« George A. Romero's Land of the Dead (2005) | Main | My Top 30 Disney Traditional Animated Films »
August 03, 2005
Radio Flyer, and Why Roger Ebert is Simply Wrong Sometimes
by Steerforth
This isn't so much a review, as it is a defense of a pretty decent film that was unfairly (in my opinion) skewered by a very good critic who simply didn't try hard enough to understand what the movie was saying.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19920221/REVIEWS/202210301/1023
I apologize in advance because I won't go too much into the details of the film, as:
a) It's hard to discuss without giving away too much.
and
b) What "really" happens is not important, but is somewhat subjective. I revealed to someone recently what I believed "really" happened, and it somewhat changed this person's view of the film, even upsetting them to some degree. I don't want to do that if you have seen the film. So... hopefully, speaking in generalizations, I'll get my point across.
Hopefully.
Also, in all fairness, there are very few people, much less critics, who know more about film than Roger Ebert, and, most of the time, his reviews are more or less accurate and fair. In this instance, I don't believe either is the case. and let this thread be less about Radio Flyer, and bashing Ebert, as it is a gentle reminder that no one is perfect, and to always make up your own mind about film, specifically, and art, in general.
Richard Donner's Radio Flyer is not what it appears to be.
And the audience is told this up front.
Tom Hanks (uncredited) opens and closes the film as an adult version of "Mike", one of two young boys around whom the film revolves. Mike is recounting a dark and painful chapter from his childhood, because he thinks it's time for his two sons to hear "the whole story" about what he and his brother, Bobby, endured at the hands (literally) of their abusive, alcoholic step-father. Mike prefaces the tale by reminding his boys that "History is all in the mind of the teller. Truth is all in the telling." They don't know what, exactly, he means by that, but Mike says: "Don't worry. You will."
This is the crux of the film. The audience has two hours for this concept to sink in. If it never does, you will, almost certainly, hate this film, as Ebert did. That is, you will find a lot of things to hate about it. It will seem not only perplexing, but frustrating, sickly sweet, and perhaps even exploitive. In short, it simply will not make sense. The frustration will be further compounded by how very upsetting the story turns at times. There is constant physical and mental child abuse displayed, and, at one point, animal abuse--something I, personally, find very difficult to deal with. This isn't a gentle children's film like Donner's The Goonies, for example. But neither is it what Ebert sees it as:
"Who was this movie made for? Kids? Adults? What kid needs a movie about a frightened little boy who is at the mercy of drunken beatings? What adult can suspend so much disbelief that the movie's ending, a visual ripoff from "E.T.," inspires anything other than incredulity? What hypothetical viewer could they possibly have had in mind?"
What Ebert fails to understand is, this is a fairy tale, but it is not a fib. It is not to be analyzed or reasoned with, it is only to be understood and learned from. It cannot be taken literally, as he is, curiously, trying to do.
"I know that the voice-over narration suggests that maybe this wasn't the way the story really happened, and is only the way Mike, the older brother, now remembers it as an adult. OK, but then what did really happen?"
How can anyone have watched this film, and still ask this question? It doesn't matter what "really" happened. Although I think it's pretty obvious what "really" happened, and best left alone. Radio Flyer is a film depicting how one man dealt with a horrible, horrible memory from his childhood in a way that allowed him to survive it. The story Mike told was the truth. It wasn't what happened, but it was the truth. It was the truth that he could live with. It was the truth that he could hang on to, and allow himself to get up every morning for the rest of his life. It was the truth that he could pass along to his children so they could have the benefit of his knowledge, without the pain of his memories. Exactly what good parents do.
Radio Flyer does have a happy ending, but it isn't the one Ebert sees.
It's not what happens in the story that Mike tells his kids. It's that he survived to tell them. He endured, and his kids have a better life than he did. That's the ultimate happy ending, and that's what you have to take from this film.
Who was this movie made for, Roger?
A lot of us. You should have tried harder to see that.
Posted by icine.org at August 3, 2005 01:30 PM