Pleasantville (1998) User Reviews

A brilliant fairytale..

[nchng · 9/10 · 28 March 2001]

I thoroughly enjoyed "Pleasantville" from the 'Once upon a time' through the film fading to black.

The acting was top notch all around, as was the use of special effects; in very few films has colour been used so effectively that it can convey a story seemingly without help from dialogue or music.

I can see how some people would perceive it as merely another mouthpiece of liberalism, but I watched it twice, and I only noticed it attacking bigotry and censorship. What was wrong wasn't that these people were living according conservative values, but that they didn't really choose those values in the first place!

I like the fact that the film was bold, and that it made its point as directly as it contrasted the black and white with the splotches of Technicolour. While "Pleasantville" had little subtlety in its allegory, it was, like any good fairytale, beautiful in its simplicity.

Nine out of ten =)

cute gimmick turns funny turns profound

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 27 August 2015]

David (Tobey Maguire) is a geek in high school. Real life is diminishing expectations, family divorce and no female companionship. He's obsessed with an old TV show Pleasantville. While watching a Pleasantville marathon, he has a fight with his twin sister Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) and they break the TV remote. TV repairman (Don Knotts) shows up and give them a special remote which sends them into the show. They become George (William H. Macy) and Betty Parker (Joan Allen)'s kids Bud and Mary Sue. She's not happy until she sees her new boyfriend Skip Martin (Paul Walker). Bud is working at Bill Johnson (Jeff Daniels)'s soda shop. He falls for Margaret Henderson (Marley Shelton). The kids' interactions start changing the strange purity of Pleasantville and colors seeps into the world.

At first, this is a gimmick that has some cute aspects. Don Knotts adds to that sense of a cheap laugh. It has some good fun with Maguire and Witherspoon budding head. Then the deeper profound message seeps into the movie. It is gentle and yet undeniable. A couple of times, I feared the movie would push too hard like calling the people "color". It manages to maintain some distance and follow through on the message without overpowering it. This is quite a film.

Brilliant

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 13 April 2015]

Two 1990s teenagers find themselves in a 1950s sitcom where their influence begins to profoundly change that complacent world.

This is a surprisingly strong role for Reese Witherspoon, who tends to be an overrated actress. If anything, she is actually underrated here for how well she made Jenny her own character. The appearance of Don Knotts is a great touch, and William H. Macy is wonderful as always.

While a simple concept (kids getting sucked into the TV), the execution is a work of genius. Writer-director Gary Ross used this backdrop to explore race relations, the "good old days", changing cultures and mores... and exploring a range of "right and wrong". And underneath it all, it still remains a sense of humor and does not attempt to guilt trip the audience.

I heard about this movie, but I didn't know that it would be THIS good....

[Eddie C. · 10/10 · 8 April 2000]

I knew what this film would be about before I rented it, but I'm stunned that it would be THIS good. Nothing against "Saving Private Ryan" or "Shakespeare in Love", but this film should have won Best Picture in 1998 and it was a shame that it wasn't nominated. It's an even bigger injustice that it did not get a nomination for best screenplay or cinematography.

In the hands of another writer, this movie could have been made as just a parody of 1950's sitcoms like "Leave It To Beaver" or "Ozzie and Harriet." But this film isn't about how clichéd those series look decades later. It's about the false nostalgia for a past that never existed. We survived the past and we know that everything turned out all right. Because of this, we selectively choose our memories and weed out the unpleasant ones. That's why the past is sometimes seen as "the good ol' days." Pleasantville does not represent how the 50's actually were but rather an idealization of what people THINK the 50's were---no one had sex, everyone got along swell, and life was fairly easy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there are many film from that era which show how real people (even in suburbia) actually lived. This film argues that free will and choice is ESSENTIAL to life and that we should embrace freedom instead of fearing it. It isn't just about making out, but having the OPTION to make out.

Another reviewer claimed that this film was an attack on the 50's, but David and Jennifer could very easily have been dumped in the world of "The Brady Bunch", "Gilligan's Island" , or "Batman." But setting "Pleasantville" in a 1950's sitcom allows for the brilliant metaphor of black and white versus color. Black and white photography is a stylized depiction of the universe, but unless you're color blind it's not the way you actually see the universe. When we first see Pleasantville's citizens, all of them are cardboard cut-outs of stereotypes. As they begin to open up and become real people, color seeps into their world. The catalyst seems to be the willingness to experience new sensations and become vulnerable. Jennifer has slept with lot of guys when she was in the normal world, so sex does not change HER into a color character. On the other hand, when she actually finishes a book (without pictures) for the first time in her life, THEN she becomes colorized. Similarly, David does not bloom into color until he breaks out of his aloofness and defends his "mother." Compare the way he ignores his real mother at the beginning of the film to how he consoles and comforts her at the end to see how much David has changed.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. There are a lot of films out there that are very entertaining and/or very moving--like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Titanic." Movies like "Pleasantville" which challenge the audience and force them to think are very rare, and should be treasured by the discerning filmgoer.

