A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

[Shannon L.]

I teared up just watching the trailer!
 

I love Tom Hanks and think he's a wonderful actor, but he has that one vocal inflection that he tends to slip into every so often that makes him sound like Forrest Gump.  If you listen carefully, you can catch it here a time or two.  Doesn't matter, though, I'll probably see the movie anyway.  If the reviews are terrible, then I'll probably catch it when it's on DVD. 

[Traveller519]

I'm sure I'll watch this and get caught up in the emotion of it (damn, that Subway scene), but...

It seems odd to me the number of Mr. Rogers related projects we’ve had in the past 18 months.

• The Good Neighbor - Biographical Book
• Mr. Rogers: It’s You That I Like - PBS Documentary (Emmy Nominated)
• Won’t you Be My Neighbor - Focus Features Documentary (not-Oscar Nominated)
• Kidding - A fictionalized Showtime series that uses Fred Rogers as loose inspiration for a character study of a much more broken man.
• Now It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood - Sony Biopic

And that doesn’t even consider the Google Pixel commercial that featured him. Was there some sort of moratorium and projects featuring him until 15 years following his passing, and now everyone’s running to capitalize?

This film just feels somewhat unnecessary to me in light of two excellent documentaries released last year. Of course, the Apollo 11 documentary surpassed last year’s First Man for me. So what do I know about project timing?

[Shannon L.]

36 minutes ago, Traveller519 said:

This film just feels somewhat unnecessary to me in light of two excellent documentaries released last year.

It could be, but this one seems to take place in the span of time that a particular journalist was interviewing him.  It also seems to include as much of the interviewer's journey at that time as it does Mr. Rogers, so it may be a bit different than the other movies/documentaries we've seen.  As to why there are so many of them now?  ::shrug::  All I can think is that the way the our country, and many countries around the world, are right now, we could use all the reminders about kindness that we can get.

[AimingforYoko]

7 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I teared up just watching the trailer!
 

Don't trust him, Fred! He's a commie!

[Spartan Girl]

Only one thing to say:

 

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

It also seems to include as much of the interviewer's journey at that time as it does Mr. Rogers, so it may be a bit different than the other movies/documentaries we've seen. 

I lurk on a movies board and those who've read the script believed that Fred is actually the supporting character while the man Matthew Rhys plays is the lead so you're right.  Things like that can change and they're certainly advertising this as if this were mainly about Fred but it's definitely about a very specific time in Fred's life.

I was looking forward to teh trailer but I found it to be pretty dull in a standard inspirational tear-jerker way.  It's also hard to see Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers because Fred has such a distinct way of talking.  Having an actor who doesn't nail it perfectly wouldn't be a problem if his voice weren't as distinctive as Tom Hank's voice.  I'm hoping the actual movie is better.

[Chaos Theory]

We can use all the reminders that their are genuinely good people in the world.  Even if the same story gets told a hundred times.   

[AimingforYoko]

I think it was in the comments on The A.V. Club for the trailer, but the question was asked: What would be more disturbing, if Mr. Rogers turned out to be a bad guy or Tom Hanks did? I think it's Mr. Rogers, easily, because being nice was his whole raison d'être. And because he catered to kids.

[Bastet]

The film is loosely based on Tom Junod's "that can't be the real him" cynicism giving way to "I'll be damned, it is" experience of being assigned to write a profile of Fred Rogers for Esquire in 1998 and becoming friends with him.  The article was republished a couple of years ago; you can read it here. 

Junod said on Twitter: "I saw @ABeautifulDay a few weeks ago and was tremendously moved by it, while knowing at the same time that I was too close to be objective. So I am really happy about the response to the trailer. Thanks for all the kind words, everybody."

And Joanne Rogers said last year, after Tom Hanks talked with her about her husband in preparation for filming, she thinks he's perfect for the role (she also said the first question he asked is if Fred really talked that slowly; yep).

The film does seem a bit superfluous after the terrific documentary, but this will reach a much wider audience, and I'm all for even more people being reminded of Mr. Rogers's message.  I'm not as moved by the trailer as many are, but it's Tom Hanks + Mr. Rogers, so I think it will be good.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Bastet

[Snow Apple]

I watched the subway scene multiple times already and tear up every time. I'm getting misty typing this out.

[lurkerbee]

On 7/22/2019 at 2:09 PM, Traveller519 said:

I'm sure I'll watch this and get caught up in the emotion of it (damn, that Subway scene), but...

It seems odd to me the number of Mr. Rogers related projects we’ve had in the past 18 months.

• The Good Neighbor - Biographical Book
• Mr. Rogers: It’s You That I Like - PBS Documentary (Emmy Nominated)
• Won’t you Be My Neighbor - Focus Features Documentary (not-Oscar Nominated)
• Kidding - A fictionalized Showtime series that uses Fred Rogers as loose inspiration for a character study of a much more broken man.
• Now It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood - Sony Biopic

And that doesn’t even consider the Google Pixel commercial that featured him. Was there some sort of moratorium and projects featuring him until 15 years following his passing, and now everyone’s running to capitalize?

