HOFFA
A film review by Andrew Hall
Copyright 1993 Andrew Hall
Picture the life of controversial Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa through the eyes of Louie DePalma from TV's TAXI and you have HOFFA, Danny DeVito's new film starring himself and Jack Nicholson.
DeVito tells us Hoffa's story through the eyes of Bobby (DeVito), Hoffa's right-hand man, who watches with admiration the labor leader's rise from union agitator to president of the Teamsters. They are close; Bobby even goes to jail with Hoffa.
While Jack Nicholson is absolutely amazing as Hoffa (if you've ever seen newsreel footage of Jimmy Hoffa, you'd swear Nicholson *was* Hoffa), DeVito has miscast himself terribly as Bobby. Unfortunately, DeVito has not established that he can play any character other than himself, a character too familiar to moviegoers. In a historical drama, with Nicholson so convincing, DeVito as himself just stands out and ruins the effect. Nicholson's performance is diminished.
Aside from his own miscasting, DeVito's Bobby is also far too big a role in the film. We see *every* shot of Hoffa through Bobby's eyes; in fact, there are some scenes with Bobby *without* Hoffa. Actually, if you didn't know who Hoffa was (my non-American companion didn't), you might have guessed that this was a film about Hoffa *and* Bobby.
Sadly, this storytelling device just doesn't work in HOFFA. A more traditional "omniscient director" approach probably would have worked much better. Nicholson is so good, why not just let him run with it?
Another plot device that is even worse is the flashback. The *whole movie* is a flashback from just before Hoffa disappears, the "present" time of the film. Unfortunately, DeVito keeps cutting back from the "present" (which has it's own little subplot) to Hoffa's life as it unfolds. These cuts disrupt the entire flow of the film. DeVito used this same approach in THE WAR OF THE ROSES, a comedy, where it seemed to work better. Again, the more traditional approach of just letting the drama unfold from start to finish might have helped. Or, just making Hoffa's life one big flashback (with no disruptive subplot) could have worked better, too.
So what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa when he disappeared in 1975? We still don't know, but DeVito gives us his best guess at the end of the film. Since we don't know, I would have preferred to have the film end without this speculation.
Some have complained that DeVito's film is far too sympathetic to Jimmy Hoffa. Hogwash! These are the probably the same people who condemned Oliver Stone for not making JFK a documentary. A director should be able to say whatever he wants in a film. It's JUST a movie for crying out loud! It's entertainment. We don't have to go see it.
Despite it's flaws, HOFFA is certainly worth seeing just for Nicholson's performance (although it helps to know a little about Hoffa first). And there are some neat camera moves and edits in the film that make it hardly dull. Still, Nicholson's acting could have been the thread of a masterpiece instead of a disappointment.
- Andrew Hall
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews