The Majestic Review
by Mark R. Leeper (markrleeper AT yahoo DOT com)December 25th, 2001
THE MAJESTIC
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: What should have been a good film eventually goes overboard in overdone scenes and a surfeit of sentiment, much borrowed from other sources. THE MAJESTIC is one film where showing restraint and simply giving less would have been giving a lot more. This is a film that takes a firm stand in favor of the US Constitution, patriotism, military heroes, the American way of life, small town folk, and old movies. It is against Hollywood moguls, B-movies, formula film-making, blacklisting, and television. A rare misfire by Frank Darabont, director of THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), 0 (-4 to +4)
The time is probably right for an old-fashioned sentimental movie. But nobody shows just how hard it is to make that sort of movie right as well as Frank Darabont does. He is a good director but pushes things just a little too far in THE MAJESTIC. You know you are in trouble when you have a sequence like this. The town's sweethearts have stolen away from a crowd of fawning town folk. You see them walking down the small town's main street. The camera turns around and you see behind them. What looks like the whole town is standing there having silently crept up on them. The viewer is left to wonder how they did that without making a sound. It should have been a tender and heartwarming moment, but it ended up overdone and looking absurd. Darabont did a marvelous job with films like THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE GREEN MILE. Here he is seduced by the sticky-gooey side of sentiment in a film that goes overboard with too many beautiful sunsets, too perfect a classic neon-encrusted movie theater, too lovable a town, and just too much that is sappy and overripe. On top of that Michael Sloane's screenplay shamelessly borrows from a diverse set of sentimental classics like the song "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" and Sullivan Ballou's letter to his wife.
Jim Carrey plays Peter Appleton, a film writer who in 1953 is about to be hounded out of the business for having once attended a crypto-communist meeting. He will no longer be able to write bad films like his SAND PIRATES OF THE SAHARA. When it all becomes too much, he goes for a drive to clear his head, and instead the drive clouds his mind with a car accident. He wakes up with no memory in a small town that thinks he is a returning war hero, missing for almost a decade. Somehow that past just is not coming back to Peter. The film becomes a mystery that is not so much a "whodunit" as a "what'sgoingon."
The idea could have been a good one, but the film is incredibly unfocused. Is it about small town life? Is it about old movies? Is it about 1950s radical politics? The film is never very sure what it is about. It makes a lot of scattershot statements and never decides what its main point is. It goes overboard enough with its political message that there are scenes that not only would have become national news, they would have made history and would be remembered. The pity is that some of the statements it makes about individual rights in conflict with perceived national security could have been particularly timely and topical, but pains seem to have been taken to dull the more pointed comments. In addition the plotting only works by some very large coincidences that further erode the credibility.
Stylistically, there is a lot of frosting for not enough cake. Every time the two lovers in the film kiss there is a dramatic background to the shot that perfectly frames the kiss. Town's street has no dirt, no litter, and no bumps. They would have to mess it up a little just to make it look like a back-lot set. Everything in the town is so eerily perfect it feels like something from a TWILIGHT ZONE story.
Jim Carrey has become a reasonable actor, but is not one who does well with strong emotion or deep feeling. He is not the worst choice for the lead in this film, but there are certainly scenes demanding anger and great sincerity and those are not his strong suits. An actor with a great deal more talent and range is Martin Landau, who does nicely in a sentimental role here. Frank Darabont told me that he admired the film THEM! and was pleased to find James Whitmore available for THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. It is nice to see him still using Whitmore. Whitmore is there for little more than small town color, but Darabont uses him frequently and well in this film.
This could have been a film in the classic traditions of Capra and Sturges but lost either the courage or the recipe. I rate it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. For a much better film on 1950s politics and the entertainment community see Martin Ritt's 1976 film THE FRONT. I refer above to Sullivan Ballou's letter. Those unfamiliar with it may find that http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/23.htm has a good account of the letter.
Mark R. Leeper
[email protected] Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