This film just feels somewhat unnecessary to me in light of two excellent documentaries released last year. Of course, the Apollo 11 documentary surpassed last year’s First Man for me. So what do I know about project timing?

2018 was the 50th anniversary of the debut of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, which is probably the reason for all of the projects popping up in the last couple of years.

Edited July 24, 2019 by lurkerbee
punctuation

[Silver Raven]

There's probably already a topic for this, but I couldn't find it.

Matthew Rhys needs an Oscar nomination.  OMG, he was so powerful.

I admit that this damn movie made me cry, and I'm too old to have watched Mr. Rogers when it aired.

[AimingforYoko]

My favorite line in this movie was by Fred's wife, Joanne (ably played by Maryann Plunkett) responding to Lloyd's query, "What's it like to be married to a saint?"

"I don't like the word 'Saint'. That word implies that what he does is unattainable. He works at it, practices it every day, like a musician practicing an instrument."

And that, friends is what made Fred Rogers great. This wasn't some gift he was bestowed upon by the heavens. He chose to be the way he was and put in the work to make it real.

[methodwriter85]

This was such a quiet, gentle movie, so unlike the typical Oscar bait stuff you see now. It might not garner huge box office but I was glad I watched.

Less really is more sometimes.

[Spartan Girl]

Loved it. Tom Hanks freaking NAILED Fred's mannerisms and way of speaking. Wasn't expecting the movie to frame it like it was an episode of the TV show, but it worked.

The ending with him pounding on the piano was a bit unnerving. My mom thinks it was implying that Fred was aware of his own health problems and expressing his feelings over it. Which would explain why he asked Jerry to pray for him.

[vavera4ka]

I guess I fell for bait'n'switch.

I wanted more Fred Rogers. Rhys was good, but Hanks was amazing. 

I teared up every time I watched the trailer, so I wanted to be a blubbering mess after the movie. I wasn't. 

I cried twice: subway scene and 1-minute-scene. OMG did Hanks nail it! the breaking down the 4th wall with that stare... 

and that's my problem with a movie... every time Hanks as Rogers appeared on my screen my eyes became misty, but they didn't let him hold the scene for long enough for me to go full on emotional, like in that 1 minute scene. 

Every actor in this movie fell victim to Hanks... 

[Shannon L.]

I didn't care for Mr. Rogers Neighborhood when I was younger.  I watched it, but half halfheartedly--I thought it was too slow, but I do think Fred Rogers was a wonderful man, so I was looking forward to the movie.  The movie bit slow, too, but wow, was it powerful.  Tom really got the gentle mannerisms down and Matthew Rhys was fantastic.  I agree that they both deserve nominations this year. 

I didn't just tear up during the subway scene--the tears were actually rolling.  It was simply a lovely movie.

[tennisgurl]

Oh yeah, I definitely teared up during the subway scene, especially because it was apparently based on something that happened in real life. Tom might not look much like Mr. Rogers, but he really nailed his speaking patterns and mannerisms, they were all so gentle and empathetic. He really nailed what made him such a special person, that he thought that everyone was a special person, and that everyone had worth and unlimited potential. I also teared up a bit when Matthew Rhys met Daniel Tiger and he said he would like to meet his old stuffed animal, Old Rabbit, and he got really emotional and a bit defensive, and then when Mr. Rogers showed the pic of him and his family, and it looks like they found Old Rabbit again. Oh my heart! 

I grew up on Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, and my dad was a really big fan, and still is today. Dad wrote a research paper on Mr. Rogers neighborhood when he was in high school and wrote to Fred about it, and he sent him a very sweet encouraging letter, as well as lots of information and scripts from the show for his paper. He then wrote him again in college, and he sent him another letter, and asked him how the paper turned out. Later on, he wrote to him again when my sister and I were little kids, and he sent us letters and autographed pictures, which we still have. So this movie really meant a lot to me. 

[BuckeyeLou]

I was disappointed with this movie.  Maybe I went in with too high expectations.  I was expecting a "feel-good" holiday movie.  Instead, it was more about Matthew Rhys' character(Lloyd) and he was a 'sad sack", in fact, I didn't like him very much.  I did enjoy Susan Kelachi Watson's character(as Lloyd's wife), she was a very patient wife to put up with her husband. 

[rmontro]

On 11/24/2019 at 4:25 PM, Spartan Girl said:

The ending with him pounding on the piano was a bit unnerving. My mom thinks it was implying that Fred was aware of his own health problems and expressing his feelings over it. Which would explain why he asked Jerry to pray for him.

That's an interesting take.  Not sure if that's what was really going on, but it could be.

My impression was that they included the piano bit just to show that he wasn't a perfect human being, that he did have some anger in him.  But he was no hypocrite, and was true to his word, he found an appropriate outlet for his anger, then went back to playing his song.  Without it, there's the danger he might have come across as unreal somehow, too nice, too perfect.  Although Fred Rogers comes about as close as it gets.  

I think that's what made me misty at times.  Not just nostalgia, but just that a human could attain that level of being a genuinely good, caring person.

I also kind of liked that they put in the "sharpshooter sniper" myth, and punctured it.

On 11/26/2019 at 3:08 PM, tennisgurl said:

Oh yeah, I definitely teared up during the subway scene, especially because it was apparently based on something that happened in real life.

