Customer Reviews

Katherine [Slim Case]

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

 

 

This movie is constantly referred to as a fictionalized version of the story of Patty Hearst. Far from it. It is a fictionalized biopic of Diana Oughton, an early member/leader of the Weather Underground. It is pretty well made for a 70s TV movie, and, with the exception of the end, is fairly accurate. Many of the events depicted in the film are taken directly from Diana's life. It is well worth seeing for anyone interested in the Weathermen or simply the radical student movements of the 60s and 70s.

Sissy Spacek was already well on the road to a significant big screen career in 1975 when she opted to do this TV movie loosely based on the life of Weatherwoman Diana Oughton. Spacek has always shown a leaning toward socially conscious films, so it's no surprise that she was intrigued by the socio-political angle as well as the dramatic possibilities of this script (penned by Jeremy Paul Kagan, whose directorial and writing credits also show a socially conscious bent).

In 1975 you could still expect network television to at least OCCASIONALLY undertake a film like KATHERINE. The nation was still reeling from Vietnam, newly reeling from Watergate, and despite what TIME Magazine called "the cooling of America," we were still trying to come to terms with the social and generational rifts that the 60s had wrought.

As a portrait of a revolutionary, KATHERINE is pretty much paint-by-numbers. Passionate, well meaning and socially conscious rich girl Katherine Alman gets caught up in the spirit of the times. At first she's a non-violent undergraduate activist, volunteering to teach inner city teens basic literacy. Upon graduation, she heads off to South America, despite her parents objections, and witnesses firsthand the oppressiveness of the oligarchical regimes there. Back in this country, she takes a job as an instructor at an alternative school in the Deep South, where she is further radicalized by the Fonz, I mean, Henry Winkler as a more radically inclined teacher there.

After leaving the school (forced out not only by the local pols, but also by their angry black colleagues who opt for a strict "black pride" curriculum for their young students), the two young activists become itinerant organizers, and eventually hook up with the Weather Underground. Katherine herself becomes increasingly strident, disavows her earlier non-violent stance and becomes increasingly alienated from her family and friends.

Utterly convinced of the rightness of her cause, she ultimately and tragically loses her life in its name. Like the real-life Oughton, she is blown up by her own bomb. Unlike Oughton, who died when a Greenwich Village bombmaking factory exploded killing almost all the Weathermen and -women in the building, Katherine is killed on a solitary mission to blow up some unnamed government target. That's cinematic license, and it works fairly well. Although it's not clear if the man plainly following her at the time is a government agent or one of her wealthy family's private detectives. Also not clear is if she actually winds up taking some innocent bystanders along with her--which would seem likely on a busy San Francisco street.

All of this could have been better developed. The film hits all the expected--and, in some sense necessary, notes--but like most TV movies, remains somewhat sketchy on the one hand and cliched on the other. I mean I could be wrong here, but it seems pretty ludicrous that every stick of dynamite used in the bomb that ultimately becomes Kathrine's, uh, undoing, is labeled "DYNAMITE" in big black lettering. OK, I haven't seen much dynamite up close, I admit, and maybe it is labeled nowadays (or even 30 years ago) for safety's sake, but the effect in the movie is still pretty absurd. At least in didn't say "ACME" as well.

The historical value of the film makes it worth watching. It would not be totally out of place on the syllabus of a history or poli-sci course today. In other words, it's a fairly good introduction to the history of the late 60s and early 70s. And it is well acted. Spacek's character is a "hothead" throughout, as one previous reviewer noted, but she has her tender moments too, particularly with her boyfriend and her family. Art Carney and Jane Wyatt are ideally cast as her wealthy parents. And Winkler is actually very good as Katherine's fairweatherman boyfriend. He appears to be a somewhat underrated actor.

Interestingly, the best scenes are the pseudo-documentary interviews with all the main characters. It is here that the characters seem to break away most distinctly from stereotypes and begin to reveal themselves in all their complexity. Odd in a way, since usually interviewees almost reflexively adopt a persona for the camera. Here, one suspects that it is only in these scenes that the characters get the chance (or perhaps, more accurately, feel compelled) to reflect on their actions and beliefs. It is only at the film's end that it becomes clear that Katherine herself is more apparition than interview subject. That makes her stridency--apparently even after death--all the more striking.

Though this film has a dated feel (such as poor sound quality), it nonetheless is surprisingly good. The immitated "documentary" form (including "interviews" with the family members, and statements from Spacek's character) is very effective, and lends the film a postmodern feel, far ahead of its time. Impressive also are the inserted authentic film footages of 1960s protests, including the famous riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, 1968.

