Film Review: Daniel - 40th Anniversary

 "Daniel"

**** (out of ****)

Although "Daniel" (1983) may not be well remembered today and perhaps considered undeserving of being recognized for its 40th anniversary, this Sidney Lumet film remains extremely relevant today.

Like so many other Sidney Lumet films, "Daniel" is a story about social justice. Adding to the mix is a commentary on the differences between the generations and finding social / political causes to fight for, to believe in. And it is a story about identity - familial, cultural, social, political and self-identity.

Based on the novel, The Book of Daniel, written by E.L. Doctorow - who also wrote Ragtime - "Daniel" is a fictional retelling - though Doctorow and Lumet deny it - of the famous conviction and ultimate execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were accused of spying for the Soviet government in 1953.

In "Daniel" however the family name is changed to the Isaacson's and we follow their son Daniel (Timothy Hutton) and daughter, Susan (Amanda Plummer, daughter of the late Christopher Plummer). Their parents, Paul (Mandy Patinkin) and Rochelle (Lindsay Crouse) have been dead for decades. The "Red Scare" caused by Sen. Joe McCarthy and investigations by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) have been long over. A new generation is caught in their own battle for social justice - protesting the Vietnam War and demanding the White House bring the troops home. Will Daniel and Susan be able to meet the moment?

When Susan is introduced to us - showing off bruises on her arm and elbows to her family - we see an "eager soldier". There is an urgency and desire exuding from her which is contrasted by Daniel's behavior. He may have the hair grooming of the counter-culture - long hair and a beard - but he is much more reserved and detached. He sits with his wife (Ellen Barkin) across a dining table from Susan and listens on. It's the free spirit versus responsibility. With the dining table serving as an invisible battle line drawn between the two of them, Susan hits Daniel with her idea. She wants to take their Trust inheritance and create a Foundation, named after their parents, dedicated to left-wing political resistance. 

This hits at the heart of Lumet's superb film. How do we preserve the legacy of our family and live up to the expectations of those before us? Daniel is initially against the idea of using the family name for the Foundation. Daniel has tried to create his own path in life and by doing so has traveled down a conventional road. He doesn't want his parents' history to be linked to his future. Susan on the other hand takes pride in the family name of Isaacson and acknowledges in certain circles the name has meaning. Both she and Daniel must make good on the family name and commit themselves to important causes. With a name like Isaacson they are expected to.

As the film's title suggest, this is not merely the story of Paul and Rochelle Isaacson and their trial but Daniel's story of understanding history and his identity and their shared link. It is a self-discovery film. Screen time is split between showing us Paul and Rochelle's story and Daniel's search to try and uncover the facts involving his parents' trial.

Just as one of the first images we see in "Daniel" is of Vietnam protesters, our introduction to Paul and Rochelle shows them protesting for worker's rights as police approach attempting to intimidate them. Paul approaches one of the horse back police officers and begins yelling at him "Cossack!"  The Policeman knocks him down with his horse and it is Rochelle who helps him up. From then on the two remain inseparable engaging in left-wing politics.

One stark difference between each protest shown is the amount of people involved. More people were protesting Vietnam than engaged in the battle for worker's rights. Whether Lumet intended this or not, I came away thinking two things from this sequence. One, the protest movement has only gotten bigger thanks to what generations before them (AKA Paul and Rochelle) did. Two, politics is akin to religion. There is an equal amount of devotion involved. 

Paul and Rochelle live and breathe politics and pass along their views and convictions to their children. In one scene a young Paul walks into his father's repair shop with a box of Wheaties cereal. Paul begins to explain the fraud of advertising to Daniel and the implications of using a picture of Joe DiMaggio on the box. It is an interesting scene and showcases a kind of frank dialogue about ideas we don't hear in movies anymore.

Lumet shifts the film's tone from creating a romanticized version of left-wing politics of the 40s and 50s with the harsh realities of the times. One scene involves Paul, Rochelle and Daniel, along with other party members riding a bus, coming back from a Paul Robeson concert. Their bus is diverted as suddenly they are attacked by anti-communists. Again, it is Paul who bravely confronts his attackers and their baseball bats. All of these images have left an imprint in Daniel's mind.

