MovieChat Forums > Brubaker (1980) Discussion > How can you be an idealist in a world th...

How can you be an idealist in a world that is not ideal?

posted a year ago by Wuchak (8122)
7 replies | jump to latest

This is a fictionalized detailing of Tom Murton's 1969 book, Accomplices to the Crime: The Arkansas Prison Scandal. It's a realistic prison drama with the expected grunginess and brutalities revealing how the penal installation was basically a means for the government to make money by treating inmates like property (slaves) to be used, abused and, when necessary, secretly thrown away in holes on the grounds.

The movie's not as dramatically compelling as it could be since it refuses to permit its characters more human dimension and flesh out interest, yet it raises interesting ideas. For instance, corruption exists when it is knowingly allowed at the higher levels of authority. How can you be an idealist in a world that is not ideal? Do you compromise with the corrupt powers that be in order to get SOMETHING done, or do you take the attitude of no compromise, period? The latter takes true dedication to noble principles, but what good is it if it prevents you from making positive changes?

The movie "Serpico" (1973) shows that it can be done with challenging consequences. I'll leave it to you to discover how this one pans out, assuming you haven't seen it.

A young Morgan Freeman shows up in the first act as a deranged prisoner in solitary confinement. He would of course go on to star in the more popular prison flick "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994), both movies shot in the heart of Ohio about 90 miles from each prison location. I should add that, while "Brubaker" is not popular like "Shawshank," it was quite successful at the box office.

Unsurprisingly, it's is a mostly male story, but Jane Alexander has a pretty beefy role as a public relations specialist for the governor, who tries to get Brubaker to compromise in a practical way. Meanwhile Linda Haynes appears as a play thing for one of the corrupt trustys.

If you're in the mood for a flick in the mold of "Cool Hand Luke" (1967) and "The Longest Yard" (1974), "Brubaker" should fill the bill.

One last thing, the ending was glaringly borrowed for "Dead Poets Society" (1989).

[–] roger1 (2323) a year ago

I should add that, while "Brubaker" is not popular like "Shawshank," it was quite successful at the box office.

---

I recall that being a big surprise. Redford had been gone from movies in 1977(except for a cameo in A Bridge Too Far), 1978, and all of 1979 until the very end (with The Electric Horseman at Christmas time.)

After The Electric Horseman -- topical but a rom com "entertainment" with Jane Fonda for Sydney Pollack, Brubaker the next summer seemed like a grim choice, destined to flop where The Electric Horseman had scanned.

I believe that in the summer of 1980 -- a summer that had a bunch of comedies, some with minor casts(Airplane, Used Cars), some with major SNL casts (The Blues Brothers, Caddyshack)...Rolling Stone(I think) wrote an article about how "stars are no longer necessary to make hit movies."

Then Brubaker (a grim movie with a big handsome star) hit big, and Redford mumbled something to the press along the lines of "Yeah, Brubaker was a hit. I guess that tells you something about that article that says stars don't matter." He WAS paying attention to his stardom.

Redford had been one of the biggest stars of the 70's, sometimes releasing two movies a year, and Brubaker set the pace for the 80s, but Redford took 1981, 1982 and 1983 off before coming back in 1984 with "The Natural" (wrote one critic, "Redford only works in election years." Not so: he worked in 1984(The Natural, which was the "first Tristar movie); 1985 (Out of Africa, a Best Picture winner opposite Meryl Streep yet again for Sydney Pollack) and Legal Eagles(a bit of a misfires "star package" legal mystery rom com with Debra Winger and Darryl Hannah -- and Redford's face starting to look a bit too crinkled from the sun.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2323) a year ago

He took 1987, 1988, and 1989 off, came back (for Sydney Pollack again) in Havana -- looking REALLY wrinkled and...started his new older suave guy career.

But the 70's was his time to shine and Brubaker either closed out the 70's or opened the 80's for Redford. Me, I saw it on release and noted that in the opening "undercover convict" sequence, Redford had the fluffiest hair of any convict, ever, and the best smile. I didn't much like Brubaker, but it seemed clear that it hit because of Redford.

(Redford also directed -- but did not act in --- Ordinary People in 1980, winning Best Picture and Best Director, among other awards.)