But what stands out most is the excellent acting. We would expect fine acting from Spacek, of course, but Henry Winkler, as the classic 60s radical Jewish liberal, is superb. Winkler, a Jew in real life, became famous for his role as "The Fonz," an Italian character in Happy Days. But playing a Jewish radical in "Katherine" is the best acting I've ever seen Winkler perform. I wish he had acted in more Jewish roles throughout his career, he does it with such authenticity. Spacek's "parents" (including Art Carney) also are good in their roles as upperclass, wealthy, WASPs.

I bought the DVD for fifty cents at a dollar store, almost as a joke. But my wife and I were surprised how good it was on the day we watched it, just on a lark.

This is an example of a movie that has an average script but is saved by the acting. Not only Sissy Spacek, who can elevate any script, but also Art Carney and Jane Wyatt of TV's "Father Knows Best" fame make it a moving film experience. It could have been a self-pitying liberal mess but is actually a pretty good examination of what happened to make some American upper middle class white kids become America-hating anarchist bombers in the 1960s.

I'm sure 5 stars seems a little high for a made for tv movie that I purchased at a dollar store, but I was really surprised by this one. I enjoy studying the socio-politcal environment of the 70's and this film, I believe, really explains the tone of that era. When I had first seen that film I took it for granted that it was loosley based on Patty Hearst's story, because that is what it said on the box. I'm grateful to others here who have explained that it is really about the Weathermen (which I hadn't heard of and have subsequently viewed a documentary about). That make a lot more sense.

For anyone else who is interested in studying this time period, I recommend this film, the documentary called The Weather Underground, Network and Across the Universe. I think together these films do a pretty good job painting a portrait of that period in American history.

This should be interesting to anyone who has a decent understanding of what REALLY went down with the Weather Underground and revolutionary struggle in the late 1906s & early 1970s. This, apparently made-for-TV drama, clearly blends events revolving around a number of different individuals into a single character (some Weatherwomen in particular, which is being implied with the title of the movie). It surprisingly does a pretty thorough job at briefly explaining a number of the political concepts and evolutions that many experienced during those years of struggle. But don't be mistaken, this is a B-movie by any definition (although the Fonz honestly shows some acting ability in here, which was a highlight). While I personally enjoyed this, I would surely not substitute it for any real historical information.. especially the ending.

This one surprised me! If you were there you will like it. If you wern't there you might learn something!

Sissy Spacek rules in this compelling drama of a radical against the status quo.It's amust see!!

I got this movie at a flea market for about a couple of bucks. Having grown up in the 60s, and that this was a story about an activist, my wife and I started watching it (she is a big Sissy Spacek fan). She had me turn it off after a half-hour because she thought the story stupid.

I agreed, but watched the whole thing the next day just to see all of it. The only reasonable thing about it was the acting, which was decent for a TV movie (which is why I gave it one star). The story, the characters, everything else, was a cliche-ridden mess. Every view espoused by the Spacek and Winkler characters says the same thing as today's supposedly "open-minded liberals"; they haven't changed one bit in 40 years.

In typical Hollywood fashion, the writer couldn't even truthfully show the way in which the Katherine character was killed, as the real-life "Katherine", Diana Oughton, blew herself up while making bombs. No, the writer had to show Katherine die while successfully committing an act of terrorism, somehow trying to make the end of her life have more meaning than it should have, considering this story is supposed to be based on true events. Diana Oughton died in a stupid way doing stupid things, with the intent to commit murder. There was nothing honorable in it. And the only tragedy regarding the Katherine character is that she became more stupid as the film plodded on.

After watching it, the only tragic figures in this film are Katherine's parents. That is where the real story should have been, not in the mindless stupidity of the main character. After all, the parents have to suffer through the death of their child, and come to grips with it. Even here, the writer uses cliches to show the parents explaining away their grief by indicating at the end that Katherine's intentions were good. Garbage. She may have started out with good intentions, but in the end she was nothing more than a hateful thug and a murderer. What we really don't know is how Oughton's parents really dealt with her death, as that was never worked into "Katherine". What is also sad is how the Katherine character returns to her parents' home for the last time, like the spoiled prodigal child who needs help. Once she gets it (food and a bed), she is off to commit murder.

There isn't much in the way here of a good story. The wrong characters are considered tragic; the "based on true events" lie is given the classic Hollywood treatment by taking artistic license with the truth; cliches abound, especially in the treatment of the parents and their dealing with the loss of their daughter. All in all, a terrible film. It makes sense that it would win an Emmy.