My guess is that it happened to him more than once.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Critics' Choice Award nominations:

Best Supporting Actor – Tom Hanks

Best Adapted Screenplay – Noah Harpster and Micah Fitzerman-Blue

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SAG nomination:
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Tom Hanks

[rmontro]

I keep thinking about several lines in the film.  Spoiler alert, I guess.

The first one is how he asked Jerry to pray for him because anyone going through what he was going through must be close to God.

And the line about how anything human is mentionable, and anything mentionable is manageable.  Talking about dying, in that context.  Of course, there's no recourse other than manage it.  But he wants to allow people to talk about it.

And the other one is when he was on the phone with Lloyd and he asked him if he knew what was most important to him right then?  Talking to Lloyd Vogel.  I was thinking that's a great line, although a more subtle approach would be to show someone talking to them was important to you, as opposed to telling them.  But Fred would tell them and show them.

[SherriAnt]

Fred Rogers was such an amazing man, for me, he and Mr. Dressup were my childhood. Oh, also original Sesame Street and the Electric Company. And now my granddaughter watches Daniel Tiger's Neighbourhood, so the cycle continues.

 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

BAFTA nomination:

Supporting actor - Tom Hanks

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Oscar nomination:

Actor in a Supporting Role - Tom Hanks

[rmontro]

I'm sure many will disagree, but it seems odd to me to consider Hanks as a supporting character in this movie.  He was on the poster, not Rhys.  Sure, the movie was framed through the eyes of Lloyd Vogel, but without Mr. Rodgers there's no movie here.  His character really drove the story, and was the catalyst for what happened.

[lasu]

When I first saw the trailers for this, I thought, "Well, if Tom Hanks can't play Mr. Rogers then no one can."

Now I know no one can.

I absolutely loathed this movie.  I just thought it was treacly, and I had to force myself from leaving the theater.  I should have just left.  And to be clear, I'm solid Gen-X, I cried through entire Mr. Rogers documentary, big Tom Hanks fan, and was totally prepared to love this movie.  I'm sure Mr. Rogers himself could find something good to say about it, but that's why he's Mr. Rogers and I'm just some asshole on the internet.  Oh well.

[screengem]

The scene where Tom Hanks "Mister Rogers" removes Daniel Tiger and King Friday from their carrying case and tries to communicate with the stubborn and depressing Matthew Rhys character "Lloyd" through them really started promising.  I was so thrilled to especially see Daniel Tiger up close and personal in 4K splendor.  I was so little when I first saw him introduced on the first Fred Rogers afternoon local tv show in Pittsburgh, the Children's Corner.  His image then was black and white and blurred.

Then, in a split second, the scene turned nasty and cruel when "Lloyd" yelled at Mister Rogers and forced him to throw them back into their carrying case.  From that point on, I really couldn't find any enjoyment in this movie.

In hindsight, if I was to edit this movie, all that crap between Lloyd and his father in the middle of the movie, would have been scaled back and more about Mister Rogers personally, during this period should have been added.  He was getting older and obviously had health issues. I would have liked to know more about how and why Fred Rogers was scaling back on doing new shows during that time.  

BTW, the scene early in the movie where he had difficulty constructing the tent during a segment of Mister Rogers, was not in 1998, but much earlier in, I believe, 1972.

Edited March 8, 2020 by screengem

[paramitch]

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie. I'd seen the superb documentary last year or so and, like many, wasn't sure what was left to be said. It had already given us Fred Rogers at his best. A gift of Mister Rogers for the ages.

However, I was shocked to the core by this film. I loved it, and did not expect to.

And I feel like it was a viable, thoughtful answer to the question posed by so many after that documentary: Why make this film?

For me, this film's answer is simple: Because it doesn't give us an image of Fred Rogers suspended in space, the saintly man we loved and which the documentary confirmed was exactly who he seemed to be.

Instead, the film went for something gorgeous and weird and difficult (at least, to me): It was about how Fred influenced others. Everyone else. The documentary had already told us who Fred was.

This movie was about something else. In this case, one angry, frustrated, scared reporter, a guy named Lloyd, who is loosely based on Tom Junod, who of course ended up publishing that Esquire cover story on Mister Rogers that was so lovely and raw and real after a lot of life and work upheaval, and whose interview led to a lifelong friendship with this man who seemed almost too kind, and good, and loving to be real.

And this movie devastated me. Because it puts us in the shoes of the "other," of Lloyd, of the person hurt by the world, bewildered by its pain, and confused by how any of this is okay. He doesn't believe in Mister Rogers and his goodness. He doesn't believe anyone can be that good. And no wonder (his story is really tragic).

I was okay with the movie early on, although Lloyd worried and scared me. He was so angry (and he was played by my darling Matthew Rhys, who is seriously the best actor I have ever seen, after his work on "The Americans").

Then about the middle of the film, something happens and it is amazing. Lloyd begins to change and grow and forgive. And what spurs this on isn't some saintly gesture, but Rogers being Rogers. He listens. He responds. He reminds Lloyd that we all have our childhood selves inside.

