#97 - Hoffa

If I remember correctly, there was a trend in the 90's of making biographical movies on controversial subjects or individuals. I'm thinking along the lines of JFK and Nixon, but I haven't seen either of those, nor did I take the time to look up when they came out, so I could be talking out of my ass. It just seems like there was a trend back then and this one was in the middle of it all. Todays trends include superheroes, uplifting sports tales, and my least favorite, horror/monster movie remakes. Superheroes and sports tales I understand because these are stories that have been around and/or shared for years. As far as the horror/monster movies go, if you have something to offer us with a remake, then go for it. Otherwise, I'm not interested. And since I haven't seen any of them other than King Kong, it's shows that I'm not interested, and besides, King Kong is on a different level than the remakes anyways. Have I gotten too far off track yet?

I had low expectations for this movie. Mostly because there was a bunch of controversy around it, and I don't remember it doing that well. That controversy probably has to do with the controversial nature of the subject matter, and while box office results are in no way a measuring stick of the value of a movie, I had a feeling that it was another built up epic that, despite it's good intentions, fell short of the hype. Well, I think we have a rare case where none of that happened. First of all, it's an interesting movie. Most of that is due to the top notch performances by Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito, but another part of it is due to my next point. This is not a carbon copy Hollywood biopic. I sat through much of it thinking that they were setting up Hoffa as a hero, but the there were moments where he does some pretty underminded things, so he's not a good guy. I couldn't tell what they were saying about him, until it hit me that they weren't taking a stance at all. They were remaining ambiguous about one of the most controversial figures in recent American history. There are people who think he was a no good criminal who was in with the mob, yet at the same time, you have someone who was loved and revered by working men all over the country. Polar opposites, and now you get to decide. I think that's quite interesting and unbelievably brave. Normally, a movie tells you what they want you to think. I get the feeling that people have come to expect that, and when they don't see it, they reject it, which is a shame.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is a tremendous breakthrough of cinematic achievment that deserves another look. I'm just saying that it does something different than what I normally see from this kind of movie. I have no doubt that this isn't the first movie to do such a thing, but as far as I know, it's the first one I have seen, and I think it's unique for such a high budget Hollywood movie. Even with all of that, there is something dangerous about this movie that I have to mention. Much of what you see in this movie is fictitious. Danny DeVito and Armande Assante's characters were both created to move the story along. While I have no problem with historical fiction, there is no indication in this movie that these two people are fabricated. I had to watch the bonus materials to find this out. This is the kind of thing that changes people's perception of history. I don't normally watch the bonus stuff and if I hadn't I would have thought that most of this was accurate. Dramatic liberties aside, Hollywood has to be careful with the big stick that it wields. I recently watched Robert Wuhl's Assume the Position again and much of what he talks about relates to this matter. Be careful Hollywood, and more importantly, be aware movie goers. You can bitch and moan all you want when a movie hasn't been adapted word for word from the book, but think about when history is changed. I'll get off my soap box now.