is a leftist labor musical by Marc Blitzstein that is chosen by Hallie Flanagan, head of the FTP, to premiere at the Maxine Elliott Theater in New York. The politics of the FTP come under question, the theater is locked, and the actors are forbidden to appear on stage.
Orson Welles finds another theater for the production, and the story of the opening night performance, spontaneously performed by the cast from the audience as Blitzstein sat up on stage and played, was thought to be one of the most exciting moments in theater history by those who were there.
Robbins focuses on the controversy surrounding the musical but also on several other important events. Maybe, in the end, it is too much content, but fascinating nonetheless. Diego Rivera, an avowed Communist, played by Ruben Blades, is hired by Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusak) to paint a mural at Rockefeller Center. Rockefeller, however, doesn't like the revolutionary tone of the mural. One of the actors, played by John Turturro, has to deal with a family that supports Mussolini's Black Shirts.
Marc Blitzstein, in focusing on a prostitute in "The Cradle Will Rock," asks us who the real prostitutes are, and Robbins shows us in his depictions of Rockefeller, Hearst, and the Senate committee before which Hallie Flanagan testifies, the thin and sometimes nonexistent line between art and politics.
The performances are terrific. Just about everyone is a standout, with John Turturro in an especially showy role as a man who wants to demonstrate principles and ethics to his children. Ruben Blades and Corina Katt Ayala could have been Rivera and Frida Kahlo, the resemblance is so strong. Vanessa Redgrave is excellent as Countess LaGrange, a wealthy woman who gets caught up in the proceedings. The gifted Broadway star Cherry Jones gives another strong performance as Hallie Flanagan, and Emily Watson is marvelous as Olive Stanton. The minute I heard the vocal rhythm of Angus Macfadyen, I knew he was playing Orson Welles. He does a beautiful job, as does Susan Sarandon as Margherita Sarfatti, Mussolini's ex-mistress who came to the U.S. to sell Mussolini to the American people via William Randolph Hearst's newspapers.
Well worth seeing, and the period is well worth reading about.
Cradle will Fall Apart
JakeSpy3 June 2000
I have admired Tim Robbin's work as a director and actor. Yet Cradle Will Rock was fell far short of what Tim Robbins is capable of. The acting and energetic performances in this film was enough to keep me watching, but I could not help but wonder how such a disorganized film came to be made. First of all, it very loosely connects so many events that you are left unsatisfied with all of them--not one is completely explored. The most interesting plotline of the film--the political feud between the federal theater project and representative Dies. Next, Robbins makes a blunder that I cannot accept from any filmmaker--he tells the audience what to think. In Dead Man Walking he had the ability to present a very poignant view both for and against capital punishment. Here, there is no such attempt. What is even more baffling, is this shallow view of the situation. It was not just about art and politics as this story would suggest. Economic factors came into play also. By the end of this film, it has disintegrated into a goofy exercise in politics and poor story-telling despite outstanding performances from the cast.
This is what theater should be all about!
asa-hjalmers11 February 2007
This film reminds you of how class, politics, war and censorship influences culture in a very well made and inspiring way. Orson Welles says that if you leave the theater without passion and the will to fight and challenge society and instead discuss the play's connotations over a cup of coffee theater has failed. Good point! Despite a very famous cast and a fascinating and relevant story it got a very limited release. Perhaps it is symptomatic of the topic of the film, cultural censorship, and the R-rating - please! Jim Murray is great as the miserable and contradictory puppeteer and the debate between Diego Rivera and Nelson Rockefeller over Lenin is not to be missed. As the previous viewer said, stick it out - it is worth it!
Hello? Antonio Gramsci, anyone?
Buckywunder2 January 2000
As evidenced by many of the other comments in this index, American movie audiences have the attention span of a gnat and tolerate ambitious filmmaking to very little extent. It is little wonder that Hollywood tries to do very little that doesn't come pre-packaged in a little product tie-in marketing campaign.
What is the role of the artist in a capitalist society?
It was a question that the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci dedicated himself to asking and exploring (wait, wasn't he a character in the film? :^) ). This film made me pick up and read Gramsci again and I saw many similarities of ideas and themes.
Is the film great? No. But at the dawn of a new century and in the shadow of WTO protesting and worldwide distrust of relentless globalization the film asks questions that rarely make it to mainstream audiences through any other medium. The film suggests, like WTO in Seattle, that there is historical precedence for the belief that there are cracks in the consensus and not everyone is on board with what is going on in the new global economy. And great art CAN come from those who are consciously political and creating from their everyday life experience.
(BTW, Cherry Jones is quite a find.)
What is the role of the artist in a capitalist society?
It was a question that the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci dedicated himself to asking and exploring (wait, wasn't he a character in the film? :^) ). This film made me pick up and read Gramsci again and I saw many similarities of ideas and themes.
Is the film great? No. But at the dawn of a new century and in the shadow of WTO protesting and worldwide distrust of relentless globalization the film asks questions that rarely make it to mainstream audiences through any other medium. The film suggests, like WTO in Seattle, that there is historical precedence for the belief that there are cracks in the consensus and not everyone is on board with what is going on in the new global economy. And great art CAN come from those who are consciously political and creating from their everyday life experience.
(BTW, Cherry Jones is quite a find.)
A self-indulgent disappointment
AnonII20 November 1999
Saw "Cradle" at a Writers Guild screening in New York (Nov, 1999) which offered post-screening interview with creator Tim Robbins. Mr. Robbins, an intelligent, if not truly intellectual, handsome, engaging, unpretentious artist, was so much more entertaining and absorbing in the few moments he spoke with the audience than was the case with almost all of his over-long two hours-long-plus movie.
The movie informs, but it neither enlightens nor entertains. The remarkable cast does its best to keep up with Robbins' vision of a modern-day version 1940s screwball-comedy farce, but this devotion to a cinematic form, and a comparable commitment to historical accuracy and costuming, only distracts Robbins from any artist's true goal: engaging story and characters. There is none of this in "Cradle." It is pure pastiche, mere montage, with too all the time and $30 million spent on atmosphere, not flesh-and-blood authenticity.
Robbins admitted that a writer friend of his read the script and told him it didn't work and advised him not to undertake the movie. But he did, and now believes what Joe Roth, Disney's studio chief, probably apparently told him: that the studio "loves" the movie. (Though certainly no one in marketing or publicity or sales or 'profit' can love it!)
Well, Joe Roth is a decent man raised as the loving child of dedicated left-wingers. I admire him for that, as I admire his loyalty to Robbins' intensity and intentions, but "Cradle" is a a hopelessly flawed, irrelevant boring movie experience.
The movie informs, but it neither enlightens nor entertains. The remarkable cast does its best to keep up with Robbins' vision of a modern-day version 1940s screwball-comedy farce, but this devotion to a cinematic form, and a comparable commitment to historical accuracy and costuming, only distracts Robbins from any artist's true goal: engaging story and characters. There is none of this in "Cradle." It is pure pastiche, mere montage, with too all the time and $30 million spent on atmosphere, not flesh-and-blood authenticity.
Robbins admitted that a writer friend of his read the script and told him it didn't work and advised him not to undertake the movie. But he did, and now believes what Joe Roth, Disney's studio chief, probably apparently told him: that the studio "loves" the movie. (Though certainly no one in marketing or publicity or sales or 'profit' can love it!)
Well, Joe Roth is a decent man raised as the loving child of dedicated left-wingers. I admire him for that, as I admire his loyalty to Robbins' intensity and intentions, but "Cradle" is a a hopelessly flawed, irrelevant boring movie experience.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