floored

[adamw_13 · 10/10 · 16 February 2003]

Some critics here are saying the movie takes itself too seriously - but I believe some people are taking it too literally. ... Saying that the topics that are addressed have no impact on society anymore, clearly misses the point. ... The 50s -- or more specifically, 50s TV -- is used as a metaphor, because of the way 50s TV portrayed life in America. ... Thematically, this movie is about "Living Life" to the fullest, whatever that means. More specifically, to live life to the fullest -- to truly feel "alive" -- you need to take the good with the bad. Sweeping things under the rug and just acting "pleasant" all the time, is no way to live. That's what Tobey McGuire's speech at the end to his "real" mother is all about. Bad things happen, it's part of life. Having passion brings with it positives and negatives -- but suppressing true feelings for the sake of "pleasantness" is an empty life. THAT is the key ... and that "issue" is everlasting to the human condition.

Another point: People fear change. This is universal from the start of time until the end of time. The film suggests that changing and growing as a society and as people -- even if scary -- is good. Just because the 50s were used as a metaphor for that, don't believe for a minute this isn't a universal issue that exists today and forever.

Another issue common for people critical of this film is the sexual issue. They say that Gary Ross is promoting sexual promiscuity, sex out of wedlock, etc... Again, I believe it misses the point. Is Ross suggesting that premarital sex is OK? Yes, and I'd agree - and I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't agree with that, and that's OK too. But, again, the sex is just part of the theme - used as a high-profile example to making the overall point about "openness" - and not suppressing one's feelings. Note that the Reese Witherspoon character was already promiscuous, and her transformation was actually something completely different.

I can't make everyone like this film - I'll just say that, on a personal note, I was so floored by this film, I had to see it again the next day. That had never happened to me before, or since. Ross' commentary goes on to speak of everything I felt about the film when I first saw it. It was great to hear that his reasons for what he did, meshed exactly with how I took it. I had to write him a letter to tell him so - another thing I'd never done before or since.

This is not a perfect film. I liked its subtlety, but then the racism correlation, and the censorship stuff, got a bit more overt. The courtroom scene at the end is a bit cliche ... and I also agree with one poster who said that, to make the point about taking the good with the bad, we should've seen a bit more about the consequences of their actions.

Those are merely nitpicks in the grand scheme of things. This is a 10 out of 10.

A brilliant commentary on life

[sdbirdsi · 5 February 2001]

One night after working something like 6 or 7 hours at a movie store, I went to see a one of the last films on my list for the week that I hadn't gotten to. My manager and I seem to go out to movies a lot after work. It's odd how people who around film all day cling to it for relaxation at the end of the shift. We knew the manager of the theater, so we got in free.

I knew Pleasantville was about some kids who fall into a world of television and adventures ensue. Plus I knew that it had Don Knotts and I've always loved his acting. Expecting a funny little film about TV, I got a brilliant commentary on the social and political environment of the 50's. There were countless religious, political, and racial references throughout the film.

Life in Pleasantville is perfect. For breakfast you get everything your heart desires, the basketball team wins every game, and everyone is just swell. The only problem is that life is set; there is no free will, self-expression, or new thought.

The Characters begin turning colour when they break their set mold, break out of their lives into something new. When Mary sue first has sex with Skip, he doesn't turn to colour because he doesn't know what's happened. The event does lead him to begin seeing the world differently, hence the red rose. People only change when they do something freely and of their own will. The mother and her bathroom incident, when Mary Sure finally discovers life beyond sex and seduction in books and thought, and when Bud finally stands up for himself.

The fact that new thought and experience leads to the thought of the breakdown of the Pleasantville world speaks to the desire in the 50's not to change. Things were good, values were abundant, and life was good. Dinner was ready at 6, the wife was always home cleaning or cooking or something. Then came those greasers and people doing more than holding hands. One of the main points of this film was that change is one of those things that can become undesirable, but is needed to evolve and grow as a society.

Another big statement this film makes is one the issue of racism, and very well I might add. There are no black people in Pleasantville. This isn't an attack of any sort on race. I'm sure you can count on one hand the average number of black people in a 50's television show. The point is that the colored people are representative of all nationalities oppressed in the fifties, even through today. Because of things they could not necessarily control, they are all hated and spat upon for being different. Especially in the end when all the `colored' people are at the top of the courthouse segregated from the non-colored people. And don't forget the `no colored people' signs in the shop windows.

This film is about more than the way things were and how change is good. It's about the way we see ourselves inside and out. If life is static and non-changing, then all you get is black and white. It's only when people allow themselves to grow and mature as people and human beings that they see the world through coloured eyes. Pleasantville only becomes whole when everyone sees appears in colour. Only then do the roads open up and the life beyond the town exists. It's odd how people in the city know what colour is, yet are shocked when it appears everywhere.