And then he sees Lloyd's childhood self, and he is kind to him. He talks to him. He listens. He also allows silence as an acceptable reaction. He simply waits Lloyd out, encourages him to feel and see, and offers comfort.

The best part about the second half of this film for me was that it included so many moments of silence and quiet communication. There is so much joy and sweetness in the second half, so much acceptance of what it means to be human, alive, and mortal. The movie also touchingly uses the sets and characters and puppets of Mister Rogers's world to bridge worlds, and to let us see into the hearts of others, including (most of all) Lloyd, who isn't really an angry reporter. He is Daniel, the scared little tiger-puppet, still too hurt to talk openly.

I was hugely moved -- not by the big Oscar-bait scenes, but by the little ones. The 60 seconds of silence in the cafe, etc. Rogers's relationships with his wonderful wonderful wife and staff. His ability to cut through the bullshit and never be shocked by anything he was told, and how he could then offer the comfort nobody imagined was possible. I cried many times in this film (which I watched again the same weekend), but the best part is, I cried at emotional moments that weren't sad. Just poignant and moving.

The cast is predictably wonderful, all of them, especially Hanks, Rhys, Cooper, Blanchard, Colantoni, and so many others. Every part is cast with real care and attention.

And Hanks is superb. What he accomplishes here is so difficult and so subtle. I'll try to describe it with examples:

• Like... when I saw the trailer for "Judy," I was blown away by Renee Zellwegger as Garland.
• But when I saw the movie, it was all just too much. I didn't like the movie and (worse) thought she overplayed it to an almost comical degree. So, so much twitching! So much angst! Just too much.
• Conversely, when I saw the trailer for "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," I cringed. Hanks wasn't really Mister Rogers enough in the ads. He seemed too quiet, like he was sleepwalking through it, maybe not working hard enough. He just looked like Tom Hanks wearing a costume, sleepwalking through a paycheck as Mister Rogers.
• Then I saw the movie, and—in a direct reverse of "Judy," I instantly saw—in the film—what Hanks was doing with his performance. It doesn't translate well in tiny bursts, which is why the trailer didn't work for me (and perhaps others). But what Hanks does accomplish is so much more than an impersonation. He is Mister Rogers from Minute One. And it's believable. It's warm, delicate, slow, and quiet. He transforms himself physically to a long tall beanpole with grey hair. He speaks slowly and softly. In short, Hanks is not just trying to act a fake Mister Rogers. He is trying to bring him to actual life, and in his own way.
  
  For me, it's a gorgeous, understated but very technical performance. He lets the silence and pauses speak for him. It's lovely.

So anyway. I loved the movie, loved its presentation of Mister Rogers (those two final low-note chords as the light fades!), and loved the story they told. I loved the combination of gritty real life and Mister Rogers's world, those sweet little cities and neighborhoods like toys. Then the wonderful credits where we see the technicians behind the adorable little neighborhoods and cities in motion! And how Daniel Striped Tiger was Lloyd's secret soul and self, someone who could not speak his anger because he was in so much pain.

Anyway. The movie moved me so much, and I'm still thinking about it 4 days later. Ultimately, it is about the necessity for kindness, and how that should be our default setting... even if it isn't. Sigh. I am so grateful it was made, and feel it is a rare film that people will discover and that it will give them something precious when they do.

These are tough times. We need more people like Fred Rogers. This movie reminds us that we can all take action to be empathetic and open and quiet and forgiving... if we allow ourselves to do so.

I get why people didn't love this universally, but I understood Lloyd and was happy I met him. And very very happy that he (cough, Tom IRL) met Fred.

[paramitch]

Quote

 

Loved it. Tom Hanks freaking NAILED Fred's mannerisms and way of speaking. Wasn't expecting the movie to frame it like it was an episode of the TV show, but it worked.

The ending with him pounding on the piano was a bit unnerving. My mom thinks it was implying that Fred was aware of his own health problems and expressing his feelings over it. Which would explain why he asked Jerry to pray for him.

 

@Spartan Girl, here, I would agree with @rmontro (quoted below for reference). I didn't think it was a dark or unhappy moment. I felt instead that it was a gorgeous, understated reminder that Fred Rogers was a human being. He got those low notes just like all of us. He was a real person. He had a temper. He had disappointments. He got cranky and irritable. He got sad. He had his own shit to deal with. But he was able to compartmentalize, to address, and to handle those things and to keep his kindness and empathy to the forefront:

Quote

 

My impression was that they included the piano bit just to show that he wasn't a perfect human being, that he did have some anger in him.  But he was no hypocrite, and was true to his word, he found an appropriate outlet for his anger, then went back to playing his song.  Without it, there's the danger he might have come across as unreal somehow, too nice, too perfect.  Although Fred Rogers comes about as close as it gets.  

I think that's what made me misty at times.  Not just nostalgia, but just that a human could attain that level of being a genuinely good, caring person.

 

Sigh. All of this!

On 3/8/2020 at 2:19 PM, screengem said:

The scene where Tom Hanks "Mister Rogers" removes Daniel Tiger and King Friday from their carrying case and tries to communicate with the stubborn and depressing Matthew Rhys character "Lloyd" through them really started promising.  I was so thrilled to especially see Daniel Tiger up close and personal in 4K splendor.  I was so little when I first saw him introduced on the first Fred Rogers afternoon local tv show in Pittsburgh, the Children's Corner.  His image then was black and white and blurred.

