New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Lee Remick and Anthony Franciosa round out the main cast as a young woman who catches Rhodes' eye and his slimy agent, respectively. Both actors play the roles just fine, but I can't imagine that either of the performances will stick with me for long. They simply don't have a whole lot to do.

The main selling point of the film, for me at least, is the premise. It really is eerie how much Rhodes resembles some of the "stars" of today, like Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or - to a much lesser extent - Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann. Rhodes uses the radio and television in a way to grow his brand and capitalize on his fans' ("followers" might describe them better) adoration of him. They will do pretty much whatever Rhodes tells them to do, from buying certain products to endorsing a particular nominee for President, and everything in between. That level of devotion to a person you don't really know anything about is scary. People who appear on television aren't telling you the whole truth about themselves. You don't know the motivations for their actions or opinions. You might as well take life advice from a character in a sitcom or film, as these guys - especially people like Trump, Limbaugh, or Beck - are just as scripted as any Hollywood fantasy.

The fact that Rhodes can rise to power so quickly is a bit absurd, but that's the satiric nature of the film. In real life, it generally takes years to build up a fan base so loyal that you can sway things in your favor. The old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" definitely applies to Rhodes. He's a product of his own megalomania and he doesn't care who or what gets in his way.

I do think this story could have been told in a more effective manner if the film had been 20 minutes or so shorter. It started to drag in places and I was occasionally checking the time, wondering when it was going to end. If it had been a bit shorter, I don't think this would have been the case.

The technical aspects of A Face in the Crowd are far less impressive than the premise and characters. Nothing about Kazan's direction or the cinematography (by Gayne Rescher and Harry Stradling) really stood out as positives. In fact, I think Kazan opted for far too many fade outs, which became distracting and repetitive after a while. The editing by Gene Milford and musical score by Tom Glazer were both fine, but nothing more.

A Face in the Crowd was added to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress in 2008, for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". I can wholeheartedly agree with it meeting those first two standards, but not the third. Not all "classics" are created equally, of course, and I think this one is of a lesser quality - good, but not great.

Still, A Face in the Crowd was an interesting film and I'm happy to have seen it once. I can't imagine returning to it again anytime soon, though it would make an intriguing double feature with Sidney Lumet's Network, which covers some similar themes. I think I'd probably just watch the far superior Network on its own, though, and save myself two hours for something else.

Continued:       1       2