People of Color

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 24 September 2002]

I didn't know where this movie was going from one minute to the next. It could have been written by Rod Serling while possessed by a Dybbuk. It has touches of "A Short Walk" and "A Stop in Willoughby" in it. But Serling, brought up in Binghamton, New York, usually saw the past as something regrettably lost. A kind of cultural childhood, a Golden Age, a period of innocence, rather like Spielberg.

What are we to make of the clash of values that Bud and Mary Sue bring back to 1958 with them? Bud is happy enough to be in the black and white world of stability. (Stability? I mean obsessive-compulsive rigidity.) But Mary Sue runs around like a warthog in heat with nothing in her head except whatever impinges on her body sheath. And then there's this colorization gimmick. People change colors as they, well, "evolve" maybe. The kids' mother has her first orgasm (self induced) and a tree on the lawn bursts into colorful flame. She turns colored. Mary Sue begins to wonder, since she's been rutting with all the young studs in town, why she remains black and white, and Bud suggests that maybe it's not just the sex.

Well then what IS it? It's not simply the capacity for change because Bud's already got his dose. At one point Bud tells a townsman that people get colorized because of something human inside them, something trying to get out, and he demonstrates his point by enraging the mayor (great performance by J. T. Walsh).

But something has been trying to get out of the local soda fountain manager, Jeff Daniels, for a long time -- the desire to paint modern pictures a la Picasso -- and it finally does, but he remains black and white for a long time afterward. Cars turn color too, although something has been getting out of them fairly often. I'm stumped. Some of the incidents seem no more than arbitrary.

The clash of cultures is interesting though. It's easy to make fun of the 1950s from our current perspective and this movie, unlike Twilight Zone, milks it for laughs. Married couples sleep in separate twin beds and never have sex. (They pollinate, I suppose.) Young couples go to Lover's Lane -- to hold hands. The books in the library are all blank because nobody reads or knows anything about life outside of Pleasantville. That last is a cheap shot, and untrue. Mary Sue, of all people, introduces them to reading and studying, and the books magically fill up with text and engravings. And it's a weak argument that claims we read more now than in 1958.

Well, the two kids wind up colorizing everything and everybody and practically wrecking the town in the process. It's supposed to be an improvement, but is it? The black and white townsfolk were dumb but happy. Now they get into fights, insult one another, trash art works they don't like. They screw like minks before they're married. One can imagine what this does to the crime rate and the teenage pregnancy rate -- and taxes. (Is this what been trying to get out of them?)

Sure, it was oppressive in the 1950s. We can see that now -- all that conformism and complacency. Is it less oppressive now? Perhaps not. Perhaps we don't recognize the strictures we live under because we take them for granted. We may be in the same position as the guy Mark Twain mentioned who suddenly realized he'd been speaking prose all his life. From inside the box, the commonly accepted assumptions, we seem to have a good deal of freedom to do what we want. The good folk of Pleasantville felt the same way -- and this movie treat them as airheads.

I want to mention something about the score. It insinuates anachronistically Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" into one of the scenes, rather prominently. This is followed, again anachronistically, by a piece from an album I revere, Miles Davis's "So What." I'm glad that it wasn't drilled into the viewers' ears in 1958 because it's unforgettable. How easily it could have become a stock piece, like R. Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from "2001: A Space Odyssey," or the last movement from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I can almost hear it now, playing over and over and over on all kinds of TV commercials for shampoo, kitchen cleansers, pimple removers, and condoms.

It may be hard to tell but I kind of enjoyed the movie, although it left me as much puzzled as satisfied. Joan Allen's performance is the only one with true depth; Macy is always interesting but his part gives him less to do. The kids are routine, except for the momentous 1950s bosom Reese Witherspoon has to strap on. Jeff Daniels fits his role as a reasonable but timid person very well. The only role in which I can remember his displaying energy was that of Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg."

Rod Serling didn't always have a perfect answer for his longing for the past either, but I usually felt it was the result of ambivalence on his part, not, as here, confusion.

A brilliant and vastly underrated cinematic experience

[Isaac5855 · 8/10 · 23 October 2006]

PLEASANTVILLE had to be one of the biggest surprises I've ever had at the movies. This superbly mounted and completely winning fantasy starred Toby Maguire and Reese Witherspoon as a contemporary teenage brother and sister who are magically transported into a black and white television show called "Pleasantville", a show similar to "Leave it to Beaver" or "I Love Lucy", where everyone in the town knows each other, where the fire department only saves cats from trees and never put out fires and where there are no pages in the books or toilets in the bathrooms. Maguire's character is a "Pleasantville" trivia expert so he knows everyone there and everything that's going to happen but sis Witherspoon is a stranger in a strange land whose introduction of 1990's sensibilities to the citizens of this town brings about extraordinary changes. The film is beautifully made with a very smart screenplay and superb performances, the best of which is by Joan Allen, who is luminous as Betty, the mother in the sitcom who is shocked at first but learns to accept the 1990's coming to Pleasantville. Yes, it may borrow from other movies, but there is a freshness and originality to this movie that is most engaging and anytime with Don Knotts is time well spent.