Then, in a split second, the scene turned nasty and cruel when "Lloyd" yelled at Mister Rogers and forced him to throw them back into their carrying case.  From that point on, I really couldn't find any enjoyment in this movie.

In case it helps, I went back and reviewed this scene (and even transcribed moments below), and Lloyd does not ever, ever, raise his voice or yell at Mister Rogers. He shows discomfort when the questions turn back on him, and he eventually chooses to walk out of the interview, but he is pretty civil about it. He does not yell or do anything except end the interview as politely and quickly as he can. It's also visible that he's in pain and that Rogers is totally okay with Lloyd's reactions. Further: We have already met Daniel in the film, and in fact in several subtle moments, the film has implied that Lloyd feels much like Daniel (Daniel even stands in for Lloyd in a few dream sequences). Lloyd is hurting and can't bring himself to talk.

Anyway, in the scene you mention, it goes as follows (MILD SPOILERS):

Rogers: And here is Daniel, Striped Tiger. Now, sometimes, Daniel is too shy to talk, but... (he dons the puppet and faces him, speaking softly) but that's okay, Daniel.

Daniel faces Lloyd and waves at him.

Rogers: Have you met Daniel?
Lloyd: Um, not officially, no.

Daniel faces Rogers, and they nod at each other. Daniel looks shy, then faces Lloyd, filling his view. All we can see next is Daniel, shy and furry and sweet. As if he is a real person interviewing Lloyd. And we see him from Lloyd's perspective. Somehow Daniel seems alive and real here.

Daniel (softly voiced by Rogers): I'd like to meet Old Rabbit.
Lloyd (quietly): I don't want to talk about Old Rabbit, I've got to say.
Rogers (Daniel faces back to him): Well, maybe Lloyd doesn't feel like talking today, Daniel. 

Daniel covers his face with his paws, sadly, as if empathizing with Lloyd.

Rogers: And that's okay.
Lloyd: Can you put the puppet down, Fred?

Rogers smiles, then quietly takes off the Daniel puppet, and gently lays him with the other puppets in his suitcase.

(Clipped) Lloyd and Rogers then talk about Fred's sons, and why he returned to making the show.

Lloyd: I can't imagine that it was easy, growing up with you as a father. 
Rogers (pausing) : Until recently, my oldest never told people about me. He's very private. And that's okay. And my youngest son, he genuinely tested me. But eventually, we found our way. And now I'm very proud of both of them. But you are right, Lloyd, it couldn't have been easy on them. Thank you. Thank you, for that perspective.
Lloyd (sighs): You're welcome.
Rogers: Is that not the answer you were hoping for? Being a parent does not mean being a perfect parent? You might be experiencing some of that now, with your son. And I've been thinking a lot about you and your father. Did you work out your disagreement?
Lloyd (quietly, to himself): This is ridiculous.

Lloyd sighs, then gets up suddenly. He grabs his notes and prepares to exit.

Rogers: Lloyd, where are you going?
Lloyd (quietly, but tersely): We're -- we're done. Thanks. Been a real pleasure.

He leaves.

Rogers (quietly, but not upset): Mercy.

I think this scene is really important, and of course it's the penultimate scene to the one that changes Lloyd's life and POV for good (the cafe scene). As such, I do not think he remotely upsets or scares Rogers here -- Fred knows he's pushing Lloyd on a painful subject, and he is prepared for any reaction. He is not angry or hurt, he's simply accepting. He shows surprise at Lloyd's exit ("Mercy.") but no real upset or betrayal. He knows Lloyd is wounded and that healing is difficult.

I've spent way too much time on this, but I'm a geek, and I wanted to speak back since I felt you recapped the scene in a way that wasn't really accurate. If you go back, Lloyd never yells at Fred. And Fred knows that (and understands that Lloyd's anger and pain isn't directed at him, in any case). 

Lloyd had to readjust his perceptions of the world (I've read many of Tom Junod's articles, and one thing that comes through is that he had to interview celebrities while they did some incredibly crappy, unpleasant, entitled things (the Kevin Spacey interview is an example of this -- of someone who behaved with total un-self-awareness at just how awful he was being, even if this still doesn't justify Tom's outing of Kevin in his article, from my POV).

Rogers must have looked like a myth to him. Nobody could be that good or truly kind.

The irony is, another very close friend of mine shocked me this past weekend by admitting she never watched Mister Rogers because she could not bring herself to believe people were really that good and kind. I mean, ouch.

She promised me she'd watch the movie, now that she can actually believe that yes, this was such a good, good human being.

Edited March 11, 2020 by paramitch
Added further quotes to address in one post

[rmontro]

1 hour ago, paramitch said:

If you go back, Lloyd never yells at Fred. And Fred knows that (and understands that Lloyd's anger and pain isn't directed at him, in any case). 

