Customer Reviews

Daniel

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Timothy Hutton is luminous in this film, as the fictional son of the Rosenbergs. He should have own an award for this portrayal. All the actors, so many well known now, and including the children portraying the young Daniel, are wonderful. There are layers of story unfolding, and the layers are punctuated by the singing of Paul Robeson at intervals, giving a depth and weight to the already intense story. A few viewers may not like the parts where Daniel talks about the many forms of execution, but this is a small part of the film. I recommend this film to anyone who lived through the 60s, and interested in the many films directed by Sidney Lumet. Superb.

Sidney Lumet's film is based on the novel The Book of Daniel by E L Doctorow, an obvious use of the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg case of the 1950's. The Rosenberg's were convicted of conspiring to give atomic bomb information to the Soviets, and executed in 1953. Whilst it is believed that the Rosenberg's were justly convicted, what made the case contentious was the severity of their punishment. Doctorow renamed the Rosenberg's the Isaacsons, and uses the Rosenberg myth to explore the dark side of infamy. The film is told from the Isaacson children's point of view, Amanda Plummer who even as a child when her parents were killed, shows indications of her later mental breakdown, and Timothy Hutton who appears to be the stronger of the two. Both have internalised their grief, with Plummer's idealism shown to be as unhealthy as that of her parents, and Hutton's fetish about different methods of execution. We see the children's resentment of their parents because the imprisonment and eventual deaths of the parents cost the children their protection. It's not important to the children whether their parents are innocent. They believe the political activism the parents expressed is self-destructive. Our view of the Isaacson's activism as a demonstration of passion is divided between heroic and foolish, with Mandy Pantikin's Paul Isaacson being the best example, when he collapses at the sight of the electric chair. Is he a foolish coward or would anyone faint in fear at the time of death? (though Mrs Isaacson doesn't). Doctorow (who adapted his own book) casts doubt on the guilt of the Isaacson's to provide for the children's anguish..Hutton interviews survivors of the trial and settles on the theory that his parents were the dupe of the informant, who fingered them in order to deflect attention from the real culprits. Whilst this theory cannot be substantiated, it's more palatable for the Isaacsons than it could be for the Rosenbergs, who the Communist Party wanted us to believe were also framed. Of course this theory requires that there existed a conspiracy, and the film points out that the Soviet's advances in nuclear weapons can be explained by their independent efforts. After all, wasn't it feared that the Nazi's would beat the Americans to the bomb if their invasion of Russia was a success? The alternate theory that there were no culprits and the Isaacsons were merely scapegoats for Cold War paranoia would probably lead both children to suicide. Lumet creates two time frames, distinguished by cinematography Andrejz Bartkowiak's orange tint for the past and blue tint for the Vietnam era that is the present where the children are now adults, and intercuts in memory and with the progression of Hutton's quest. This intercutting works the best with Lumet's set pieces, an anti-Communist ambush after a Paul Robeson concert, and the two executions presented mercifully in long shot, though a final comparative funeral seems false since it's hard to imagine that the Isaacsons would have been allowed a public funeral. It feels like it exists so Lumet could make the parallel. There is a memorable image of the children being passed over the heads of a crowd during a rally, but the extended stock footage that Lumet opens and closes the film with is less successful. I also tend to agree with Pauline Kael's assessment of the Robeson songs on the soundtrack, in her review in her collection State of the Art. She says its a secret rarely let out: Robeson was a monotonous singer and his songs all sound the same (except for one up-tempo number towards the end). When men appear with baseball bats to attack the Isaacsons and other Communist Party members who have heard Robeson sing live, you wish they would use their bats on Robeson's arranger instead. Lumet has the reputation for encouraging his actors to yell, a point taken to near parody by the hysteria of Julie Bovasso as Patinkin's sister who is lumbered with the children when both parents are arrested, and Patinkin is probably the worst offender. However Lindsay Crouse as Mrs Isaacson is a touching mother and I also liked the polite hostility of Carmen Matthews as the widow of the Isaacson's lawyer. Hutton is all hair and beard but Amanda Plummer has a Judy Garland-ish vulnerability, with a scene where he tries to rouse her out of her madness and she returns to the solace of her foetal position in a dance-like move.