Heavyhanded

[aysx87 · 6/10 · 8 November 2011]

The potential was there--the actors were great (esp Macguire as nerd and a young, fat Reese Witherspoon and the puppyish Daniels), the 50s atmosphere seemed to set everything up for nostalgia and irony, and the premise of 90s children bringing color and passion in a 50s television show seemed like a great story. Unfortunately, the heavyhanded message detracted from the experience. The worst signs were the over-dramatic courtroom monologue adding nothing particularly original ("what's different is inside us"), the extremely heavy racial and religious allegory (girlfriend offering an apple? things that are off-limits to "colored" people? mccarthy-era fahrenheit 451-style book burning??), the overplayed color metaphor (the first few times were great, having it last to the end of the story dragged). It begins to seem a bit dumb and heavy...

and its message is ridiculously left-leaning. A housewife, and some high school kids, find passion after sex (and masturbation, after which a tree goes up in the obvious flames), with no regard to teenage pregnancy, stds, etc. A bored schoolgirl finds passion after reading D. H. Lawrence. Leaving one's husband and starting extramarital affairs is given a thumbs up (and never resolved afterward.) Someone paints a housewife nude on a wall and the attack on it is made out to be some kind of anti-art, anti-passion mccarthyism crusade. In the end, the hero exhorts the audience to find their true feelings and passions, including anger. The town turns colorful. Boring, and biased, and an obvious, heavyhanded story.

The Colors of Modern Life seems Brighter than ever before

[CihanVercan · 10/10 · 11 October 2009]

Three movies of the late '90s -The Truman Show, EdTv and Pleasantville- specifically examined how television made an impact on our world, our culture and our values. They both showed larger than life happenings and captured our minds with their perspectives. In EdTv there was a humble video store clerk guy having his life filmed for a reality show, which was happening in present time. Though in Truman Show very futurist and fantastically, Truman Burbank was not even aware that his life is being filmed, offering the viewer the vision of life from God's perspective. Distinctively here in Pleasantville, there is a journey which starts with materializing a TV-series into life and ends up with materializing the life into this TV-series.

The cheerful 1950s' TV sit-com Pleasantville is revived in the '90s on cable. A homebody teen, David Wagner, escapes from the daily rush of the real unpleasant world by watching this show. He doesn't even miss the reruns, memorizes the scripts and speaks them out before the actors in the show say their part. One day after school, he and his sister Jennifer can't agree on the right TV channel to watch. Then they fight over the remote control and it breaks. The new remote, which will zap them inside Pleasantville, given them by a strange TV-repairman.

When they entered Pleasantville, they become the part of the show and turn to black-and-white as the TV show displays. David and Jennifer take up residence as the son and the daughter of the sit-com family. Soon, they realize that there the life is always pleasant; the temperature is always lukewarm and the seasons are always spring with no rain no snow no hot no cold weather, books have no words, roads end where they start, nothing burns and matches are useless, married couples sleep in twin beds, sex does not exist, nobody gets sick, nobody gets hurt and nobody ever questions this hassle-free life. David fits right in as he always dreamt to be, while her sister persists on him to try to figure out what should they do to escape from there. Though she changes her mind when he gets a boyfriend from school. Her attempts of putting her lifestyle on effect causes Pleasantville gets colors. Thus wonderful and frightening changes start to take place.

Pleasantville is a truly original film that soars with dynamism and aesthetic. From a social and deeply political perspective; it has deep meaning and relevance in today's society. Consequently, it should serve as a reminder for most that the world is made up of how its residents think and act. "You can't stop something that's inside you." says David, and that could be summation of all that Pleasantville stands for.

Anyone Remember this One?

[socrates4 · 7/10 · 13 January 2019]

This is an old film from my childhood. It is about a boy who magically travels into the wonderful world of his favorite black and white TV show. There is plenty of fun to be had here and even a fun later performance from the late Don Knotts, co-star of one of MY favorite black and white TV show.

Overall it's a good classic from the nineties, although sadly it seems to be mostly forgotten by now. Recommend.

It ain't Citizen Kane...

[robbscott-1 · 8/10 · 25 January 2019]

...nor is it The Bicycle Thief, Casablanca, or Taxi Driver. But it's a damn nice modern take on Capra.

The reviewers here that're trashing this film are completely missing the point - they either know nothing about film, or way too much. It's a fable, folks, and if there's lapses in logic or some smarmy moments, well, deal with it. It's a marvelous, well constructed flick and an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours.

There's no blood, or explosions. A bit of sex, but nothing gratuitous and it's essential to the plot. Cue up a copy and prepare to smile.

