Reds (1981) realizes imperfect memories as historic fiction. What is truth is never clear, only ever suggested by actors and interviewees who so often seem at odds with the story being told. The structure is episodic with temporal ellipses that subvert traditional Hollywood narrative form. The narrative of Reds is disjointed; formed piecemeal like the recollections of its witnesses. Reds is a film of impressions, observations, and imaginings that evoke the characters of John Reed (Warren Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton).
Reds is that rare Hollywood epic that deserves its acclaim. It’s a complex film that still manages to nurture and intense emotional core. It is Warren Beatty’s film through and through. It’s a passion project that was years in the making. Its unorthodox structure discovered in re-writes. The creative team of Beatty and co-writer Trevor Griffiths was augmented by uncredited re-writes by Elaine May and Robert Towne. Reds is a film made by the best of the best and it shows in every frame, in every line.
Reds is wholly engrossing. It doesn’t rely on the traditional narrative structure because it has found truth in the imperfection of memory. It’s not a factual truth of dates, times, and locations. It is an emotional truth; a love story caught up in a revolution. Reds is engrossing because the characters are engrossing. The characters are borne out of this emotional truth and are therefore complex and relatable.
Reds is as accessible an epic as Titanic (1998) without ever being trite or conformist. Reds is both formally dense and dramatically accessible. It re-affirms the role of the Hollywood epic as entertainment without succumbing to the cliches and shortcomings of that form. Reds subverts the formal trappings of the genre while delivering emotional beats at precisely the right time.
Reds is, for me anyway, comfort food. It is intellectually and emotionally stimulating without being another boring epic. It celebrates the socialist movements. It revels in the decadence of all the sets and costumes of a bonafide Hollywood epic. It’s a full course meal of cinematic delights that goes on for over three hours. It’s a beautiful film that inspires.
Yet somehow Reds is not nearly as popular as other Oscar winning epics. Is it because of its downer ending or its unorthodox structure? Why is Reds a favorite among those who claim Barry Lyndon (1975) is Kubrick’s best film and not popular with everybody else? (Reds would actually make a great double feature with Barry Lyndon). Hopefully with time Reds will be re-discovered and celebrated by younger cinephiles.