This is a fantastic movie concerning a painful and shameful period in America's history,
and its effects on two siblings,coming of age in the late 1960s'.Loosely based on the
Rosenberg spy case of the early 1950s',and E.L Doctorow's "The Book of Daniel",a stellar
cast superbly brings to life the experiences of a family torn apart by radical politics,
government persecution,and trying to live up to a political legacy.
Timothy Hutton gives an excellent performance as Daniel,the troubled son dealing with his
family's past.Hutton portrays Daniel as a complex and at times not particularly likeable
individual:rather than present him as merely a heroic seeker,Hutton offers a fleshed out
character study,with Daniel's strenghts and faults readily apparent.Hutton's performance
is mature and controlled,offering depth and dimension:Sidney Lumet would have been pleased
with the decision to cast Hutton in this tricky role.
The rest of the cast are equally impressive:Mandy Patinkin and Lindsay Crouse are superb as
the doomed parents,as is Amanda Plummer as Daniel's troubled and suicidal sister,and Ed Asner
in a small role as the family lawyer out of his depth.
Sidney Lumet's direction pulls the movie together,eliciting great performances,excellent use
of the New York city backdrop,and letting the(strong) material tell its own tragic story.
How did such a classy and well made film bomb at the box office?I suppose being released in
1983,Reagan era America didn't help:the subject matter is one that many Americans are uneasy
about,and throwing in '60s radicalism would have further turned off many.The film's content
would have undoubtedly polarized many,and as a result moviegoers stayed away in their droves:
a pity,as this is a fine film deserving of an audience...

I don't know if the Rosenbergs really were spies and traitors against America. After all this time, I really don't care. However, I do care about child neglect. This is the story of what would likely happen if you were the children of martyrs for the cause like the Rosenbergs (here called the Isaacsons) who were found guilty of these charges and executed in 1953.

This fictionalized story is shown in two time frames, 1) the time of the Rosenbergs dedication to the cause and subsequent execution for it and then 2) almost two decades later, when Daniel is an activist in the student movement while his sister seems destined for one mental hospital after another if she doesn't finally succeed in killing herself.

Daniel and his sister are the emotional heart of this movie. Timothy Hutton and Amanda Plummer do a wonderful job of portraying lives of limitless internal anguish while one is forced to go on living. Well, Daniel goes on living although he has an edge to him which certainly dates back to that early childhood experience. His sister, by contrast, seems to be trying to escape back into the womb so arguably she has never really moved beyond 1953.

I don't think anything can atone for this kind of experience and loss. I felt like choking the parents at many points, especially the father, as they were clueless as to their duties as parents. I didn't hate them for their cause or their possible treachery. I hated them for what they did to their children.

Book/ DVD Review

This review is being used for both book and DVD versions of Doctorow's work as the central points to be made in regard to both works are similar. The film starring Timothy Hutton as Daniel and directed by the acclaimed Sidney Lumet fairly closely hems to Doctorow's story line. Hutton does an excellent job as Daniel. Obviously, such dramatic moments as the attempts to run away from the state authorities by the Rosenberg children after their parents' arrest, the touching visiting scenes by the children in the prison just prior to the executions, the executions and the tragic fate of one of the children (in the book, not real life) get more attention than in the book. But that is cinematic license, and here is not overplayed.