It's keen...!

good premise, bad execution

[amahru · 7/10 · 2 February 1999]

I think that this movie had a great premise - 90's kids get sucked into 50's TV universe, they disrupt the social order with individuality, imagination, and self-determination. However, this movie seemed like once the premise was created, played out excellently in the first half of the movie, it lost direction. There was a great setup, but the creators didn't know where to take it. They wanted to include a message, then let the message become so central, and so obvious and overdone, that it snuffed out the romp that the movie started with. I'm not against having a message in this movie - I think it was important and relevant; however the ending was so maudlin and hard to swallow that I left the theater feeling overworked.

Moving but Overly Broad Social Criticism in Comedy (spoilers)

[trpdean · 4/10 · 8 September 2001]

I just rented Pleasantville and was very moved by it. If you're wondering whether to see it, please do. It's somewhat similar in feel to The Truman Show - a warm comedy that conveys social criticism. That's why I just rented them both for the first time and watched them back to back - and much preferred Pleasantville as more profound, funnier, and having more original writing.

However, at times Pleasantville is a little odd. First, it may well rub people the wrong way (it did me) that indiscriminate nightly recreational sex by teenagers is seen as causing them to flower into real people. Thus, a teenager contracting a venereal disease becomes the amusing equivalent to lipstick found on someone's collar. Well, it isn't. It's bothersome that this is seen as meaning the teenagers have somehow acquired "real life" and flowered.

Similarly, the infidelity of the perfect suburban wife is seen as completely wonderful - the horrific impact on the husband shown merely comically because dinner isn't ready.

Somehow, the town's negative reaction to a nude painting of the wife by her lover on the windows of the local hangout is seen as perverse. The writer/director sees the painting as just a wonderful expression of a long repressed artistic sensibility. Hmmm - imagine YOUR mother painted naked on the storefront window! You wouldn't want it to remain there!

Similarly, character after character responds enviously when presented with the idea that there is a more "dangerous" world out there. Well, I wish there were less danger in the world - less likelihood of disease, of murder, of ruinous bankruptcies of people's hopes, of litigation that drives people under, of unemployment, of infidelity. These are terrible things - they ruin and end lives. That doesn't mean I want a controlled environment - but only that it is hard to imagine anyone wishing for life to be MORE dangerous.

Moreover, much of the social criticism is blunted by the fact that many of the oddities the characters find about their situation are not because they are in the 1950s, but because they are in the midst of a television show rather than real life. Thus, ALL books have blank pages, there is no known place outside that town, all basketballs swish through the hoops, everyone's routine is so rigid that the soda fountain worker is unable to cope when a worker fils to show up in time to fold the napkins while he begins cooking.

The question thus becomes whether the director is satirizing merely television shows. But if it is merely a satire of old television programs, it is strange. On Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best or Donna Reed or My Three Sons, the characters OFTEN failed - and the inevitable moral lesson about trying again or keeping one's chin up was the point of the show.

If instead, it is social commentary about conformity and repression (as the movie's point appears more to be), then the oddities of being inside a television program unfortunately vitiate the point of the movie.

I also have a problem with a movie that confuses expression with libertine behavior. It's one thing to be free to draw any picture - it's another for teenagers to contract venereal diseases through indiscriminate sex. They AREN'T the same things, and making it appear that those who are confused when their wives have simply abandoned them and their children without even a note, with those who are violent book burners or utterly rigid conformists, is really hitting too broadly.

All that said, the movie was terribly moving in showing those in a conformist society finding themselves bloom, and the confusion and shock and anger that this causes among others. It's sweet and funny, and I particularly liked how well drawn the two leads were - quite distinct people who react very differently to the situation.

It's interesting that Toby McGuire begins by trying his utmost not to upset the existing conformist social order (his sister doesn't care at all), but ends completely believably as the revolutionary subverter of that order. The movie is well worth seeing even if you think the director insists on throwing out the morality of fidelity along with the bathwater of mindless rigid conformity.

This has been my favorite movie for 13 years and I don't ever see that changing

[anieferreirawork · 10/10 · 19 February 2020]

My review is also sort of a love letter to the film. With that being said:

Where to start? First off, this movie is stunning, from the makup to the costumes to the cinematography. A visual treat to savour and get lost in, with a perfect musical score to set the tone.

Secondly, the acting in it is committed and well rounded. It does this without feeling preachy. I especially love Jeff Daniels performance because it feels so genuine.

Third of all, I found this movie so enchanting as a child and it has held it's unique grip on me into my adult years. There has never been anything that feels like a carbon copy of this movie before or since. It radiates the same fairytale, golden age style as "it's a wonderful life" while also feeling relevant to its time like "Cruel intentions," and struck a personal chord with me like "the secret life of Walter Mitty"

It's a truly stunning and lasting commentary on a fairly modern life with the spell cast by old TV shows and movies that have an "everything is perfect" quality.