What is also interesting in the way the Paul character is presented is the way it contrasts with an archetype I've labeled "the cowardly liberal". Usually in movies - "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), "Straw Dogs" (1971) and "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943) - there is a character that espouses liberal ideals. Often it is a male character with a pacifist nature. The character isn't presented as "manly" but by the conclusion of the film will often be put in a situation that will not only challenge his ideals but also his masculinity. In "Daniel", Lumet always presents Paul as heroic. He is willing to confront danger at all times. Even during WW II, in which he enlists, he says he looks forward to going to the front lines to lock arms with his Soviet brothers.

In Timothy Hutton's hands, Daniel is a bit more temperamental and often prone to lashing out at his wife. Daniel is a kind of lost soul contrasting with his father's masculine traits. It is a commentary on the differences between the generations. It has often been said, young men of the 1960s never got the chance to prove their masculinity in the same way their fathers did. Their fathers went to serve in WW II, a noble war. Those coming of age in the 60s didn't want to fight in Vietnam. Daniel's only outlet to prove his masculinity seems to be lashing out at his wife. Hutton, who won an Academy Award for his performance in "Ordinary People" (1980), was on a hot streak during this period. He followed up this complex performance with a role in "The Falcon and the Snowman" (1985).

While Daniel may be a lost soul, he is the soul of the picture. Lumet cuts to Daniel throughout the film, as Daniel informs us of the various ways throughout history governments have executed their own people. If that wasn't dramatic and hard hitting enough, Lumet takes things one step further and explains how social class often determined how gruesome one's death would be. Often the more horrendous means of execution were saved for the working class. I ask you, what film today would have the courage to express these ideas?

Some have faulted Lumet's film for not concerning itself with the Isaacson's (or for that matter, the Rosenberg's) innocence or guilt. I often wonder, do "movie critics" (sheep) watch the movies they review? Do they just make stuff up out of thin air? Do they - like political commenters - make themselves deliberately stupid? "Daniel" is a piece of good ol' fashion leftist filmmaking. The film's view on the Isaacson's guilt is layed out in a scene between Daniel and a New York Times reporter. The reporter tells Daniel based on the information and private discussions with prosecutors, his parents didn't deserve to be executed and were made an example of by an FBI that felt pressured to get results. That doesn't mean Paul and Rochelle were entirely innocent but they were no threat to the United States and weren't passing along classified information to the Soviet government. There's the film's position on the matter! How much more clearer does it need to be spelled out for people?

And that stance is what makes "Daniel" so typical of the films of Sidney Lumet. Lumet's films were often about corrupt systems and social justice. One of Lumet's best known films may be "12 Angry Men" (1957) about a jury deliberation following a murder trial. One juror (Henry Fonda) stands alone to try and convince the other's of the innocence of the accused. Then there was "Serpico" (1973) starring Al Pacino about a New York cop that exposes corruption within the force. Police corruption also played a role in other Lumet films such as "Prince of the City" (1981) and "Night Falls on Manhattan" (1997).

It was astonishing than for me to realize after 15 years of writing reviews on this blog, I never reviewed a Sidney Lumet film! During this very special "year of me" I had to correct the matter. Lumet was a very important filmmaker. Some of his best known films may have been made in the 1970s  - "Network" (1976), "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975), "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974) and "Serpico". Though he wasn't part of the "New Hollywood". His film work dates back to the 1950s. In that sense he is comparable to Robert Altman, who had also been working since the 1950s but didn't find great success until the 1970s. Lumet kind of fell out of fashion in the 1980s - along with other great filmmakers like Altman, Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich and Francis Ford Coppola - though "The Verdict" (1982) with Paul Newman is one of the great films of the decade. Luckily Lumet got to end his career on a high note with his final film, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (2007). Lumet died four years later.

After 40 years "Daniel" proves Lumet's genius. To me "Daniel" can speak to the political activists of today. They are like Daniel and Susan - eager soldiers looking for an important cause to fight for. They want to prove themselves to society by showing their worth and going out to champion causes. Of course they lack history and context. The "causes of the moment" seem pale to the causes championed before them.

Lumet says this film took 12 years to get off the ground. Studios didn't want to touch it. Despite the fact Lumet had been nominated four times for best director Oscars. When the film did open, it was met with mixed reviews. However, Gene Siskel recommended it and Jeffrey Lyons declared it one of the year's best films. "Daniel" may not be Lumet's best film but this is an important work, full of ideas.