American Classic
Five of five stars. When Nobody's Fool came out in 1994 I saw it in a theater (that theater, as with many others in the neighborhood, now closed). It moved me greatly — to the point where my eyes teared up through most of it — and at the time I thought it was one of the finest films of its kind I'd seen, including in comparison with early film classics. I think it got OK reviews though whatever they were they're not easily found, if at all, through Google. Newman was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor but didn't win. And Nobody's Fool never became recognized as a "great" film. Perhaps because it was decades ahead of its time.
The film has a plot but to me it is more accurately described as a series of vignettes that segue together flawlessly. Kind of Patrick O'Brian meets O. Henry. Paul Newman is the red thread, playing a smart and compassionate handy-man whose life is a mess, stuck in a down and out town in upper New York State. The rest of the casting is splendid, even edgy, with not a single false note (Bruce Willis isn't even listed in the theatrical release's opening credits, reportedly on the marketing assumption that the public doesn't like to see him actually act, despite his starring role as a supporting lead, and Melanie Griffith outdoes herself as Willis' trashy wife with a heart of gold). One might object that the characters are all too sweet, but this is not strictly true: the characters are shown, with two exceptions, mostly playing the good side of their ordinary, perhaps somewhat less good selves in a deliberate meditation on mid-range drama. In that the film captures perfectly the psychology of small town American life.
The question, What has America become?, is never thrown in your face, or even obviously hinted at, but to me that's what the film is about. It's hopeful, but cautionary: unless we make the extra effort to rise above ourselves we may well wind up living among the ruins of previous generations.
In Roger Ebert's review his closing graf is too good to pass up, so better than a link, here's his text:
At the center is Paul Newman. He is an exact contemporary of Marlon Brando, who is said to have invented modern film acting. Yes, and he probably did, stripping it of the mannerisms of the past and creating a hypercharged realism. Like Brando, Newman studied the Method. Like Brando, Newman looked good in an undershirt. Unlike Brando, Newman went on to study life, and so while Brando broke through and then wandered aimlessly in inexplicable roles (especially since "The Godfather" 20 years ago), Newman continued to work on his craft. Having seen what he could put in, he went on to see what he could leave out. In "Nobody's Fool," he has it just about figured out.
Posted by George Kenney on October 5, 2008 9:05 PM 
« The End of American Hegemony | Main | A Letter to Harper's »
Comments
George
Paul Newman was indeed a great actor, and many of his movies utterly enjoyable.
However, he was no more than that. Not a war hero, not a great scientist or astronaut or even someone who can point to rational evidence of greatness. He was in the pretend-world, acting and pretending to be what he is not — playing and pretending to be a great hero or significant figure to an audience that normally confuse reality with Hollywood’s make-believe world, where nothing is real. To be Paul Newman does require some skill, but certainly less skill than being the real thing.
Actors in the United States often become bigger than the people they act to be. This implies something significant about America and her peoples, and also about the pretend world in which many Americans live, where they confuse reality with Hollywood-style make-belief.
In the current presidential race you have the real thing, and then a pretender. Do you know who is who?
[Actually, I disagree with this in several ways. To mention two: Paul Newman set up the Newman's Own food brand, which donates profits to charity. So far, over $250 million — that's a lot of money and a lot of charity. He also did outstanding work with kids who have cancer. And that's what he expected to be remembered for. Second, not related to the actor, I suppose your point is that someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader would be a better choice for President than Barack Obama. I couldn't disagree more. Neither of those two gentlemen has the slightest ability, based on proven poor experience, to handle political problems. And the presidency, whatever else one thinks of it, is primarily a political job. Nader, to be specific, would be a disaster. So I don't see any choice there. If one wants to be involved in politics one must be realistic about what's possible...]
Posted by: rensburg | October 24, 2008 3:02 PM