Positively Wonderful

[Tetsel · 14 November 1998]

Pleasantville should be nominated for Best Director and Best Cinematography, and perhaps Best Supporting Actor for William H. Macy. Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels and Tobey Maguire are also excellent, and the idea is brilliant. In other words, this film is one of the best of the year. It is fun for the eyes and filled with wonderful allusions to great books and other films, not to mention some similar events in our country's past. If you will let yourself go from reality and put a little thought into it, you will realize the sheer genius behind this film. The messages were plenty and appropriate, and while it is extremely fun to watch, it still is able to evoke deeper emotions. Fantastic, and my vote for second best film of the year behind Saving Private Ryan.

One of the Best Films Ever

[richoppb · 10/10 · 1 April 2023]

I can only think of a few films that have so much packed into them--"Tender Mercies" comes to mind. I almost don't know where to start without seeming to be writing a doctoral dissertation.

The national obsession with the post-war period in America is rooted in the white middle class and is something I would compare, in a dissertation, to the myth of the "Gone Withe the Wind" version of the American South pre-civil war.

Tackling these issues by making this film in 1998 was a brave undertaking, IMO. Naturally, viewers like me tend to pontificate about every frame of the film (not here) and the writer, director, etc., will find this type of analysis overblown. They were on a budget, had many technical issues to overcome, and were busy "making the magic." They had internalized the story long before and were struggling with how to get it onto film on time and within budget, dealing with the actors, the locations, and all the minutia that it takes to make a film like Pleasantville.

Clearly, the film takes on that mythical period in America. I say mythical because the white, middle class enjoyed probably the most comprehensive period of positive growth and progress in our short history as a nation. Since this was the majority of the population at the time, history, as captured in film, TV, and music of the day, was mostly positive and upbeat to reflect the times and the feelings of those living in them--I was one of those children, and I was completely oblivious to the world as most children were and some still are. "Duck and cover" was about as real as the world got to us.

If you don't understand the impact of this script and the film, I don't know how to bring it to you. Either you were not there or you have not spoken to enough people to "get" the point.

The very sad part of all this is that most of the issues in the film are not only alive today, but also are front-and-center in our political players, discourse, and actions today.

Maybe if we all helped our friends and neighbors view this film again (or for the first time), we might start a more positive discussion about where we are as a nation and what kind of country we want to be.

Halfway Home

[Putzberger · 6/10 · 21 August 2010]

"Pleasantville" as about a pair of modern teenagers who are transported into a black-and-white 50s TV show. That scenario has disaster potential of FEMA proportions, so when the filmmakers avoided making a post-modern film version of "Gilligan's Island" starring Will Ferrell is half the battle. And director Gary Ross got just about everything else about "Pleasantville" half-right, which makes for a halfway decent viewing experience, nowhere near as bad as it could be, but not as good either.

The look of the scenes in the sitcom small-town is half-right -- the costumes, hairstyles and set decorations are perfect, but the pretty black-and-white cinematography and odd camera angles are more reminiscent of an art movie by Scorcese or Woody Allen than grainy single-set 50s TV. The casting is half-right. Don Knotts as the mysterious TV repairman who transforms people into sitcom characters? Perfect. Tobey Maguire as the nerdy, unpopular teen obsessed with an old family sitcom? Way too easy. Looking at Tobey Maguire back in 1998, you assumed he was a geek, so he coasts on his charisma deficit and doesn't bother creating much of a character. Reese Witherspoon as the slutty girl who introduces sexual liberation into the staid 1950s? Brilliant. This was before anyone knew how good she was, and her depth and intelligence shine through this gimmicky role -- her sense of mischief in her early sitcom scene is hilarious, her transformation into a more thoughtful young woman is quite moving. Jeff Daniels as the soda jerk with artistic aspirations? Confused. Is his character stupid or repressed? Daniels never figures it out so he plays it both ways and winds up just kind of stiff and awkward. Finally, the politics of "Pleasantville" are halfway thought-provoking. A few scenes of book burning and threatened gang rape are enough to make you wonder if "Pleasantville" is about the sentimental impulse at the heart of fascism. But that's kind of intense for an American movie so it almost literally backs away from that idea in a bizarre edit and becomes a sentimental movie about self-acceptance and self-actualization. Which is fine, just not incredibly distinctive. Good but not great.

The Color Of Life, The Joy Of Life Is It's Diversity

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 6 March 2008]

One of the most charming fantasies ever put on film was what Gary Ross did in the film Pleasantville. It's subtle message about tolerance for diversity ought to be required viewing for those of us who make public policy and influence public opinion.

Television of the Fifties seems to have fashioned an image of the American family that permeates our political views and social mores right down to today. Not that families were any better or worse during the Fifties, but the image that television created with families from Ozzie and Harriet, Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, right through to the Brady Bunch seem to set impossible standards. Including a favorite of mine, the Donna Reed Show which I believe was the model for the Parker family in Pleasantville. Starting with your's truly, I don't know anyone who had an upbringing like in a TV family.

Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play a pair of current teens who don't have the greatest of home lives. Maguire is a nerdy kid and Witherspoon is a very serious version of Kelly Bundy who thinks if she sleeps around, she'll be popular and hasn't much interest in education.

One night while Witherspoon is running late for a date and Maguire is getting ready for a marathon showing of the popular Fifties family comedy Pleasantville the remote breaks down. As if by magic, a TV repairman played by Don Knotts shows up with a very special remote. As Witherspoon and Maguire fight over the remote by magic they are transported into the television set and become part of the self contained universe of Pleasantville. Oh, and they are in black and white as the show was taped back in the day.

So with their new identities from the teenage kids of the Parker family with ideal mom and dad Joan Allen and William H. Macy, Maguire and Witherspoon seek to adjust to a new life in television land. But just the introduction of these two into this well ordered universe changes things, first in the most subtle ways and then as both realize the problems with this world in more direct ways. As the change comes, color comes slowly creeping into the black and white images.

Pleasantville got Oscar nominations for Art&Set Design, Original Score, and Costume Design unfortunately not winning any. However it won Saturn Awards for Tobey Maguire and Joan Allen for Best Actor and Supporting Actress in a Science Fiction film. I prefer to think of it as a fantasy rather than a science fiction film, though I can see that science fiction certainly influenced the creation. It combines the best elements of a Star Trek TNG pair of episodes involving Data and LeForge with a holodeck character based on Professor Moriarty and how he's dealt with and an original episode involving Kirk and Spock and some of the rest of the crew landing on a planet where the philosophy of a former sage named Landru is enforced vigorously. There's a bit of the Stepford Wives here as well.

In fact in the role of the head of the Pleasantville Men's Association is J.T. Walsh in a farewell performance. Such things that don't fit his ideas and those of an influential few are just not permitted in their paradise. Pleasantville is also the last big screen appearance of Don Knotts, an interesting choice for the TV repairman as he was a regular on the most wholesome Andy Griffith Show.

Pleasantville is one of the best films of the last decade of the last century. It illustrates that humanity's real strength is in its diversity and how we respect that diversity. It's what brings out the best in the human character, in the human spirit.

Brave New World Meets The Twilight Zone

[Lechuguilla · 7/10 · 10 July 2003]

I like this film. It's different. It invites the viewer to think about, and ponder, concepts like morality and values, stereotypes, fear, and social change. Each person will come away with his or her own interpretation of the film's "meaning". And this "meaning" will be consistent, no doubt, with the viewer's own life experiences, values, and belief system.

I consider "Pleasantville" to be a quasi-sci-fi film, one that I think Aldous Huxley and Rod Serling would both approve of.

The film does seem to get bogged down in the middle. It overplays the sex angle. And I could wish for more 1950's rock and roll music. But the acting is fine, especially the performance of Joan Allen. And the lighting is very well done.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised that a film made in the last ten years could be as original, as cerebral, and as under-stated as "Pleasantville".

A marvel

[jwpirie · 10/10 · 5 December 2005]

Very possibly my favorite film of all time. Pleasantville explores a greatly simplified fantasy world -- a hypothetical 50's TV sitcom -- and examines what happens when reality intrudes on its premises. As Shakespeare put it, "There's more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

Unfortunately, some reviewers see the film as commentary of another kind. They view it as a confirmation of, or attack on, their own personal philosophies, political, social, or the like. For those who are expecting such, let me say what "Pleasantville" is NOT:

* It is not a criticism of the 1950s, its social mores or political bent.

* It is not a celebration of liberalism versus some conservative straightjacket view of the world.

* It is not a groundbreaking, original thought piece on philosophy, religion or anything of the like.

The creators of this film could have made it such, but I think they were smarter than that.

What Pleasantville IS is a celebration of real life, in all its messy, confusing, beautiful and often painful detail. And the celebration is masterfully executed.

The device of the 50s sitcom is used to convey the film's central point: that it is often easy, comforting, even helpful for us to think about things in simplistic terms, and even that there isn't anything wrong with that per se.

But to think about REAL LIFE this way is to live a smaller, lesser life. Life without color is easy to look at, and it certainly works. But a black-and-white life is certainly less of a life. OK, that one's easy, and that's where "Pleasantville" starts. ("I'm supposed to be IN COLOR!") Even the next evolution, that life is better with sex, is pretty much taken for granted, but of course that "enhancement" to Pleasantville later brings the real-life complications we can all predict.

And the complications continue, as Pleasantville residents discover that there are other places in the world, other people, other ways to think and imagine as evidenced in the books that had all heretofore been blank. As evidenced in the changes in music we hear at the soda shop. And these complications aren't all good. They introduce upheaval, prejudice, violence.