I agree with what you're saying.  But I think there's also another component:  I think Lloyd is still trying to play his particular brand of gotcha journalism with Fred.  When he's asking about his sons, he's probing for some signs of weakness in what he still thinks is some sort of false front that Rogers is putting on.  Which is why Fred asks "Is that not the answer you were looking for?".  Like your friend, Lloyd still hasn't accepted Mr. Rogers is actually a good person, he's still skeptical, and thinking it's some sort of money making image.

[paramitch]

5 minutes ago, rmontro said:

I agree with what you're saying.  But I think there's also another component:  I think Lloyd is still trying to play his particular brand of gotcha journalism with Fred.  When he's asking about his sons, he's probing for some signs of weakness in what he still thinks is some sort of false front that Rogers is putting on.  Which is why Fred asks "Is that not the answer you were looking for?".  Like your friend, Lloyd still hasn't accepted Mr. Rogers is actually a good person, he's still skeptical, and thinking it's some sort of money making image.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this. Lloyd is still resistant to the idea that people can be, really, this freaking good and kind.

I don't think Lloyd capitulates fully until Fred confronts him in the cafe, and yet (in one of my favorite scenes in movies ever), he doesn't push him at all. He simply asks him to spend a single minute focusing on love (no matter how imperfect the person who helped to shape him). It's incredible. All that silence. All those people in their imperfection and humanity, silent too. And then Fred meets OUR eyes. And breaks the fourth wall for several seconds. Simply to look us in the eye and to dare us to think of all the people who loved us into being. And to, in turn, appreciate ourselves and our own journeys and how we are still here, despite whatever we went through.

And the sequence ends with this held gaze from Rhys as Lloyd, and a small sigh. And that's it. We can see that he's changed. He's let go of his anger. I loved it so much. Rhys is always so subtle and here, yet again, he said so much with a small moment.

And then Fred just goes right on eating his salad, thanking Lloyd. He doesn't push. And this blew me away. This one minute of film. It was so artistically risky and weird and brave, and... kind. I probably would have liked the movie anyway—which I did, obviously, but this was the sequence that knocked out the last of my cynicism (and, apparently, Lloyd's). 

It's interesting because reading Tom's articles after watching the movie made me even more of a fan of the movie. You can see Tom's goodness but also his blatant despair at profiling some truly awful people, time after time, all these celebrities who don't even bother to hide their awfulness. And, to his credit, he didn't sugarcoat his reactions. He wrote what he felt. So no wonder he met Mister Rogers and simply waited for the shoe to drop, for the revelation of abuse, or evil, or nastiness, etc. He couldn't believe someone like Fred existed. And that's heartbreaking. And even more so today.

Which was why this was the movie I didn't even know I needed. But oh, looking at America and our world today, I absolutely really did need it. Too bad Mister Rogers was not immortal, even if he deserved to be.

[rmontro]

4 minutes ago, paramitch said:

I probably would have liked the movie anyway—which I did, obviously, but this was the sequence that knocked out the last of my cynicism (and, apparently, Lloyd's). 

This movie, like Mr. Rogers himself, can really make you think.

[Bastet]

I finally watched this last night, and I really liked Lloyd's journey.  I think his reactions to Fred Rogers, to his father, to his wife for thinking it's just fine for them to sit around eating pizza with his father when he's made clear he doesn't want to interact with him, etc. were spot on natural.  So much so I wasn't sure if I was going to find his evolution believable, but the film really captured how Rogers could, by example, influence him to look at some things differently.  Because Fred Rogers was who he was partly because he worked at it; there were inherent characteristics, of course, but he also made a conscious decision to live a certain way and worked at that every day.   

 

[txhorns79]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:06 PM, Bastet said:

I think his reactions to Fred Rogers, to his father, to his wife for thinking it's just fine for them to sit around eating pizza with his father when he's made clear he doesn't want to interact with him, etc. were spot on natural. 

I didn't really like his wife's behavior with his father.  She saw the guy made her husband deeply uncomfortable, but she invited him into their house for pizza, essentially to ambush her husband?  I felt like that was a major betrayal, but she acted like her husband was wrong to be angry over this. 

[Bastet]

5 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I didn't really like his wife's behavior with his father.  She saw the guy made her husband deeply uncomfortable, but she invited him into their house for pizza, essentially to ambush her husband? 

I didn't take it as her inviting him, but letting him in when he showed up. 

And that's fine, it's her home, but she shouldn't have been disappointed with Lloyd for wanting him gone.  Even the dad's girlfriend realized you know what, we should go now, based on Lloyd's reaction (a reaction which was not at all unanticipated by anyone in that room).

I liked Andrea - and am so glad that one of the things Marielle Heller did upon taking the helm as director was flesh out her character - and understand her being angry with Lloyd at his sister's wedding; he went from zero to crazy and, as she said, was out of control, and took no responsibility for the scene he helped create beyond offering to pay to dry clean the wedding dress.  But acting let down when he didn't want to sit down for pizza with no warning, and then telling him "This isn't the time to leave" at the hospital after his dad's heart attack got a big fat nope from me.  You know what wasn't the time to leave?  When Jerry took off on his kids when their mom got sick.  Lloyd can go ahead and go to work and regroup later, jeez.

