The Reivers (1969)

I'd like to know why the motion picture academy felt that Rupert Crosse deserved an Oscar nomination in the supporting category for this 1968 film? There was nothing to him as a black member of a Mississippi family in 1905. If anything, acting honors should have gone to Mitch Vogel, as the young boy caught up in the mayhem that pursues when Steve McQueen and Crosse persuade the young man to take to them to Memphis to a house of ill repute.The film, which is the typical coming of age movie, even for the period, tells the adventures that they encounter on their way and at Memphis.There is plenty of racism. Ruth White as the head of the brothel? Come on. She, who was so good, as Rod Steiger's first victim in "No Way to Treat a Lady," is as sexy as an old prune.Will Geer shines as an understanding grandfather,and Burgess Meredith recounts the story as the man the Vogel character was as a young boy. Vogel gave a very sensitive, restrained performance.

I have to say that I was surprised about how much I liked the film. William Faulkner (American Nobel Prizewinner) wrote "The Reivers." The story is about a boy, Lucius, and Boone played by Steve McQueen. They take the 1905 car that Boone promised not to take out for a joyride while his bosses were away at a family funeral. Boone, Lucius, and an African American co-worker who I forget his name but sneaks aboard the car on the way to Memphis to visit friends like Miss Corey played by Sharon Farrell and the brothel's matron, Miss Reba, played by the wonderfully talented Ruth White who died shortly after the film. The film is more of a mix of comedy and drama. There is the story of the 1905 yellow car and a horse and about horse-racing with Lucius in the saddle. There are some serious moments like Lucius discovering that he is staying at brothel and Miss Corey who he grows to bond with.

William Faulkner's story about an eleven-year old boy in Jefferson, Mississippi at the turn-of-the-century who tells his kin a string of lies in order to go on a stolen holiday with his father's handyman and a half-black relative. They travel into sinful Memphis, Tennessee in a yellow Winton Flyer, and initially their misadventures have the mud-spattered feel of an early-'60s Disney movie. Originally billed as rollicking family entertainment (though rated 'M' for mature), things take an odd, disquieting turn with an extended trip to a cathouse, where the kid's guardian (Steve McQueen) tussles with his favorite prostitute, who wants to go legit and get married (there's also a bloody fight between two youngsters that seems to come out of nowhere). Director Mark Rydell feasts on picturesque sunsets and auto-ride sing-a-longs, but he's got a penchant for vulgarity that undermines the comedy. It seems no one here wanted to make a strictly pictorial piece of scrapbook nostalgia, so the film ends up failing as both an American tall tale and as a boy-grows-up-fast character study. McQueen has some good, feisty scenes, but his character is rather hapless, and a Steve McQueen who does little but react to others is an automatic disappointment. The chief interests (the hazy, early-morning ambiance and cinematography, the quaint Winton Flyer which gets traded for a racehorse) nearly salvage the rest of the production, which was reportedly troubled after McQueen and director Rydell butted heads. The star later claimed this was a personal favorite of his films, but it is terribly uneven, occasionally perplexing and often sick-making. *1/2 from ****

This is an enjoyable old fashion type of adventure they just wont make anymore outside of a Disney adaptation. It's based on a William Faulkner story, his last I believe, and may be slightly autobiographical. I always saw this movie on television in the 70s & 80s and didn't realize so much of the film was cut and watered down for TV. The video VHS/ or DVD is much more complete and has more uncensored dialogue as well as including excised TV scenes such as when the trio arrives at the 'bordello' and Lucius is introduced. While the movie takes on a Disney or Hallmark heritage type of look it is not that. It is much more mature with spicy dialogue as mentioned and mature scenes that round out a longer running time. One thing I noticed is that this movie hails from 1969 when certain sexual situations were now being allowed in American productions. This movie reflects this change, while being basically family fare it 'just' escaped an R rating presumably as the MPAA system was still new and unfamiliar with how to rate certain subject matter. If this movie had been made just four or five years before it no doubt would have captured the rural early 20th century innocence familiar to Faulkner but the sexual situations, which make the story more believable, wouldn't have been included. Alas this is a great movie to have in your collection to take out and view when you're lonely and want something to look at or if it's raining outside. ***1/2 stars and it deserves to be much more well known than it is.