The Ron Howard movie that left Roger Ebert depressed: “Is there any purpose?”
One of the beautiful things about cinema is how strongly it can elicit emotions in the audience, even if those feelings aren’t exactly positive. The medium will always divide viewers: a film can conjure up anger and sadness in one person, but another could feel the complete opposite. That’s the joy of consuming art, though; no one will have the same reaction as another.
Yet, in some cases, a film can cause a viewer to feel much different from what the director perhaps intended, which was certainly the case when Roger Ebert watched Ron Howard’s Far and Away. The movie, released in 1992, was intended to be an inspirational tale of a pair’s journey from Ireland to a new life in America, with romance and tough obstacles sprinkled throughout, but the critic simply found it “depressing”.
The film featured Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, although it didn’t exactly reach the heights of one of their much better collaborations, Eyes Wide Shut. Instead, the then-married couple played Irish immigrants to mixed success, with some critics finding it an enjoyable western, and others, like Ebert, finding the script full of clichés.
He opened his review by writing, “Far and Away is a movie that joins astonishing visual splendour with a story so simple-minded it seems intended for adolescents; watching it, I kept being reminded of the Childhoods of Famous Americans books, in which plucky young people made their way in life. It’s depressing that such a lavish and expensive production, starring an important actor like Tom Cruise, could be devoted to such a shallow story.”
Ebert questioned whether the producers of the film think “audiences have entirely lost their wits,” before criticising predictable plot devices. “It is an ancient convention of such story formulas that the young man and woman (who anyone can see are destined for one another) must go through a period of mutual antagonism before – hello! – they realise they’re in love.”
The movie blended the western genre with romance and adventure, but all Ebert was really bothered about was the fact that it was shot on 70mm. Thus, the critic concluded his critique with a harsh verdict, even bringing a legendary director into the conversation to defend his point.
“If the late David Lean had not died before he could shoot it, his own planned 70mm epic, Nostromo, might have been arriving in theatres about now. It would have been a reminder of the literate, thoughtful tradition of such Lean films as Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia. Remembering them and looking at this credulous boy’s story, I am depressed.”
For Ebert, it seemed as though the movie was too concerned with aesthetics instead of delivering interesting characters and original ideas. “Are audiences thought not capable of seeing great pictures and listening to great dialogue at the same time? Are they so impatient they have to be thrown boxing scenes instead of character scenes? Is there any purpose to this movie other than visual spectacle?”
Far and Away certainly isn’t one of Cruise or Kidman’s most memorable movies, nor is it one of Howard’s finest achievements. However, within a few years, the filmmaker found himself at the helm of Apollo 13, which Ebert awarded a full four out of four stars.
