The only winning film from the ’80s that Roger Ebert didn’t give a perfect score to

When it comes to film, the 1980s have a bad reputation. Yes, the New Hollywood movement was put on life support in 1980, when Michael Cimino’s arrogant (and absolutely brilliant) Western epic “Heaven’t Gate” pulled the plug on Francis Ford Coppola’s commercial flop “One from the Heart” (which is actually a masterpiece), but a new generation of film school brats like Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch and the Coen Brothers stepped up to take cinema in new and exciting directions. The artistic rebellion of the 70s was not quelled; He just became independent.

Meanwhile, Hollywood studios settled into a formulaic rhythm. High-concept blockbusters were all the rage, while prestige films became loftier and increasingly important. Just look at the Academy Award Best Picture winners of the decade. There are some great movies in the mix (“Ordinary People,” “Amadeus,” “The Last Emperor” and “Platoon”), but even those movies were loaded with meaningful messages. These filmmakers had serious ideas and their films could change the way we saw the world. There was a void in your life if you weren’t lining up to see these big-ticket movies at your local multiplex.

Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert, the decade’s leading film voice, bought what Hollywood was selling. He gave four stars to every film that won Best Picture between 1980 and 1989, except one. Ebert gave Barry Levinson’s “Rain Man,” the 1988 Best Picture winner, a three-and-a-half-star review. I think it’s a much better movie than Oscar favorites like “Chariots of Fire,” “Gandhi,” “Out of Africa” ​​and, oh my god, “Driving Miss Daisy.” Why did Ebert consider it the least of the best films of the 80s?

It’s a three and a half star review.So, clearly, Ebert thought highly of “Rain Man.” Tom Cruise has his star power turned up to 11 as Charlie Babbitt, a sketchy Los Angeles operator whose business is heading south in a hurry. He receives what appears to be a financial windfall when his rich, estranged father drops dead in the East, but only inherits him a car. The old man’s fortune will go into a trust for an autistic brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman), whose existence Charlie didn’t know existed.

Hoffman disappears into the role of Raymond, but Cruise delivers what remains the performance of his career as Charlie. He’s a man who has survived his entire life thanks to his charisma, and now the only person who could give him the prize he desperately needs is immune to his charm. Ebert identifies this dynamic in his review, but seems more interested in Raymond’s problem. What is happening inside that brain? The opening paragraph of your review raises this somewhat problematically. According to Ebert:

“Is it possible to have a relationship with an autistic person? Is it possible to have a relationship with a cat? I don’t mean for the comparison to be degrading to the autistic person; I’m just trying to get at something. I have useful relationships with my two cats and they are important to me. But I never know what cats think.”

Obviously, our understanding of the autism spectrum has grown enormously since 1988, but even then, I’d like to know what was going on in Ebert’s brain when he decided to compare the brain of an autistic man to that of a house cat. And he suggested that it is impossible to have a relationship with an autistic person! Bad Roger!

Otherwise, Ebert doesn’t make any real criticism of “Rain Man,” but he has a hard time understanding what it’s about. I’d prefer a puzzle like that to a bloated, pre-solved epic like “Gandhi” and “Out of Africa.” And certainly to a parody of an old woman who discovers that racism is bad like “Driving Miss Daisy.”