Spielberg abandons Harvey

 

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

 

            Spielberg appears to have abandoned “Harvey,” which is sad news indeed.

            While ostensibly, the reason is that Spielberg can’t find a leading man to duplicate the role played by Jimmy Stewart, the film might even be beyond Spielberg’s amazing talents to replicate – especially in today’s movie-making climate where subtly is not a virtue.

            Often seen as Stewart’s acting masterpiece, “Harvey” is among the most subtle films ever made, a crafted piece of fiction that relies on an audience being as intelligent as the subject matter. In a time where bigger bangs for your buck is the film industry standard, any attempt to recreate “Harvey” is a disaster waiting to happen.

            Once Tom Hanks declined the lead role, the project was on shaky ground since few other actors have the subtle touch to play Elwood Dodd. A cross between an alcoholic and mystic, Dodd is one of those characters who walks through our world providing an ironic commentary on what we foolishly believe – especially in what we consider socially acceptable behavior. But the piece is a commentary on a world that no longer existed, where society still pretended to be civil and humane, even when modern science sought to erase from existence anything that seemed out of touch with normal. While such satire is desperately needed today, how to update it is a problem in a contemporary society more inflexible than the one out of which the film gave birth.

            Spielberg also tends to make “big” films, and his audiences come to expect an array of special effects and such that would only subtract from the fundamental ironies contained in “Harvey.” Stewart remarked on this even in his time by recalling when he performed the role of Dodd on stage and overheard a frustrated kid in the audience demanding to see the six foot rabbit. Since modern movie-going audiences have regressed to a similar mind-set, none would have the patience to sit through a movie in which the existence of the rabbit is in question until nearly the end of the film, and we never do get to see it after all that.

            Harvey works on several levels, which is one of its virtues, but all of them detrimental to a modern interpretation. Fundamentally it is a comedy about a strange man befriends every loser in his small town, carrying with him the awe and wonder of an invisible rabbit, and the social stigma that his family has to endure because of this. So they try to have him locked up.

            The second level got Spielberg early criticism because the film pits the mythical against hard science, and favors myth.  The film shows the mis-presumptions of modern science and how often it seeks to destroy all that is good about being human. Most audiences would not find this an attractive element – much in the same way they had trouble coping with the themes Spielberg explored in War of the Worlds.

            The film “Harvey” also has a rich layer of other things, especially dealing with the concept of identity, what they are, what they are called, what they mean, and how alienated people feel in a society that no longer looks at each person as an individual.

            Since Spielberg would have to somehow update the original film to somehow reflect current conditions, the challenge is immense since he does not have access to the original playwright the way the first film did, and – to be honest with you – the clutch of writers he usually uses aren’t up to the task of doing such subtle work – with the possible exception of the writer who did the script for “War of the Worlds.”

            While actors exist who might handle Stewart’s role, none can replace the woman who played his sister – an actor that had defined the role on stage, and who is as essential to the film’s success as Stewart.

            She plays a role that requires her to dance on the fine edge of keeping the audience believing that she does not believe in Harvey at the same time providing hints that she very much does and has in fact seen the creature.

            Considering the obstacles faced in making this film, it is perfectly understandable why Spielberg would abandon the project. The film needs quality actors – who if they exist – are not big enough names to draw an audience. The level of writing would also require talent Spielberg doesn’t normally have access to. And the film would require a kind of subtly Spielberg has yet to display as a film maker, and if he manages to achieve it, this subtly won’t be appreciated by audience looking for cheap thrills rather than enlightenment.

            In the end, Spielberg would be making a small film about a huge subject that won’t make the kind of money normally associated with Spielberg films.

            For me, this is a huge disappointment because it means Spielberg has stopped taking risks and is only going with sure bets, and that is not the route to creating great art.

            The fact is Spielberg may be the only film maker who is capable of remaking “Harvey,” even though he has never attempted this kind of film before. “Harvey” would force Spielberg away from relying on super stars such as Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise, and away from reliance of special effects, and force him to rely on what he does best as an image maker. If you turn the sound off on Harvey and ignore the plot, and look only at the images, it is very much like many of the better Spielberg efforts. If he can find quality unknown actors and well-crafted quality writers, Spielberg could actually make a masterpiece equal to the original – in much the way he did with Always (A film I didn’t like the first time I saw it and then realized with later viewings just how crafted it was).

            Come on, Steve, take a chance.  Do the movie!