[–] Wuchak (8122) a year ago

Yeah, I was real surprised to discover it was a hit when released because no one talks about "Brubaker." They'll talk about "Shawshank" ad nauseam, but not "Brubaker."

I didn't much like Brubaker

I can relate. As I said above, the movie needed to flesh out the characters more for human interest. For instance, we know zilch about Brubaker. Why is he so idealistic to the point of zero compromise? Why does he even care about felons? Why is their absolutely no indication of family, not even a brother or sister? But I suppose the writers were concerned about sticking to the real-life story (basically just replacing Tom Murton with the fictional Brubaker) and focusing on the atrocities at the prison. So I appreciate the flick as a gritty realistic depiction of prison life in the rural Midwest or South in the 60s-70s. And you can't beat the interesting themes/questions elucidated.

[–] roger1 (2323) a year ago

Seeing my phrase "I didn't much like Brubaker" pulled out and exposed like that give me some pause. I haven't seen it in years , but it wasn't a movie I actively DISLIKED at the time. I felt the story was somewhat predictable -- grim but with an uplifting ending(as I recall) -- I think it was from Fox and Fox had done "Norma Rae" the year before and they were both "social issue" movies, kind of a type.

Redford looking so great didn't quite fit the movie either I thought -- but when it became a surprise hit(and it WAS, and it got some follow up articles accordingly) I figured: "Hey, using handsome Robert Redford as the lead seems to have turned the trick."

Again, too long ago seen to remember in detail, but I recall the film making a lot out of all the convict corpses being dug up as part of the expose....

[–] Wuchak (8122) a year ago

Redford looking so great didn't quite fit the movie either I thought

I was thinking the same thing but, then, I thought it's not like one has to look like Quasimodo to be a prison Warden.

I had the same issue with "Jeremiah Johnson," which was based on the real-life Liver-Eating Johnson, who notoriously ate the liver of the braves he killed because the Crow believed the liver was vital for the afterlife. He was also known as Crow Killer and killed braves for 25 years, attaining legendary status, but finally made peace with the tribe. Redford just didn't look the part. Yet without Redford we probably wouldn't have the movie. And, even if we did, it wouldn't have been as successful/popular.

[–] roger1 (2323) a year ago

Redford looking so great didn't quite fit the movie either I thought

I was thinking the same thing but, then, I thought it's not like one has to look like Quasimodo to be a prison Warden.

I had the same issue with "Jeremiah Johnson," which was based on the real-life Liver-Eating Johnson, who notoriously ate the liver of the braves he killed because the Crow believed the liver was vital for the afterlife. He was also known as Crow Killer and killed braves for 25 years, attaining legendary status, but finally made peace with the tribe. Redford just didn't look the part. Yet without Redford we probably wouldn't have the movie. And, even if we did, it wouldn't have been as successful/popular.

---

That's an interesting comparison. "Brubaker" was a surprise hit -- but so was "Jeremiah Johnson." As I recall "Jeremiah Johnson" was such a big hit that they kept re-releasing it over and over in the early 70's(VHS had not yet arrived.)

I suppose that this proves that Robert Redford was such a hot star(and a hot looker for the ladies) that he could lend himself to "miscasting" and still deliver a serious , hit film.

At least in Jeremiah Johnson, after an early scene clean shaven(and oh so pretty) Redford disappears into a big red beard and a mop of unruly hair for the duration of the movie. We know that studio moguls often STOPPED their stars from wearing a beard(or only allowed it for a little bit -- John Travolta in Urban Cowboy) , but Redford stuck to his guns and played JJ with a big beard(again -- red, not blond like his hair.)

Conversely: the "rough" Jeremiah Johnson and Brubaker were hits, but as I recall the quite-fun "The Hot Rock" made no money at all. Redford fits that one.

CONT

[–] roger1 (2323) a year ago

Also: I will take the point that there can be a handsome prison warden(Quasimodo not required), but I just remember thinking that Redford looked so PERFECT when he went in undercover as a CONVICT. Maybe the "fake convict" part is what I really didn't believe. You'd think in real life, a male convict entering the cell block would have a really bad, chopped up haircut(Steve McQueen wore one in The Getaway for the opening scene in which he is released.)

Yeah, the more I remember Brubaker, I think I had trouble with Redford looking so great as an "undercover convict" rather than as a warden.