The Book Of Daniel, E.L. Doctorow, Random House, New York, 1971

Daniel, starring Timothy Hutton, directed by Sidney Lumet, DVD release 2008

At first blush the Rosenberg Cold War Soviet espionage case of the 1950's, that ended in the execution of both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg by the American state despite a worldwide campaign to save their lives, would not appear to be a natural subject for fictional treatment. Unlike, let us say, Kim Philby and the various Cambridge spies the Rosenbergs' biographies and political profiles do not have the stuff of larger than life drama. Moreover, whatever their efforts were on behalf of the defense of the Soviet Union, as they saw it, the details do not jump out as the makings of a spy thriller. And the well-known historical novelist (`Ragtime", Loon Lake", etc.), E.L. Doctorow, does not go into any of that material. What Doctorow has attempted to mine, and I think within the parameters that he has set himself successfully so, is the effect that the political actions of the Rosenbergs had on their children at the time, on their children's futures (in state custody and later adopted privately) and on the trauma of being the "heirs to an execution" in adulthood. Add to that the biblical implications ("The Book Of Daniel") that Doctorow weaves into his story and that is more than enough material for one novel.

Naturally, the question of the fate of the children of famous (or infamous, as the case may be) is a fair subject for treatment, fictional or otherwise. There is a whole flourishing body of literature concerning this topic. What makes the Rosenberg children distinct (a boy and girl, rather than the real two boys, fictionally named Daniel and Susan Issacson here) is that they were son and daughter to parents who in the eyes of the American state and significant parts of the American population were traitors. Not a good way for young kids to develop their self-esteem. That struggle, placed in the context of the traumas over personal identification which were rift as they grew to adulthood and that helped define the 1960's the time of the action of this story, drive the main themes of the story. The interlocked questions of life in the academy (Daniel is something of a professional graduate student), life on the political streets (Susan has chosen a psychologically dangerous way to cope with her heritage by going full-bore into the left-wing political activity of the period) and coming to grips, successfully or not, with their legacies give the plot substance.

Aside from Doctorow's main themes of exploring the thorny question of the responsibility that parents have for their children, either as parents or as political people, the last part of the book where Daniel, as a coping mechanism if nothing else, begins to get "political" provides some interesting (for the time) theories about what happened in the Rosenberg case. The themes of "good Jew, bad Jew" (as shown by the large cast of Jewish characters in the trial process), the alleged inadequacies of the defense, the scarcity of government evidence (the Rosenbergs were convicted of that old stand-by "conspiracy"), the nature of the early Cold War period and the personal and political limitations of the Rosenbergs themselves get a full workout here. In the end though, as I mentioned in a commentary reviewing Rosenberg granddaughter Ivy Meerpol's film, "Heir To An Execution", concerning the personal characters of the Rosenbergs they did their duty as communists, as they saw it. For that they deserve all honor. And someday some real justice to clear their names.

This was an awesome movie. I couldnt believe that our justice system would allow this to happen in the 50's. I guess it was 1953 to be exact. If it were in this day in time I dont think they would have gotten away with executing two people merely on a conspiracy of naming them by one man without evidence. I think this is truly a movie for all to see. Its not only a great movie, it was very educational.

Daniel
Not a review, just filling in what's missing from this page.
I haven`t seen the movie but I loved the book.

Director Sidney Lumet's 1983 fictional film from E.L. Doctorow's novel (he also wrote the screenplay) is finally coming out on DVD. It's more or less about the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg dealing with life in the 1960's.

This was Timothy Hutton's follow-up to Taps and his oscar winning performance in Ordinary People.
The cast also includes Mandy Patinkin, Lindsay Crouse, Edward Asner, Ellen Barkin, Tovah Feldshuh and Amanda Plummer.

After a couple of forgettable flicks, Lumet explored similar themes, the children of radicals, with Running On Empty in 1988.

I FIND THIS MOVIE VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE ITS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG WHO WERE TRIED AND EXECUTED FOR ESPIONAGE IN THE 1950'S,ITS IDENTICAL TO THEIR CASE.

I FIND THAT THE ACTORS PLAYED THEIR ROLES WELL,AND RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE FOR VIEWING VERY HIGHLY.