REVIEW

Memories
of the

Rosenbergs

in ‘Daniel’
Years from now, an aspect of Daniel
that will be remembered and talked about
is the death scenes. This film, adapted from
E. L. Doctorow’s 1971 semifactual novel
which he vociferoulsy denies is about the
Rosenberg case, goes beyond the fact that
Ethel Rosenberg was ‘‘fried’’ five minutes
before her heart finally gave out. The pro-
paganda of the death penalty proponents is
stripped away and “‘the chair’’ is seen for
what it is; a barbaric, torturous tool for
political vengeance. The executions of Paul
and Rochelle Isaacson in Daniel are the

DANIEL. Starring Timothy Hutton,
Mandy Patinkin, Lindsay Crouse and
Ed Asner. Screeplay by E. L. Doctorow
based on his novel ‘The Book of
Daniel’. Directed by Sidney Lumet. At
the Denman Place, Vancouver.

most powerful scenes in recent cinematic

endeavor.

Daniel is more about the oldest son of
the Isaacsons than it is about the couple
themselves. Timothy Hutton is a young

man torn apart, unable or unwilling to
comprehend what has happened. He has
seen his younger sister driven to suicidal
neurosis by these same events. His past is
wreaking havoc with his current marriage.
Daniel is something of an odyssey, as the
Isaacsons’ son moves from undirected and
internalized rage to understanding, to ex-
ternalized and targeted anger.

His parents were activists in the 1930s
and 1940s. Through his research into what
they were about and the circumstances
leading to their deaths, he evolves into an

activist and joins the antiwar movement of

the 1960s. The final moments of the film,

when Daniel becomes a man-for-himself

and starts to march, are so emotional that
this critic’s eyes were full of tears of joy,
and it takes a hell of a Hollywood film to
do that.

Doctorow notes that Daniel is about
families. Flashbacks give an account of the
relationships between Paul and Rochelle
Isaacson and their two children. They were
much like any family. The Isaacsons went
on family outings. Instead of going to the
amusement park, they got on a bus-and

traveled to Peekskill, N.Y., to hear Paul -

Robeson. Fathers are supposed to provide
and protect. Paul Isaacson (Mandy
Patinkin) nearly lost his life defending his
wife and son against the fascistic hordes
that converged on people leaving the
Robeson concert on that day in 1949.
This is another strong aspect of Daniel:
the stress on familial interactions. People
on the Left have families also, despite anti-
communist diatribes to the contrary. It is
because the film concentrates on the Isaac-
son family that the scene in which the
children visit their parents in prison is so
moving. You know that this is the last time
son and daughter will see father and

mother, so the insistence of Paul and

Rochelle that this thing will blow over and
the family will be together again is all the
more heart-rending.

Daniel doesn’t resolutely address the in-
nocence or guilt of the Isaacsons. It was
clear that they were railroaded, but there
was the implication that they were up to
something, even if they weren’t guilty of
atomic espionage. Here, as with other of
his works, Doctorow takes liberties with
history, and the result is problematic. Since
Daniel is so clearly inspired by the
Rosenberg case, one could be led to believe
that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were guilty
of something.

The efforts to reopen the case are based
on the presumption of their innocence in
fact. Piles of files obtained through

~ and maybe more executions. Ethel and —

™

Freedom of Information Act demands
have affirmed this. The state didn’t prove
its case in the Rosenberg trial, nor did the
prosecution prove that there had ever been
an act of espionage committed by any
member of the Communist Party. There
was no material evidence, no diagrams of
trigger devices for atomic bombs. Just the
testimony of David and Ruth Greenglass
that Julius Rosenberg engaged them in a
conspiracy. to steal secrets and Ethel
Rosenberg did some typing. Just perjured
testimony, and Ethel Rosenberg’s
signature on a 1940 Communist Party
nominating petition and a 1939 collection
can for the Spanish Refugee Appeal,
found when federal agents raided. their
home. That, and the fact the Rosenbergs
were Jewish, were Communists, and were
opposed to racism, the emerging Cold
War, and J. Edgar Hoover.

Doctorow leaves the door open for the
naive viewer to infer that the Isaacsons
must have had something to hide or they
would have talked. In reality, for a Com-
munist to cooperate with the FBI in those
times meant more arrests and more trials,

Julius Rosenberg were silent not only
because they were innocent, but because
they had the heart to resist the House Un-
American Activities Committee’s inquisi-
tion by refusing to give names. McCar-
thyism was embryonic fascism in the guise
of ‘“‘Americanism.”’ The patriotic course
of action under McCarthyism involved
failure to cooperate.

When Daniel begins to research the case,
he is told by a lawyer-friend that the
defence attorney at the trial, Jacob Ascher
(Edward Asner), erred in his attempt to
point the finger back at the Isaacson’s ac-
cuser, Selig Mindish (another departure
from the Rosenberg case in Daniel centers
on the government witness: David
Greenglass was Ethel Rosenberg’s brother,
while Selig Mindish the witness in the films
is simply a family friend and fellow
member of the Communist Party). By call-
ing Mindish the spy, the lawyer asserts,
Ascher sealed the fate of the Isaacsons by
admitting that an act of espionage had
taken place. Daniel is also told that if his
parents had been tried in the 1960s, they
might have been convicted but wouldn’t
have been executed. The film makes it ap-
pear that the Isaacson trial judge was in-
deed villainous, but Judge Irving R. Kauf-
man was more than a “‘bad guy.”’ His
judgement was a calculated murder. He:
allowed the Rosenberg’s politics to be in-:
troduced into the trial with the explanation:
that their political sentiments were motive.
for espionage.

