Having already been a star in Hollywood for two decades because of his acting, Robert Redford made his directorial debut in 1980 with Ordinary People (and he would win the Best Director Oscar for his efforts), an extraordinary film about redemption and coming to grips with the past so that you can embrace your future. This is an emotionally powerful story that is primarily character driven. It has some powerhouse acting performances, some from fairly surprising sources.

Most people who have seen Ordinary People will tell you that it’s a depressing movie, and it is to a certain degree, but I think that people often times confuse films that are simply tear-jerkers for movies that are depressing. Ordinary People certainly is a tear-jerker. It’s also a very emotionally powerful film and quite sad throughout. However I think that labeling it as depressing is missing the point, because it actually ends on a hopeful note. To me, any film that ends on a hopeful note is not really a depressing film. In fact, the character arc for Conrad (Timothy Hutton) is moving from depressed to happy. It’s a long and painful journey, and that’s why I think that people interpret this as being a depressing film, but I feel it does end on a high note, even as that high note is tempered somewhat.

I apologize in advance for opening up this blog with spoilers if you haven’t yet seen the film.

I say that the ending’s good feelings are tempered because Conrad’s parents, Calvin (Donald Sutherland) and Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) are splitting up, but even that is for the best if you think about it. From the very beginning of the film we see that Calvin is trying to make a connection with Conrad. Calvin just wants his son to be better and he doesn’t care what it takes to make that happen. Beth, on the other hand, remains distant from Conrad for the entire film. We don’t know if she blames Conrad for the death of their other son, Buck, or if she’s just in denial over Conrad’s condition, or if it’s some combination of the two. Whatever the reasoning, however, she is unable to allow herself to get close to Conrad at any point in the film, and the fact that she leaves, ultimately will allow Conrad and Calvin to make peace with themselves and their past. That means even the bad aspect of the ending isn’t completely bad.

I bring this up because this is terrifically deep story telling. That kind of depth comes from excellent writing (Ordinary People also won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay) and excellent direction. If you’re really paying attention there is more to this story than just a blanket of depressing themes. And again, the themes aren’t really depressing because this is primarily a film about healing. In order to heal, you have to be sick, and Conrad starts out the film very sick indeed. He’s just come out of an institution that he was living in because he tried to kill himself due to the guilt that he felt over the death of his brother during a sailing accident. We first meet the family shortly after Conrad’s return and it’s breakfast time, but Conrad doesn’t want anything. He’s not in a place where he can accept kindness from anyone, including and especially his mother, who angrily throws the French toast in the trash over Calvin’s protestations. Calvin also encourages Conrad to see the psychiatrist that was recommended to him, and Conrad isn’t sure whether he wants to do that.

Instead, Conrad meets up with Karen, a former patient at the same institution, and she encourages him to be happy and to live a happy life. From there, we see Conrad struggling to be ordinary. He can’t relate to any of his old friends. He’s on the swim team, but swimming offers him no satisfaction. He just doesn’t know how to feel good again, so he ends up going to the psychiatrist, Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). From there, Conrad tries unsuccessfully to connect with his mother and his friends before he starts seeing Jeanine (Elizabeth McGovern), a girl that he sings with in choir. There is a rocky start to their relationship, but she’s the one who ultimately draws him out. In fact, the circle is completed when he’s hanging out in front of her house waiting to apologize to her, and she invites him in for breakfast, and with a smile on his face he accepts. He can now accept kindness from others because he’s grown as a person.

I’m not going to go into much more of a synopsis of the story. In fact, there isn’t really a lot more that I have to say about this film, other than I recommend seeing it, especially if you’re an aspiring screenwriter looking for reference on character development and depth of story. This is a story with many different layers, and it’s not a typical Hollywood drama. It’s a heavy film about people dealing with heavy problems, but coming out (for the most part) stronger on the other end. This is a script that tells the audience a lot without, but not necessarily through dialogue. In fact, the example I just gave about breakfast is not only an example of storytelling and character development through subtext, it’s also a great example of planting and payoff where the plant happens practically at the beginning of the story and the payoff is just about at the end. In many ways, this is a wonderfully told story.

