Trumbo

source: Trumbo

What is wrong with this movie? First, the acting. With the exception of Helen Mirren's depiction of Hedda Hopper, the acting is stagy, most of all that of Bryan Cranston's as Trumbo. Dalton Trumbo was a brilliant, if politically misguided, screenwriter. He wrote the screenplays for Roman Holiday, Spartacus and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, all great movies directed by the best directors and featuring outstanding casts. However, his literary greatness does not come through in the movie. Instead, he comes off as a bumpkin, which Trumbo was not. Depictions of John Wayne, Edward G. Robinson, L. B. Mayer are equally superficial and inane. Second, the theme. This movie suggests that by placing Trumbo and others in his clique on a blacklist, that Hollywood and the government ran roughshod over the first amendment and that Trumbo and his associates were victims of political persecution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dalton Trumbo openly admitted that he was a communist. As a result, by being a member of an organization that promoted violence, i.e., class warfare, he made himself a target. The same would have occurred if Trumbo had been a member of a criminal racket. Trumbo was free to believe and write whatever he wanted, but Hollywood was under no obligation to let itself be used as a front for organizations that believed in violence. By his joining the communist party, Trumbo bought into a program of political action that posed a threat to public safety and national security. Hollywood was under no obligation to employ anyone who wanted to destroy the very institutions that were providing him a paycheck.

In theory, "Trumbo" is an incredible true story that should be prime fodder for a great movie. Cranston has his moments and you have to laud his attention to detain in channeling Trumbo's unique voice and mannerisms. Unfortunately, he's so committed that his character borders on being a caricature. "Trumbo" works well enough as a general survey of Trumbo's life and career, a primer on a complicated man who endured a terrible injustice, but it fails to really engage with the material, to dig deep for significant themes and salient meanings. At one point in the film, a producer lam-basts Trumbo for turning in a script that lacks genius -- the same could be said of "Trumbo" the film, which meets the bare minimum for these sorts of outings, despite a wealth of essential material. All I Will Say In Short It's a Must Watch Movie.

'TRUMBO': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five) A biographical-drama flick, based on the life of successful Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo; who was jailed, and blacklisted (in the 1940s), for his communist beliefs. The film stars Bryan Cranston, as Trumbo, and it costars Diane Lane, Louis C.K., Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Dean O'Gorman, David James Elliott and Alan Tudyk. It was directed by Jay Roach, in his dramatic directorial debut; following many popular comedy flicks (like 'MEET THE PARENTS', it's first sequel, and all of the 'AUSTIN POWERS' movies). The film was written by John McNamara, and it was based on the book ('Dalton Trumbo') by Bruce Cook. I found it to be very involving, educational and inspiring. In 1947, Dalton Trumbo (Cranston) was one of Hollywood's most successful screenwriters; he was also a member of the extremely controversial CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA). The party was so threatening, to those in power, that many famous Hollywood figures, of the time, were subpoenaed and jailed, for their beliefs (and refusing to admit to the use of propaganda, in their work). Trumbo was one of 10 screenwriters, that fell victim to this paranoia. Upon release from prison, he continued to work, under aliases, and attempted to expose the injustice, of this abuse. I didn't know a lot about the details, of these historical events; I also knew very little about Dalton Trumbo. So for me, the movie was very informative, and fascinating. It reminded me (a lot) of similar political battles, and social struggles, still going on today. For these reasons, I found the film to be extremely emotional. I also found it to be very entertaining, because of it's insightful details, about Hollywood (at that time). Cranston gives a very impressive performance; and the supporting cast is all good as well (O'Gorman is especially memorable, as Kirk Douglas). Roach might not have been the best director, for this material, but the movie is still really memorable, and enjoyable! Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/j9uf6E4pnlw

