WUSA

I have to agree with those who praise this film and realize that its not everyone's cup of tea. Although I appreciate the criticisms that some reviewers have leveled, it is wise to keep in mind that it is unfair to criticize a film 30+ years after its release through a contemporary lens. The sense of humor that some have found "lacking" is something that develops with the objectivity of lapsed time. During the late 1960's, many of us found little humor in the assassinations and general insanity that seemed to fill the political landscape. Like the previous reviewer, I, too, have been looking for this film for years and hope to see it on DVD one day soon. I found it to be a powerful piece.

Whilst I would make it clear that I enjoyed much of this film, I would make it equally clear that I found a fair amount of it ill-developed and tediously clunky.

It is a ripe political melodrama, clearly borne out of passions and disappointments which arose from the particular year of 1968 and lingered long into the 1970s. I don't think I could make much argument with the previous commentator's view that the film is made from a certain left-liberal point of view. But a moderate left-liberal stance, and tacitly so. Despite saying that, Anthony Perkins' character - an embodiment in many ways of the "liberal" stereotype - is not made particularly sympathetic. Well-meaning, obsessive, anguished and humourless, I would agree with the Time Out reviewer that it was astute - if unimaginative - casting. Perkins comes across as if his Norman Bates persona has been relocated to late-sixties urban America and forcibly invested with a political conscience.

Paul Newman, who shares perhaps too few scenes with his nemesis Perkins, is also rather good, as the wanderer with a certain cocksure touch, who easily becomes an on-air "communicator" for this WUSA radio station - which is involved in fraudulent dealings and far-right preachings. Newman is every inch the tabloid professional; he is able to claim that he has no agenda and is 'just doing a job'. His political views are ambiguous; his final speech indeed suggesting he has no real belief in the "new right". It difficult to precisely gauge what makes the character tick, besides an vague cynicism; he is as flawed and formidable as Perkins, but diametrically opposite, with his rejection of abstract morality: his behaviour set on a course of mere self-aid. He proves to be the adept survivor, in contrast to genuine ideologues of left or right, but he has no moderation instinct, and turns out somewhat troubled, baffled even, at the film's appropriately frazzled conclusion.

Then there is Joanne Woodward; first film I have seen her in, and one of I gather, many, with Newman. Her character is a trifle ineffectual, present, as if a chess piece, to engage the elusive Reinhardt's desires for a period, and to provide a more 'ordinary' site of audience identification, who does not have right or left-wing politics, and does have more endearing traits: at least compared with Reinhardt. Woodward is quite memorable, cutting a wilting, waning figure as this unfortunate woman, herself much as transitory as Newman at the film's beginning. If she convinces as a 'realistic' character, it is albeit as one implicitly used to condemn the excesses of the New Right and the confrontational politics of the time. Her sickly teariness near the close, and the fact of her being the only person in the riotous hall to listen to Newman's absurdest "we're o.k.!" irony, suggests an idealised 'ordinary person' wrapped up in harmful political events. This is all rather undignified and melodramatic to stand for one who is expected to take this overwrought stuff seriously, and merely serves to draw out some of Reinhardt's humanity for the ending.

Newman does invest Reinhardt with a portion of his customary charm, but this is largely and effectively shown to be a front. Woodward is taken in, like the general audience as it were, by this superficial charm, and she ends up broken both by Newman's inconsistent, careless attitude and by the rupturing of the society depicted.

The film does not go far enough with many of its themes, and I did expect rather more in the dramatic and comic departments - if melodrama is going to work it needs either grand force or a bathetic line in absurdity. The whole lacks humour: born of a self-consciously 'serious' grounding in the subjectivity of U.S. politics in the late-sixties era. On this point, note that Laurence Harvey is vastly under-used; and he of that deeply substantial and bizarre masterpiece of a political thriller, "The Manchurian Candidate"... And additionally, we never see enough of Newman's dealings and relationships with his Rightist colleagues - similarly to how we never see Perkins in the broader context of Left politics. Loose ends were certainly left untied as regards Perkins' character.