[txhorns79]

10 minutes ago, Bastet said:

 

I liked Andrea - and am so glad that one of the things Marielle Heller did upon taking the helm as director was flesh out her character - and understand her being angry with Lloyd at his sister's wedding; he went from zero to crazy and, as she said, was out of control, and took no responsibility for the scene he helped create beyond offering to pay to dry clean the wedding dress.  But acting let down when he didn't want to sit down for pizza with no warning, and then telling him "This isn't the time to leave" at the hospital after his dad's heart attack got a big fat nope from me.  You know what wasn't the time to leave?

I understood her being angry over the wedding because Lloyd was out of control and made a huge scene.  I hated her at the hospital.  It felt like she had no understanding of her husband's deep anger and resentment towards his father, and thought he had to behave a certain way because his father was ill, as though it was Lloyd's problem. 

[paramitch]

On 2/5/2021 at 7:43 PM, Bastet said:

I didn't take it as her inviting him, but letting him in when he showed up. 

And that's fine, it's her home, but she shouldn't have been disappointed with Lloyd for wanting him gone.  Even the dad's girlfriend realized you know what, we should go now, based on Lloyd's reaction (a reaction which was not at all unanticipated by anyone in that room).

I liked Andrea - and am so glad that one of the things Marielle Heller did upon taking the helm as director was flesh out her character - and understand her being angry with Lloyd at his sister's wedding; he went from zero to crazy and, as she said, was out of control, and took no responsibility for the scene he helped create beyond offering to pay to dry clean the wedding dress.  But acting let down when he didn't want to sit down for pizza with no warning, and then telling him "This isn't the time to leave" at the hospital after his dad's heart attack got a big fat nope from me.  You know what wasn't the time to leave?  When Jerry took off on his kids when their mom got sick.  Lloyd can go ahead and go to work and regroup later, jeez.

I felt much the same. Although -- I felt like what the film accomplished in a very delicate way was the juxtaposition of Andrea's reality against Lloyd's. She is spending her days caring for their tiny, vulnerable newborn. Lloyd is running off in all these directions, AWAY from the nest she has built, and then that running seems fueled by rage in a way that I think mystifies and scares her.

There is a very effective moment of Andrea standing there holding the baby at the reception, and Lloyd and his father are both bloody, and Lloyd looks legitimately scary. It's not an abusive vibe by any means, but I do think it frightens her and that feeling is exacerbated by her wish to keep the baby away from ugliness and violence -- and now her husband is showing a side of himself that she can't understand at all.

I did think she seemed to get it a bit later, in the scene at the apartment, when Lloyd described what his poor mother had gone through (also, as someone who was a caregiver, what the hell kind of hospital was this that wasn't keeping Lloyd's mother medicated and out of pain?? Gah.). But she was also torn with pity on seeing this old, broken man. She doesn't see child Lloyd here, abandoned by his father for utterly selfish reasons. She just sees the old man.

On 2/5/2021 at 7:57 PM, txhorns79 said:

I understood her being angry over the wedding because Lloyd was out of control and made a huge scene.  I hated her at the hospital.  It felt like she had no understanding of her husband's deep anger and resentment towards his father, and thought he had to behave a certain way because his father was ill, as though it was Lloyd's problem. 

I felt like Andrea's main issue in the film -- which was eventually resolved as she gained more knowledge of the situation, and as Lloyd gained more ability to view it with compassion -- was naivete. She originally brings up the rift between Lloyd and his Dad before the wedding and Lloyd seems snarky but totally okay. It's just that the wedding brings up more for Lloyd than he can express, and it turns out that he has been stifling these emotions, that rage and grief, for decades, so that when he erupts it's not a 3 or 4 like maybe Andrea might expect, but an 11.

I do think Andrea is shown to genuinely love Lloyd and to show him loyalty, I just think she's implied never to have had to handle a situation like this, so she doesn't understand trauma and how it can mold a person. She just keeps wanting Lloyd to sit down with his Dad so everything can be fixed, and it's not always that simple.

The irony is that Fred Rogers, this gentle man people probably would have assumed couldn't handle such complex or volatile emotions or situations, sees the situation very clearly, and the best thing he does is show Lloyd how all that rage he feels has been hurting LLOYD and those he loves. It hasn't done a thing to change the past. So when he helps Lloyd focus on the child he once was, to listen to that child and heal him (the child symbolized in the film as Daniel Striped Tiger), Lloyd is at last able to see his father as just a person, one who is both good and bad.

I was really moved by that. I also loved Fred's matter-of-fact conversation with the family and with Lloyd's father about death. Like, in a way that did not cast a pall but that was actually comforting and real.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, paramitch said:

I felt much the same. Although -- I felt like what the film accomplished in a very delicate way was the juxtaposition of Andrea's reality against Lloyd's. She is spending her days caring for their tiny, vulnerable newborn. Lloyd is running off in all these directions, AWAY from the nest she has built, and then that running seems fueled by rage in a way that I think mystifies and scares her.