Trumbo is a period piece set in the late 40s and early 50s, following the life of Dalton Trumbo, arguably the leader of the Hollywood 10 who stood up to congress over what they saw as the illegal investigation and censorship of people's beliefs and free speech during the Second Red Scare after WWII. At the time, Congress and, in turn, members of the Hollywood elite blackballed writers, actors, directors, etc who identified as communists. Not spies for Moscow, but communists by political belief. Some faced jail time. Some lost their homes because they could not find work. Others encountered harsher realities. And Hollywood witch-hunt was merely a small part of a more wide-spread affront to civil liberties. The time period itself is difficult to portray without seeming to be caricature - or perhaps style and communication have changed so much in 65 years that it just seems like caricature. Added to that difficulty are portrayals of John Wayne and Kirk Douglas, legends of film that, as a young person, I may have gone my whole life subconsciously thinking of as only existing on screen. Trumbo mostly rises to the occasion. Much of Trumbo is comedic, and with intention, but the film also carries a certain amount of poignancy, if maybe a little less than it could use given the subject matter. Bryan Cranston is incredibly enjoyable to watch, and during the credits you get to watch a clip of the real Trumbo to compare. The portrayal is jarringly realistic (something you may question for the entirety of the film). Helen Mirren is a worthy antagonist, and very effectively displays the fear and anger that result from war - the need to dehumanize the enemy in order to survive the loss you feel as your family is fighting thousands of miles across the world, the need to justify pain through rigid ideology. Other notable performances come from Michael Stuhlbarg, whose character, Eddie, provides for much of the films poignancy, and Diane Lane as the quiet but strong Cleo Trumbo, the rock of her family. John Goodman, is well cast as the comedic used car salesman of film, and Elle Fanning makes her mark as the rebellious daughter learning to be every bit of a force as her father. It would be unfair to pin the failings of the film on a single person, but Louis C. K. continues to prove that being a great comedian does not make you a great actor. His portrayal is, in fact, so flat that it pulls you out of immersion in the film, a flaw that is further exacerbated by Bryan Cranston's mastery. Scenes between the two are simply absurd. As a whole, the film's laughs are well earned and its feelings are well felt. Where the film falls short is to evoke, without personal reflection, the so obvious parallels between the state of our country today and that of the film. But perhaps that is not the goal. Perhaps the goal was to, with a bit of fun, portray a larger than life writer who decided to take on the world...and won. In that, Trumbo is a great success.

I did enjoy it. I laughed and I cried. I loved Cranston, loved LCK, enjoyed the pacing, and all the supporting roles. Then I found out that Edward G. Robinson was made to testify but NEVER ratted out by naming names. NEVER!!! I do NOT understand how a supposedly scholarly movie - one that seems to pride itself of historical accuracy - an important time in our history - portraying important and very well known people - and one that got many details spot on like Douglas' breaking of the blacklist by giving Trumbo the screen credit in Spartacus - HOW could such a movie make a massive mistake like this??????? When Robinson testified, you know he must have been under TREMENDOUS pressure to name the names. But he NEVER DID! It was Sterling Hayden that named the names. Not Edward G. Let's set the record straight! And what does our beloved Little Caesar get for his bravery and integrity under fire? Is he revered? Is he lauded? Is he at least admired for displaying the kind of backbone and grit that is championed by Dalton Trumbo? No he is not. He gets to be unfairly defamed. You watch it and say, wow - that Edward G was some POS. And all for NO dramatic purpose. It had no bearing on the outcome - the 10 were already in prison, hearing EGR naming the names on the radio. Was this some sort of dramatic license? It should not even be LEGAL to slander a real person in this way. EGR's estate should be fuming about it. I would be. I mean it CAN'T be an unintended mistake. The least fact checking reveals what I wrote above. So it was an intentional deception, assassinating the character of an actual person, known to and loved by millions - and for some unfathomable purpose. When I learned of this inaccuracy, it spoiled the movie for me. Granted, I'm a big Edward G fan. I love all of his roles. Every one of them. One of my favorite actors of all time. How would the director or script writer like it if after they're dead, they are made out as villains and traitors? I realize that this sort of chicanery happens in the movies all the time. I think it's wrong. It's one thing when a movie is an obvious fantasy, another when it is clearly and ostensibly depicting real events. So as good a movie as it is, I have to give Trumbo only 2 stars.

Truth may be stranger than fiction. This true story is way better than all the current competing fictional concoctions. The lessons from this story are more pertinent than ever, as fear of controversy limits the fare at the cineplex to pablum or propaganda for the political establishment. Trumbo won multi Oscars for his work, and his life as told here, deserves another. We need more serious well done films like this. Award nominations are deserved for writer, direction, lead actor, ensemble/best picture. Special mention to the actors who undertook the most difficult task of portraying those well know characters who lived within living memory. These are most difficult roles and good performances added so much to the film.

