Ausencia de malicia

There's really no other word for it. I find the whole of this movie compelling, from Sally Fields' naivete to Paul Newman's innocent who turns the tables on his prosecutors, to the various supporting characters who all have their little niche. The best of all is Wilford Brimley, who gets to chew scenery and totally steal the scene he's in. It's an intelligent drama, addressing a subject as relevant today as it was in '81, with just enough humor to leaven the whole thing.

Absence of Malice is an alright drama that is smartly casted with Sally Field and Paul Newman. The story is interesting enough and moves along just fine until Wilford Brimley's character, he plays a no nonsense-no BS judge who sets everyone straight. It makes you grateful you sat through this okay film. Great job by Mr. Brimley. He makes it worth the price of admission(or video).

... as audiences would not relate to anything this cynical prior to Watergate. This was made only seven years afterwards.

Sally Field is an ethically-challenged reporter. With the help of an even more unscrupulous federal investigator, played by Bob Balaban, she writes a story that implicates Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) in the disappearance & presumed murder of a union boss. Gallagher is on the radar because his uncle is a mobster. The film employs a procedural narrative that delivers little dramatic tension. The severest act happens off screen. The characters feel slightly underwritten. The exception is Melinda Dillon's poignant portrayal of Teresa Perrone, Gallagher's best friend, who occupies the moral epicenter.

While everyone else is playing a game of extreme cynicism, not uncommon in journalism and politics, Teresa feels most acutely. I liked the straight-forward approach and lack of style. Of course, director Sydney Pollack was never known as a stylist. I'm not saying this in the pejorative. I enjoy Pollack's work. Wilford Brimley makes a needed, late appearance to munch down on some scenery.

It does have the distinct feel of a film made to make a go for the Oscars, with Paul Newman making repeated failed runs at the Best Actor prize at this point in his career. Still Newman in the lead gave gave a film at that time the same amount of heft that Tom Hanks in the lead gives a film today.

This movie looks to have all the elements of a classic but somehow falls short. Unscrupulous prosecutor dupes reporter Field into creating (false) impression that businessman Newman was involved in a murder, in the hope that will somehow help his investigation. The lie has unexpected and tragic consequences, after which Newman turns the tables. Field is fine as liberated yet vulnerable thirty-something, Newman is also good if a little obscure in a difficult role; but Brimley as Asst US Attorney steals the show when he finally blows the whistle on everyone. Brimley's short time in this movie really is classic and Oscar-quality. The overall problem here is a little too much soapbox and not enough real emotion from nearly everyone.

Paul Newman and Sally Field, though somewhat opposites both in their roles as Michael Colin Gallagher and Megan Carter respectively and in real Hollywood life, mesh and make believable lovers. Megan tells Michael that she is 30 something and doesn't need courting to play in the hay. Michael retorts, "Maybe I do," and drives away. Megan winds up somewhat of a failure both as a newspaper hound and as a liberated female. Then along comes Wilford Brimley in a bit part and runs away with the show. That's saying a lot since the well chosen cast gives it all they've got including ace jobs by Bob Balaban and Melinda Dillon.

The essence of the film is "What is the nature of truth?" What we read in the paper ain't necessarily so. Jibes are poked at bureaucrats too who certainly have problems determining what is truth. As long as the paperwork looks good then so goes the world. With the Horatio Alger success formula still around in the world of big government and big business, empire builders are a dime a dozen. Usually their asses are saved by cover ups and fall guys. In "Absence of Malice" the innocent victim outsmarts the bureaucrats and the Fourth Estate to bring the house of cards down, certainly an anomaly in the 21th century as it was in 1981, maybe even more so.

Admittedly, the film becomes too preachy at times which not only grates on the nerves but also slows the picture down. Yet the well-written script and Sydney Pollack's knowing direction keep it from becoming a total disaster. Not on the level of Pollack's previous "Three Days of the Condor" or his next feature "Tootsie," "Absence of Malice" still packs a wallop.