Visually there is also some excellent storytelling going on, as this is practically a black and white film. It was shot in color, but there is very little color in it. There are a few reds and browns and some blues, but a lot of this film is told in shades of gray. That adds a drabness and a plainness to the palette that shows how ordinary these people’s lives are. There is little excitement here. The variation comes from the differing levels of emotion and the emotional ride we go on is what this story is about. This is a story about feeling and not necessarily seeing.

Is it a perfect film? No it is not. As strong as the screenwriting is, the editing is the opposite. I found many of the cuts to be jarring and unnecessary. The cinematography isn’t particularly dynamic and more visual cues could have made this an even stronger film. But overall, it’s emotionally very powerful and serves as an interesting transition from the gritty and powerful character driven films that dominated the Oscars in the seventies to the often more polished big picture films that would come into fashion in the eighties.

There is one more thing that I would like to point out about Ordinary People and that is the casting. Donald Sutherland has always been an actor who can play a variety of roles, whether it’s the irascible Hawkeye Pierce in the original M*A*S*H or the intense John Klute in Klute or the beatnick professor Dave Jennings in Animal House or the evil dictator President Snow in The Hunger Games franchise. Donald Sutherland is a great actor and Calvin Jarrett is one of his signature roles. Timothy Hutton had already made a name for himself, but this film really put him on the map and set him up for future dramatic roles in Taps and The Falcon and the Snowman just to name a couple. But what I found really interesting about the casting in Ordinary People is that we had two veteran television sit-com actors playing very dramatic roles. Mary Tyler Moore had already been a household name for nearly 20 years due to her work in the sit coms The Dick Van Dyke Show as well as The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Those two shows are regarded as two of the great sit coms in the history of television, and the former was a pioneering force in the medium. Judd Hirsch was the star of Taxi, a gritty and funny show about New York City cab drivers. Throw in M. Emmet Walsh, who played the Swim Coach, and to that point had been in such comedies as The Jerk and Slap Shot and you have three important characters in this very heavy and most dramatic film who made their bones and their names in comedy. What’s most impressive is that they did it seamlessly. You can watch Judd Hirsch in Ordinary People and believe that he was one of the great dramatic actors of the day. The same is true for Mary Tyler Moore. Neither one of them do one funny thing in this film. Mary Tyler Moore is especially serious in this film to the point where she is really unlikable, and that is something that would have been unthinkable at that time. Mary Tyler Moore had spent the previous 20 years as one of America’s sweethearts. But here they were in Ordinary People so seamlessly integrating themselves into this drama that Mary Tyler Moore was nominated for Best Actress and Judd Hirsch was nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Timothy Hutton won).

Overall, this is an exceptional film that you should see if you haven’t. Don’t let the fact that other people say it’s depressing scare you off from it. It’s much more than that, and has the depth to prove it.

Did the Academy get it right?

I don’t think so. Coal Miner’s Daughter and The Elephant Man are both amazing films, and I could see the latter winning Best Picture in another year much more than the former, but neither film is a s strong or as deep as Ordinary People. I’ve actually never seen Tess and I don’t know much about it, so I can’t really speak on its behalf one way or the other. The year of 1980 really comes down to an argument between Ordinary People and Raging Bull. One of Martin Scorsese’s signature films, Raging Bull was ranked #24 on AFI’s original list of the Top 100 Films of all time. Ordinary People was not on the list, and to be perfectly honest, with the benefit of hindsight Raging Bull should have been the winner. I think the thing about Raging Bull was that it was actually shot in black and white and was a little more avant garde than Ordinary People. I also suspect that there was a little bit of politicking going on as the Academy probably wanted to show Robert Redford some love in his directorial debut. It wasn’t often in those days that a successful actor would change roles and step behind the camera. It happens much more often now, but Redford really busted through that door, and was probably being rewarded accordingly by the Academy for that accomplishment. And Ordinary People is a fine film, and worthy of recognition, but Raging Bull is a masterpiece that has transcended film history. I suspect that if the Academy were given a do-over, then Raging Bull would have been the choice for 1980.