All movie fans should recognize the name of Dalton Trumbo. Even if his heyday was a good half-century ago, his actions during one of Hollywood's very darkest periods still have tremendous impact even today. Especially today, for that matter. Some quick background. You may recall that in World War II, the US and the Soviets were allies but that after the war we became distrustful adversaries. This time was known as the Cold War – since the two countries didn't fight one another – and really ended only in the late 1980s. Prior to the end of WW II, many Americans joined the Communist Party as a way to fight the rise of Fascism in Europe. After the war, current and former members of the Party were looked upon as pariahs of the highest order. Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) was one of these pariahs. It didn't help that he actively tried to rally technical workers on film sets (grips, lighting and sound technicians) to strike for higher pay. Unionizing was seen as a bad thing, despite the gains it had achieved for American workers earlier in the century. Trumbo's membership in the Party wasn't a big deal at first, but then gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren), who wielded an enormous amount of power in Hollywood, took it as a personal affront and used her column (and weekly appearance in newsreels) to denounce Communism in general and Trumbo in particular. Kicking the whole scandal into high gear was a little-known congressional group – the House Un-American Activities Committee. These guys tried to rout out Commies from Hollywood (which it saw as holding a lot of sway over Americans, much more so than today) by calling a group of known or suspected Communists to Washington for sworn testimony. These men were known as the Hollywood Ten. Trumbo was one of them, and he refused to tell the committee the names of anyone else who was or who could be a Communist. He, like his fellow Ten members, was found in contempt. Later, someone not in the group did name Trumbo, and he was put in prison for a full year. When he got out, no one would hire him (or any of the others in the Ten). Except for King Brothers Studio, which couldn't pay him much. But Trumbo worked fast as both a writer of original stuff and a fixer of existing scripts. The Kings loved him. So much so that the others in the Ten were offered jobs (for no credit, same as Trumbo) working as script doctors. During this time, Trumbo also got work from some friendly sorts in the business by selling them a script but not taking on-screen credit; the credit typically went to a fictitious person, or to a willing accomplice – known as a front. Through this method, Trumbo won two writing Oscars – although no one knew it at the time. Dalton Trumbo fought for himself, his fellow writers, and for anyone for whom the Bill of Rights holds any meaning. He reasoned that if people could be silenced for political beliefs, then anyone could be silenced for any reason. This is, unfortunately, still true today. And although he didn't receive credit at the time, Trumbo was awarded his Oscars eventually (one posthumously). He's recognized as being one of the very greatest screenwriters the world has ever known. The movie does a terrific job describing Trumbo's struggles – and that of his family: his wife Cleo (Diane Lane) and his three doting children. The toll that his stance took on them was noticeable to everyone except for Trumbo himself. Cranston turns in what was an Oscar-nominated performance, but his was not the only one of note. Lane is superb as his suffering, strong better half. Elle Fanning, as his eldest daughter, is also a standout, as are John Goodman (as Frank King) and Alan Tudyk (as writer Ian McLellan Hunter). Spellbinding from start to finish, and all screenwriters owe Trumbo a huge debt of gratitude for his long struggle on their behalf.

Okay. I'll admit that I gave this film a ten because it should have a higher score altogether than the 7.3 it has, and I wanted to up it. But a solid 8 at least or even a 9, for sure. There are at least two reasons why this fine film is not getting a higher rating, I believe. One is that there are many people (including critics) who look only at it from a political standpoint, both left and right. And those on the right are not going to like it no matter what, fine acting, writing or whatever. The same in the left but conversely (and a smaller number). Secondly, this is a slow and thoughtful film that will not go over with many young viewers who are used to fast paced action and CGI content. they will find neither in Trumbo. But, for students of history and for people who like a good story, without the fluff, it is all here. Classic good vs evil dynamics coupled with the inherent contradictions. The struggle of lost faith and eventual redemption. And perhaps mostly, excellent social dynamics especially centered around family loyalty and the struggle of holding to ones personal values. As for the history, there is much here. As stated above more than any film ever having dealt with the subject. Films like "the Front" and "Guilty by Suspicion" are indeed good films that, especially at the time where breaking ground for a more nuanced exploration of the subject. That Trumbo is a biography is advantageous. A real biography, not a overly fictionalized and caricatured profile of the era. This despite that fact that some of the characters are fictionalized, they nonetheless represent the experiences and attitudes of real people. Louis C.K.'s Arlen Hird character being one. Dalton Trumbo may have had a better time of it than most, such as Hird. It is thought by some that the rising star of John Garfield was killed (literally-a heart attack) by the effect of the HUAC on him. This was a time, as the film states when people were fighting for their professional and personal life against what could be called a creeping fascist tendency in the US political environment. The fear and reaction and self promotion of many (ie John Wayne, Hedda Hopper et al.) is evident here. The writing is excellent. My hat goes off to John McNamara and Bruce Cook for their adherence to historical accuracy and verisimilitude. The dialog is remarkable and keep you involved. It keeps you thinking and hits at an emotional level that few films do at all anymore. But it all comes together with the excellent direction of Jay Roach. To bring together the historical and personal is such a way is no small feat. He deserves an Oscar (as do McNamara and Cook). I could go on...but just see the movie. You won't regret it. You can still watch Star Wars at Xmas...

This film should be best film of the year for many reasons. For one it challenges one's beliefs. Two it shows accounts of U.S. history and third it demonstrates great courage.Dalton Trumbo's life was a testament of the power of one's mind. Trumbo's life was amazing by itself but the film made an autobiography come to life. Trumbo accomplished more than most men ever will. He used his life experience's, his quick thinking, and brilliance in writing and politics to challenge the United States government. He also suffered because of his bravery. This film is a great reminder of how flawed this country can be despite being promoted as the land of the free. America has many accounts of being unjust and oppressing that it has conveniently for years hid. This film shows some accounts of this and spotlights a brilliant writer and his equally gifted family members who stood their ground and pushed forward against a system that for decades had went unchallenged. Dalton Trumbo's life is inspiring and his wife and daughter's characteristics seemed to mirror his dedication and bravery. This is a great time period film and a must see if you are part of the cinema community.