I love the difference between the scene with Lloyd and the baby in the middle of the night near the beginning, when Lloyd is watching Mr. Rogers shows/interviews, and the one near the end, at his dad's house.  In the first, Lloyd doesn't even look at the baby (and not always because he's looking at the TV instead) - and Andrea hands the baby to him - but by the second he's fully present with him after taking the initiative to be the one to get up with him.  He wasn't an uninvolved parent in the beginning - we see him changing diapers - but it was more like he was helping Andrea as the co-parent; he wasn't truly emotionally engaged as the father until he confronted all the feelings of his own childhood.

Getting back to Andrea, I like the scene when Fred calls for Lloyd early in the morning and she answers.  I like her childlike "Mr. Rogers knows my name!" joy alongside her very adult appreciation of Fred's understanding that Lloyd's work takes him away from the family at a vulnerable time for her (something Lloyd himself had never explicitly acknowledged).

[paramitch]

On 2/11/2021 at 1:52 PM, Bastet said:

I love the difference between the scene with Lloyd and the baby in the middle of the night near the beginning, when Lloyd is watching Mr. Rogers shows/interviews, and the one near the end, at his dad's house.  In the first, Lloyd doesn't even look at the baby (and not always because he's looking at the TV instead) - and Andrea hands the baby to him - but by the second he's fully present with him after taking the initiative to be the one to get up with him.  He wasn't an uninvolved parent in the beginning - we see him changing diapers - but it was more like he was helping Andrea as the co-parent; he wasn't truly emotionally engaged as the father until he confronted all the feelings of his own childhood.

Getting back to Andrea, I like the scene when Fred calls for Lloyd early in the morning and she answers.  I like her childlike "Mr. Rogers knows my name!" joy alongside her very adult appreciation of Fred's understanding that Lloyd's work takes him away from the family at a vulnerable time for her (something Lloyd himself had never explicitly acknowledged).

That's a beautiful choice of contrasts. It's so true -- in the beginning, Lloyd is shown as conscientious but there is something disconnected about him. For instance, he is shocked at the number of diapers the baby goes through -- whoops. That's a Dad who isn't doing enough. And then like you say, we get that gorgeous late scene at his Dad's house, where he holds his son so tenderly and talks to him and truly sees him, and pledges to be a better father. (cries)

Speaking of which, I loved Mister Rogers saying a special hello to the baby. Because he never forgets each person in the room, ever. Even a tiny little person.

I loved Andrea's reaction to Mister Rogers knowing her name -- bookended by her shy pride near the end when she reveals to Lloyd, "You aren't the only person who talks to Fred." 

I think she's a terrific character in the story, and that it's no accident that she stands in for Lady Aberlin in Lloyd's dream with, "It's Good to Talk..." (and we see Lloyd's fearful, surprised reaction). She is on Mister Rogers's side, she's a peacemaker. She just wants people to talk and be real and face each other.

I get why Lloyd was so angry in their home in the pizza scene, but Andrea wasn't wrong. I am the product of two really bad childhood parents who -- divorced -- caused me tons of individual trauma (tons of pretty serious stuff I won't go into). BUT -- they ended up really wonderful people. It just took them a few more decades to get there.

So I do get Andrea.

Lloyd could have sat down and tried to get to know the father he had NOW... versus the person he hated so much. What I think the movie does well is show that this is an option -- the best option -- that most people simply cannot bring themselves to take.

Letting go of pain is really tough, I get it. But when it comes to childhood, the person you were so angry at doesn't even exist anymore. This movie knows that and I think is really wise about that fact. 

[txhorns79]

On 2/16/2021 at 8:47 PM, paramitch said:

I get why Lloyd was so angry in their home in the pizza scene, but Andrea wasn't wrong.

No, she was wrong in that particular scene.  She knew her husband's issues with his father, and the right thing to do was ask him to leave, speak to her husband, and if he was amenable, ask the father to return at some mutually agreed time.  Instead, she let her husband feel ambushed and unsafe in his own home.

[rmontro]

I just saw this again, and there's one particular scene I wonder about:

The scene where Fred and Lloyd are in the cafe and Fred asks him to do the moment of silence to think about all the people who "loved them into being".  All the people in the restaurant follow along with them.  How do they know what they are doing?  Have they been listening to the whole conversation since Mr. Rodgers is a celebrity?  Or (probably more likely) are they so used to Fred eating there that they know what he's doing, because they've seen him do it so often, and they go along with it?

[Trini]

22 hours ago, rmontro said:

I just saw this again, and there's one particular scene I wonder about:

The scene where Fred and Lloyd are in the cafe and Fred asks him to do the moment of silence to think about all the people who "loved them into being".  All the people in the restaurant follow along with them.  How do they know what they are doing?  Have they been listening to the whole conversation since Mr. Rodgers is a celebrity?  Or (probably more likely) are they so used to Fred eating there that they know what he's doing, because they've seen him do it so often, and they go along with it?

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense for everyone in the restaurant to follow along; but I think that was a 'breaking the fourth wall' and/or audience participation moment for the movie audience.

Edited April 25 by Trini
dropped word

[rmontro]

4 hours ago, Trini said:

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense for everyone in the restaurant to follow along; but I think that was 'breaking the fourth wall' and/or audience participation moment for the movie audience.

That possibility did cross my mind, that the scene wasn't mean to show reality necessarily, but a surrealistic artful depiction of what was going on.