MovieChat Forums > Reds (1981) Discussion > Too much romance, not enough Revolution

Too much romance, not enough Revolution


I admire what Beatty was doing with this project and it's courageous he managed to get it off the ground. For many Americans in 1981, this was the first time many of us had heard the inspiring "Internationale". However the way this was sold to the public as a romance is a major distraction. We see in Louise a woman gradually being radicalized, but we rarely hear any real socialist ideas coming out of her mouth. The historic backdrop of the Russian Revolution is being exploited as an exotic setting for a rather dull romance. I wanted to see more of Dolph Sweet as a union leader or Paul Sorvino, or Jerzy Kosinski .i would have rather the film be about John Reed's friendship with Emma Goldman rather than his relationship with Louise Bryant. The Russian Revolution represents a major historic leap for the international working even.though it was bastardized by the Stalinist bureaucracy. I wish the film could have told the story specifically about the Revolution and left out the boring romance.

reply

[deleted]

I'd say that you want a different movie than what it is. Reds begins and ends with the relationship between Reed and Bryant so that is the core. The Russian revolution is a very interesting subject for a film but Reds isn't meant to be the all defining work on that subject. The angle is similar to that of Doctor Zhivago: it provides a backdrop but it isn't exactly the subject.

reply

But Revolution is what I paid my 2 bucks to see back in 1981 and I was disappointed I got a boring romance instead.

reply

the romance angle is why he could get this financed and seen!

reply

It brings down the film.

reply