I did on the whole quite enjoy this, but it was not a particularly entertaining film: variable in its plotting, dialogue and tone. A case of potential untapped? Undoubtedly. But it is worth paying close attention to those central performances, and it is at least part of its era's Hollywood; markedly less 'safe' and conformist then than now.

A lot of what was predicted in the film Network about the media was also put forth in this film about radio WUSA. Sad to say it was laid on a bit too thick by its players and director.

Paul Newman who had a lot of faith in this project plays an itinerant disc jockey who both gets a job at this New Orleans based radio station WUSA and takes up with hooker Joanne Woodward, a girl whose heart really isn't in her work anyway.

As station owner Pat Hingle says, "this is a station with a point of view" and Hingle expects that point to be emphasized at all times. At that time the Richard Nixon White House was big on telling us that they were looking toward the great 'silent majority' of Americans who took the 'my country right or wrong' dictum to the exponential height. That's WUSA's point of view.

Newman is not a terribly sympathetic figure here which is one of the reasons the film flattens out. He sees what's wrong, but just goes with the flow. A whole lot like the characters with one exception in that other Louisiana based political drama, All The King's Men.

One who doesn't is Anthony Perkins who plays this rather pitiable 'survey taker' whose job is really to foster racial discontent by getting minorities thrown off welfare. I imagine there were many a Perkins out there, but this one doesn't like being taken for a fool and he reacts most violently. Perkins is probably the character you most remember from WUSA.

WUSA correctly predicted the advent of right wing talk radio about fifteen years before it became a fact. Rush Limbaugh would have been right at home on Pat Hingle's station. They've even got a right wing political preacher played by Laurence Harvey as part of their family. Harvey's another interesting character, but he's also laid on a bit thick for my taste. He should have adapted a more subtle approach to the part.

I wish I could rate such a prescient film as WUSA a bit higher, but the heavy handed approach just gets in the way.

As a relatively recent resident of the US, I continue to be astonished at how quickly American audiences forget their own history. I saw WUSA many years ago when I still lived in my native Italy (the Italian version was titled "Un Uomo Oggi" = "A Man Today"!). Two snippets of the film have been with me for all these years. The first is the radio host that invites all to drop what they are doing, go to the window, open it, and start screaming something like "I am fed up and I will no longer put up with this!" The second snippet is the last line delivered in the movie by the character interpreted by Paul Newman -- and I will not say what it says to avoid spoiling it. The themes are big and understandably audiences nowadays are impatient of 'dialog that sounds like speeches' (to quote an unfair reviewer on this site). The south, the issues of bigotry, racism, the Seventies, civic disobedience. At least the dialog has something to say, unlike so many films of the past 30 years. There is so much recent American history in this movie that it should be a mandatory assignment for college-age kids. Most people happily ignore its existence. Is there a way to convince anyone to make this piece available in DVD? It is too important to be neglected. No matter what Roger Greenspun says in his review appeared in the New York Times of November 2, 1970. In those days the Vietnam War coverage in the media made every single political reference seem like another opportunity for constipated American audiences to launch into yet one more conspiracy theory. And the Grenspun review blames WUSA for being 'ponderously allusive'. Maybe, with the hiatus of the past thirty-something years, the allusiveness will seem by now much less allusive and, who knows, we might enjoy this beautiful rendition of Robert Stone's novel. Besides the big issues, however, the movie is quite enjoyable. My vote of 8 only evaluates the viewing pleasure as entertainment.

When I first saw this movie in 1971, it impressed me, and my friends, very much. I saw it at least 4 or 5 times. This is one of the most important films of the '70, a political fiction of its time... but in a revision a few days ago in VHS, a film that seems as new as before, very actual. Although I think that Rosenberg was not the most indicate director for this film (Frankenheimer seems to me a most appropriate election, due to his asphyxiating atmospheres), the strong of the story and the interpretation of an extraordinary Anthony Perkins, among the others actors, gives its force to the movie. It is a pity that there are no DVD edition (I suspect that the Spanish exhibition in its time was very censured...) for to see that film in good conditions. The people that doesn't know are missing a very notable film. I liked so much that in my blog I have written a long essay about the film, for the benefit of the young people that doesn't know it.