Warren Beatty's Ego, That TCM Special, & "Reds"

 Did you watch the Dick Tracy TCM special in which Warren Beatty interviews slash fights with "Dick Tracy", as portrayed by Warren Beatty, about whether Warren Beatty's 1990 "Dick Tracy" film is a good adaptation of the character Dick Tracy? I sure did. It was something. Not something good, or especially interesting, but it was compelling and original. The snide insult here is that I've just described most Beatty projects from the last 30 years. What fascinates me about the TCM special is that it's a perfect microcosm of Beatty's whole vibe. He is at once the most conceited man in Hollywood and more willing to make fun of himself than the average movie star. Making a slapdash TV show where Warren Beatty talks to another Warren Beatty about Warren Beatty is a move that requires a monstrous ego. This is the man who pridefully took credit for Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" being about him, after all. But if you go just a tiny bit below the surface, it becomes quite clear that Warren Beatty himself is the butt of most of the jokes here. "Beatty doesn't collaborate well with others" is treated by Beatty as both an obvious truth and something to make fun of. He is the first to point out that he has his vision and he is no good at adapting it to meet the needs of others. "That's a lot of reds, even for Beatty", the Dick Tracy character quips at one point about the film's artificial lighting. 

 This seems like a paradox, but if you're familiar with Warren Beatty's filmography at all, it makes perfect sense. "Bullworth" is a film about how Warren Beatty's character is the only honest politician left in America, and on the side it's a film about how Warren Beatty can get it from women half his age. It's also a comedy where most of the jokes are variations on how uncool and out of touch he is with 90's culture. Going all the way back to his movie star prime, he was supposedly a control freak making "Shampoo" and supposedly was sleeping with multiple costars, but the character played by Beatty in the film is an idiot who ends up alone despite pursuing three different women. He was playing the "himbo" in mainstream comedies decades before that became a word (see also: the very good "Heaven Can Wait"). And if I had to review his magnum opus, "Reds", in one sentence, I would say: Beatty has the awareness to make his movie about how flawed Jack Reed was, but not the humility to make his movie about anyone else.

 "Reds" follows the Old Hollywood template of epic historical romances that lit up the box office from the 1930s through the 1960s. The history here is of the Bolshevik Revolution, as covered by journalist Jack Reed, and the romance is between Reed and his partner, Louise Bryant. There is a lot to like about "Reds". It looks stunning, especially when set in Russia (props to legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro), the music is lovely (props to legendary theater composer Stephen Sondheim), Diane Keaton is wonderful as Bryant, and Jack Nicholson gives what I believe is his greatest ever "quiet" performance as Eugene O'Neill, the mean bastard who pines after her. Beatty interviewed real people who knew Reed and Bryant to give context to the history and the romance, a creative idea executed perfectly (Beatty's only Oscar win ever was for directing this film, and it was well deserved). Beatty's screenplay successfully straddles the line between praise for socialist ideals and the disillusionment that comes with those being implemented in a less-than-ideal way. This all sounds great, and for the first two thirds, it is. So what's the problem?

 To say it's Beatty himself is far too simple. Frankly, I'm not sure the film works as either a history or a romance. As a depiction of the 1917 Russian Revolution, it's fine enough, but once we move into a conflict focused on the American socialist parties, it's basically incoherent. Maybe that's the point - Louise Bryant gets to do a small speech about how little it matters which party gets to represent American socialists. But that feels like a cheap excuse for a film that starts so intensely researched. The first act in the US mixes the documentary interviews with the actors, the middle hour lifts many lines directly from the published writings of Reed and Bryant, and then both of those elements dwindle away. It might have worked out if the purpose was to let the romance shine, but enter issue two: "Reds" doesn't really work as a romance after the first hour. And that first third is great, don't get me wrong. I'm not sure Beatty understands why it's great. It's because of the conflict between the passion these two feel and their prioritization of their careers. Reed seduces Bryant, then runs off to do work, and Bryant resents him for it, while she wants to be her own journalist with her own acclaim. This stuff is electric. Once Reed gets held up in jail (this happens about 140 minutes into a 190 minute movie), Bryant decides that she loves him and will accept whatever he does and follow him to the end of the earth. She stops being an interesting character, and worse, Diane Keaton stops giving an interesting performance. It's not her fault, there's nothing to work with. Any negative feelings her character had about the world she inhabits or the man she loves disappear. 

 The only thing that truly connects in the third hour is the character study of Jack Reed, a man who sincerely believed socialism would save Russia, stop the war, and become mainstream in America. He went 0 for 3 on those wishes. He died young and spent much of his final years alone because of his ideals. It's treated as a tragic downfall, which Beatty writes well, shoots with gravitas, and acts competently. On its own merits, it's a great element in a great film. It's also a stroke of ego that arguably holds the whole project back.