Skip to main content

A Neighbourly Film


Few figures in the world of entertainment are as widely beloved in the way that Fred Rogers is. And it seems that in recent times of such hate and division his simple philosophies on love, kindness, and empathy as well as his unique way of teaching them have had a welcome renaissance. Only last year, we had the terrific documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor, and now Can You Ever Forgive Me’s Marielle Heller has brought the late childrens’ host back to life again for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, a very interesting film which casts Mr. Rogers with another universally beloved popular icon, Tom Hanks, thus assuring a movie of the utmost sweetness.
The film is not a biopic, in fact it’s only loosely based on a true story, taking the 1998 Esquire article “Can You Say …Hero?” by Tom Junod and expanding it into a semi-fictional narrative of a journalist here dubbed Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) interviewing Mr. Rogers at a particularly trying time in his personal life when he’s dealing with both a new child and his estranged fathers’ (Chris Cooper) attempts at reconciliation. And in one of Heller’s most inspired choices, this narrative is encased within a framing device of an episode of Mister Rogers Neighborhood. It opens on Rogers entering his set singing the titular song and completing his usual routine, introduces Lloyd via Rogers’ ‘Picture Board’, and every establishing shot is made through the miniscule model set of the neighbourhood or city. The sets are recreated down to the smallest details, which in conjunction with the grainy cinematography and reduced aspect ratio of these scenes really gives the impression you’re watching a 90’s childrens’ programme, and makes Hanks’ appearance as Rogers (a part he grows into over the course of the film) more digestible early on. Heller has described the film as “a Mr. Rogers episode for adults”, and this creative structural context reinforces that uniquely and charmingly.
That’s also the core of what makes the movie work. It is a Mr. Rogers movie, but its’ target audience is unequivocally adults and the issues it’s dealing with are adult issues of parenting, loss, estrangement, reconciling complex feelings, bottling up anger, learning empathy, and forgiveness; the kind of things most of us struggle with to some degree or another in our daily lives. And the fact that there’s so much overlap in these themes and the values Rogers conveyed to children goes to show how important an influence he was. The film is about how those values, articulated in the simplest terms for preschoolers, have worth and power into adulthood, and concern the problems we face as grown-ups, especially those with children of their own to raise. And yet the film isn’t naïve, it doesn’t try to pretend the world is a tamer place than it is, or that confronting such issues is easy, or that earning forgiveness isn’t as important a thing as giving it. But it takes the Mr. Rogers approach of looking at personal problems: “anything mentionable is manageable”, and encourages a healing perspective.
Certainly what I didn’t expect was that these virtues would be illustrated in mystifying, even surrealist ways. The effect Rogers has on Vogel sometimes takes the form of unusual apparitions and dreams, such as one particularly strange sequence related to the Neighbourhood of Make-Believe that manifests literally the feelings at the heart of Vogels’ psyche. Generally, the films’ attitude towards narrative is rather refreshing –these moments of dubious reality are tossed in among the pointed storytelling, the meta-fiction of the film at times implies a degree of overarching subjectivity, nothing is straight-laced. The wholesome veneer that enshrouds the film in its presentation and the personality of the man being homaged allows for these deviations from convention without wholly alienating its audience; and I think Heller was very clever in noticing that.
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood spends much more time away from that neighbourhood and in Vogel’s own life than might be expected. He’s the centrepiece of the film, and Rhys does a pretty good job expressing his cynicism and emotional trauma. He’s not perhaps allowed to go as far with the characters’ demons as might be allowed by the film being in such proximity to Mr. Rogers; and indeed it’s a minor disappointment that the conflict between him and his father is relatively simple and lacking in the nuance and deeper contexts that exist in most real broken families. Susan Kelechi Watson lends a believable desire for outreach to Vogel’s wife, and Cooper of course is apt as the dejected father. But the movie was always going to live or die on Tom Hanks as Rogers. And honestly it was a bit of an odd casting choice in terms of authenticity. Hanks neither looks nor sounds like Rogers, which is evident from his earliest appearance where he has the right cadence, but it’s not what you’d recognize from the show. It doesn’t take long for him to embody the spirit of the character though, both in his sometimes frustrating idiosyncrasies and his genuinely inspired insights. Like the last time he played an icon of childrens’ entertainment (Walt Disney in Saving Mr. Banks), it’s just the right amount of distance to allow for a freer portrayal. Of course, unsurprisingly he has that lovable charm in spades. And twenty-five years after Forrest Gump, filmmakers are still inserting Hanks into old television footage.
If you’re looking for a portrait of who Mr. Rogers was, the power of his message, and a loving tribute to his legacy, Won’t You Be My Neighbor? is the better film for that. But A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a good companion piece, presenting the man from an outside perspective and showcasing the worth of his philosophies in action. Heller once more proves herself a filmmaker with a bright future in her graceful execution of the films’ wilder choices, and if nothing else, the movie is a bastion of positivity in a time when that’s sorely needed in both cinema and everyday life.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more