Hide in Plain Sight

I'm one of Tom's nieces. When this all occurred I was just a young girl, but am very familiar with the story and how some of it unfolded. I know that on WKBW Channel 7 news on the 11 pm newscast, Irv Weinstein would state that it's 11 pm. Do you know where your children are? It would make my uncle sad because he loved his children dearly! And he was a great dad! Yes we all were a little disappointed they way the made him seem like such an angry person, but overall it portrayed him well. And we were greatly disappointed that they didn't promote, advertise & push the movie better!!

Compelling all the way through and based on a true story. Tom (Caan) wants his kids back after the Feds have taken them as part of a witness relocation program. Seems his ex-wife Ruthie (Rae) has hooked up with a minor gangster Jack (Viharo) who's testified against gang bosses. As part of his deal with the Feds, Jack's married Ruthie and they and her two kids by Tom are secretly spirited away to a new life. Trouble is no one, least of all the Feds, bothered telling Tom whose paternal interests have been totally ignored. A working stiff, Tom tries respectfully to work through the government bureaucracy to establish some kind of paternal rights for access to his kids. Nonetheless, his access could lead the gang to stoolie Jack's whereabouts, resulting in a central conflict of interests.

Clearly, there's a subtext to the storyline. Set in 1967, the narrative generally shows how uncaring Feds are about an average working guy's rights. Much of the proceedings are taken up with Tom being brushed off by ascending levels of government even up to his congressman. For Tom, it's ironic that the establishment he supports as an anti-hippie blue-collar conservative would treat him so cavalierly. In a sense, the movie suggests reasons for working class guys to despise government as much as do the anti-war hippies of the time. In effect, the governing agencies come across as basically uncaring about the broader consequences of their acts, seemingly either in Vietnam or Buffalo, NY. That's why Tom angrily identifies himself to a Fed as "Nobody" at movie's end. He's had an odd learning experience, but a learning experience it is. Perhaps I exaggerate some, but the subtextual core is definitely present in this adaptation of a real life event.

Anyway, Caan delivers an ace performance as Tom. Note how his lines are delivered in rather groping and not very articulate fashion, befitting a guy more skilled with his hands than his tongue. Thus, Caan manages a convincing role without special pleading. The rest of the rather large cast also performs ably, especially rotund McMillan as a street-wise cop and Viharo as the callous stoolie. But, as much as I wanted to hug her, I'm afraid Eikenberry is a shade too sweet and understanding as Tom's new girl friend.

On the whole, the movie comes across as very skillfully done, with a thought provoking storyline, and results that are generally underrated. So don't pass it up.

This film DID get a theatrical release, but it quickly disappeared. It's unfortunate, because it's very thoughtful film. As a director, Caan made some interesting choices.

As a side note, I saw Caan discussing it in an interview a long time ago. He said the studio had no faith in the film, so they dumped it without much advertisement. And then they were shocked when it received great reviews. But by then, it was already dead. He also mentioned that the pan & scan version that was on TV changed a lot of wide-screen two shots into separate shots! I'm not sure if the same thing happened with the VHS, but I'll bet it did. Hopefully, a proper version will come out on DVD one of these days.

James Caan is Tom Hacklin Jr., a Buffalo factory worker whose divorced wife Ruthie has custody of their kids and is dating a Mafia thug Jack Scolese who goes into a witness protection program after getting busted for a poorly-executed bank robbery. When Ruthie and Scolese disappear into the program, they wind up taking Hacklin's kids with them and from there on out Hacklin has little recourse but to plead his case in court or pick up what little clues he can find in ascertaining his children's whereabouts.

Caan is quite good here as a respectful, hardworking ordinary guy who finds himself up against a combination of bureaucratic inertia and determined government stonewalling, not to mention the Mafia's menacing presence. In this emotionally charged struggle, he rarely loses his cool. The film's only major flaw is a pacing that occasionally feels too leisurely for a story about an aggrieved father trying to find his kids, although eventually it does pick up and become quite suspenseful. Recommended.

I thought the naturalism of the settings worked well for Caan. It's got that gritty 70's look. It's also interesting to see a film shot in Buffalo, NY during that period. The extras are good and some of the hairstyles and fashions are hysterical. I thought Caan did a good job considering this was the first and last movie he shot. Jill Eikenberry's acting is very natural. The climax is not exploitative and thus is believable. Not played very much on cable although the topic is timely, I forget which station I caught it on fairly recently. The character is played well by Caan and I identified with the working class element. I was also wondering why Hollywood never gave James Caan another directing job, was it because this fared poorly at the box office?