A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood
After the documentary about children's television show host Fred Rogers, Won't You Be My Neighbor? came out, it seemed that the narrative film about him, A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood, would be superfluous. That documentary told us everything we needed to know about Rogers. Then it became apparent that this new film had Rogers as a supporting character, it was really about a cynical journalist whose life is changed by meeting Rogers. This was reinforced by the fact that Tom Hanks, who plays Rogers, was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Fred Rogers wasn't even the lead character in his own movie.
I put off seeing the movie for that reason, but dutifully caught up with it on DVD yesterday, and like that cynical journalist, I found I liked it better than I thought I would. Though you never really forget you are watching Tom Hanks, the spirit of Rogers shines through, and on more than one occasion I had a tear in my eye.
The film is about a magazine writer, Matthew Rhys, who is estranged from his father. At a family wedding they exchange punches, and his relationship with his wife (Susan Kelechi Watson) is a bit strained after the birth of their son. He is assigned to do a short piece on Rogers for Esquire, and when he first meets him he, like most people, are looking for an angle. Surely this man can not be sincere. At one point he suggests that on TV he is playing a character called "Mr. Rogers." Hanks just stares back at him, and we understand that it is not an act.
Director Marielle Heller, who is a person to watch after Diary of a Teenage Girl and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, resists turning this into a sappy hagiography. While I'm still fascinated by what Fred Rogers was like at home--he refers to difficulties with his sons but we don't meet them--it turns out that having Mr. Rogers as a spiritual guru is a pretty good thing.
Of course, there are moments that strain credulity. A scene in which New Yorkers serenade Rogers with his theme song on the subway seems a bit much, and no matter how much we are assured that Rogers was exactly as you saw him, its hard to imagine he would get that involved in the life of a magazine reporter. On the other hand, the script, a good one by Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, hints at Rogers' own struggles, particularly with anger. He sublimates it by swimming and banging on piano keys, but one wonders if Fred Rogers needed his own Fred Rogers.
As for Hanks, in the extras it is said that we was the only choice to play Rogers. There are few actors as beloved as Hanks, and have a nicer reputation. But it's a double-edged sword, as he doesn't really look like Rogers (they give him a wig and some eyebrows) and you never forget that you are watching Hanks. Using an unknown actor who looked more like the real man would have made for a different film, though perhaps not better.
I put off seeing the movie for that reason, but dutifully caught up with it on DVD yesterday, and like that cynical journalist, I found I liked it better than I thought I would. Though you never really forget you are watching Tom Hanks, the spirit of Rogers shines through, and on more than one occasion I had a tear in my eye.
The film is about a magazine writer, Matthew Rhys, who is estranged from his father. At a family wedding they exchange punches, and his relationship with his wife (Susan Kelechi Watson) is a bit strained after the birth of their son. He is assigned to do a short piece on Rogers for Esquire, and when he first meets him he, like most people, are looking for an angle. Surely this man can not be sincere. At one point he suggests that on TV he is playing a character called "Mr. Rogers." Hanks just stares back at him, and we understand that it is not an act.
Director Marielle Heller, who is a person to watch after Diary of a Teenage Girl and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, resists turning this into a sappy hagiography. While I'm still fascinated by what Fred Rogers was like at home--he refers to difficulties with his sons but we don't meet them--it turns out that having Mr. Rogers as a spiritual guru is a pretty good thing.
Of course, there are moments that strain credulity. A scene in which New Yorkers serenade Rogers with his theme song on the subway seems a bit much, and no matter how much we are assured that Rogers was exactly as you saw him, its hard to imagine he would get that involved in the life of a magazine reporter. On the other hand, the script, a good one by Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, hints at Rogers' own struggles, particularly with anger. He sublimates it by swimming and banging on piano keys, but one wonders if Fred Rogers needed his own Fred Rogers.
As for Hanks, in the extras it is said that we was the only choice to play Rogers. There are few actors as beloved as Hanks, and have a nicer reputation. But it's a double-edged sword, as he doesn't really look like Rogers (they give him a wig and some eyebrows) and you never forget that you are watching Hanks. Using an unknown actor who looked more like the real man would have made for a different film, though perhaps not better.
Comments
Post a Comment