The makers of Daniel would have done
a service to history had they exposed the
state’s conspiracy against the Isaacsons-
Rosenbergs. Ethel Rosenberg was tried,
convicted and executed in the effort to

force a ‘“‘confession’’’ from Julius: this is
from Edgar J. Hoover’s own mouth. The
facts of the case aren’t common
knowledge, unfortunately, and: while
political activists and students of history
may get varying degrees of satisfaction
from the film, others may come away from
it with mistaken impressions. The
references to how the 1950s and McCar-
thyism were aberrations may be grounded
in relative truth, but it can happen again
and people need to know that.

The politics of the Isaacsons are given a

nobility: in Daniel, and this_is one of its .
many. gratifying qualities. It is rare that

demonstrations and strikes are favorably
incorporated into Hollywood films.

’ The use of Paul Robeson’s music ‘as
background is so appropriate. It is reminis-
cent of the times, but it is also in homage to
one of the greatest men of this century.
More, music is inseparable from struggle.

The film takes liberties (as:does the
novel) with the lives of its characters. The
Rosenbergs had two sons, while the ‘‘fic-
tional’? Isaacsons had a son and a
daughter. Perhaps one reason for the
change was the perception that it would
have been difficult for an audience or
readership to accept a young man going
through all of the changes that: Susan
Isaacson (Amanda Plummer) goes
through in Daniel. One could say that her
neurosis — and Daniel’s problems as well
— are slanderous to Robert and Michael
Meeropol, the Rosenberg’s sons. We have
toremember that this isn’t a documentary.
Itisa Hollywood film and Hollywood does
things for effect. I feel the effect is a good
one. The tragedy of Susan Isaacson angers
the audience because it is the state murder
of her parents that caused her death.

One could also argue that Susan Isaac-
son’s role is an accommodation to sexism.
If so, it is offset by Rochelle Isaacson.
While Paul Isaacson collapses on the way
to the death chamber, Rochelle (Lindsay:
Crouse) ‘‘keeps her own company,”’ as
condemned men call it, and sits in the chair
unassisted. It may be a strange sort of
balancing act — seemingly weak daughter
and visibly strong mother — but I feel the

_ overall effect is positive.

Daniel is somewhat disjointed, and that
may have been due to editing problems.
The novel is mostly told in narrative. The
film opens with Timothy Hutton (Daniel)
providing a description of death by elec-
trocution, and his narrative provides
bridges between other segments of the film
as well. The effort to span three decades in
a film, using flashbacks can be disastrous if
done poorly. Near the film’s end, scenes
from Susan’s funeral in the 1960s are inter-
changed with scenes from Paul and
Rochelle’s funeral in 1953. It doesn’t quite
work. A bit of Daniel’s narrative would
have made the transition smoother.

Daniel is one of the year’s best film’s, no
question about it. My only fear is that it will
be smothered by the overabundance of
blood-and-guts and space-fantasy films
out there. I wonder how strongly Daniel
will be promoted outside of New York Ci-
ty. This is one of those films people need to
urge other people to see. — Ronald Tyson

Satire on
greed best
for comedy |

TRADING PLACES. Starring Et
dy Murphy, Dan Aykroyd, Ralph
Bellamy and Don Amecheé:.
Directed by John Landis. At thé
Capitol 6, Vancouver.

—

How to bestow the 1983 award fo!
the best satire comedy so far in this
(and most other) years?

Perhaps it is most succinctly e
pressed by the marvelously comic Bd
die Murphy who says: ‘‘Seems to mé
the way you hurt rich people most is bY
turning them into poor people.”’
the production notes distributed to tht
press put it bluntly: ‘‘This satire on thé)
art of American avarice ; . .” Thatil
is, the vicious, ugly ‘‘normal life” of
millionaires having fun while the
swindle, disrupt lives and enjoy
themselves.

A poor Black con man, begs, ¢
joles and entreats for coins (or dollars)

pretending to be without legs. Caught!
by the cops, he’s thrown in jal
_(You’ve got to see Eddie Murphy
this part to appreciate the comic
tistry of the man.)

Dan Aykroyd plays an upper class
export manager of a commodily
brokerage firm run by thé
multimillionaire brothers Duke ~
Ralph Bellamy and Don Amechit)
Greed and avarice are blandl!
displayed when the brothers are alos
together. But one brother (Bellamy)
also an intellectual who believes it ®
not breeding which makes the maw
but his economic and social enviro™
ment.

_ They frame Aykroyd as a thief and
a dope peddler, and as he go™
bewildered, to prison, they release the
young Black con man, and bestow
upon him not only a butler, Rol
Royce and their young partner’s mat
sion, but also the young unfortunate?
job as manager of the firm. Will
work?

It works as if designed by a com™
puter. But when the two young met
finally meet, and see how they’ve ;
conned by their ‘‘benefactors” th
tables turn in a most surprising and
hilarious outcome.

— Lester Col?

S4590 3

Gr Ve rap dye 2
~*4 A

SUN., OCT. 30
8:00 P.M.

wi
~¢ GEORGE HEWISON

Q.E. PLAYHOUSE»
ALL SEATS $6.00

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 28, 1983—Page 10