But the film successfully carries the theme that you just can't have the good without the bad. It keeps reminding the viewer that, if you're thinking that way, you are missing a subtlety of life, and you'd better think again. And I think it goes even further, making the case that even the existence of these evils makes life the richer for living, because they enable us to distinguish what we like and wish for from what we find reprehensible.

My favorite scene of the film may be when Bud brings Mr. Johnson an art book from the library. As he leafs through its pages, we are left to wonder what life would be like had we never had the chance to see these magnificent works, what a tragedy it would be, what a smaller, meaner life we would have lived. And a later remark in the film reminds us that seeing is only part of life, that the real joy is in understanding what we have the privilege to experience.

The film seems at times like it is hitting the viewer over the head, but it's deeper than that. When Bud takes (Betty Sue?) to Lover's Lane, his first trip there, she offers him some berries as they sit on the grass by the pond. And then she gets up, runs to a nearby tree, picks a shiny red apple, and offers it to him. The metaphor is painfully obvious, but it's supposed to be. We all recognize it. The point is, Bud recognizes it too, and he realizes in that moment that the fact that not all change is good will sooner or later intrude on the lives of these people, which is precisely what then begins to happen in the film. The scene isn't precious for a "Do You Get It?" Adam & Eve metaphor, it's precious for the look on Bud's face as HE realizes the metaphor being enacted when a beautiful girl offers him a bite of a nice red apple, as his look reveals his thought: "Uh oh. This is about to get ugly."

If you're looking for a groundbreaking thought work, look elsewhere than Pleasantville. It treats a classic theme, not a brand new one. But it does not, in my view, pretend to do more than that, and it treats that theme brilliantly.

Interesting concept but flawed execution

[Aussiesmurf · 7/10 · 10 October 2002]

Pleasantville is a fabulous idea that tries to cram a heck of a lot of high concept into its running time.

Modern teenagers are transported by a convenient remote control into an apparent utopia within the small town setting of a 1950s television show.

Fairly innocent conflicts regarding 'geography' and sexual mores give way to a more serious agenda concerning small-minded prejudice, bigotry and the value of individualism. There is much use of symbolism, particularly the gradual depiction of characters and objects in colour rather than black and white.

The acting is of a high quality, with seasoned performers such as Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels and William Macy providing a solid background to (relative) newcomers Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon.

However, some of the messages and symbolism is alternatively muddled (the timing of the transformations to colour) and heavy-handed (the signs that start to spring up saying 'no coloureds'.

Having said that, there is a lot to like about 'Pleasantville', even if the loftiness of its ambitions is only partially met by its success.

Worth a look.

Don Knotts is magic...

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 23 March 2010]

Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon play brother and sister who are high school students in the present day (though they were 23 and 22 when they made the film). While you have no idea WHY, Don Knotts (yes, Don Knotts!) plays a magical TV repairman who gives them a bizarre looking remote that somehow transports them into a TV show that Tobey loves--"Pleasantville". They have no idea why this occurred or if it will ever end or if Knotts is god, but oddly neither questions this new world that is literally in black & white like an old episode of "Father Knows Best". However, unwittingly, their presence with their modern sensibilities and notions causes this seemingly idyllic world to start to slowly come apart at the seems. Notions such as freedom to choose, sex and individuality are missing in this world--and the two interlopers bring this to the plastic world of Pleasantville.

By the way, Pleasantville is odd in many ways. First, all roads in town lead right back to town and no one has ever left the town or knows anything about the world outside. Second, books are blank inside and the people have no idea about what they contain. Third, when there is a fire, the fire department actually has no idea WHAT a fire is--they are only used to things you might see in the TV world--such as rescuing cats stuck in trees. In fact, how Tobey is able to finally convince the firemen to come to his house when there is an actual fire is pretty funny. There's a lot more that is strange about the town and it gets stranger when the influence of the two outsiders slowly causes actual colors to begin appearing in the monochrome world.

The film is a strange surreal sort of thing that is truly unique. Using colorization techniques, they are able to achieve amazing results that seem to jump off the screen. It's all a metaphor about how the idyllic life of 50s TV was actually quite stilted and repressive, though Maquire and Witherspoon's life in the real world isn't exactly great either--their parents are divorced and Witherspoon is, to put it nicely, a bit shallow and slutty. A happy medium would sure be nice--combining the best of both worlds--and I think this is a valid interpretation of the film's intent. Where exactly it all goes and the unexpected consequences are something you'll just have to learn about yourself, so watch the film.

Overall, a rather interesting and innovative film. It was nominated for three Oscars and deserved kudos in these departments--for sets, costume design and music. While I wouldn't put it in the category of must-see, it is interesting and worth seeing--even if the ending is a bit too drawn out in some ways. The only real misgiving I have is the way SOME might see the film and come to the conclusions that the 1950s were all bad and repressive--a rather oversimplification of the era, to say the least. This era, like all in our history, had its good and bad points and I worry that such a revisionist view of our past will be believed by young people seeing this movie--especially since films such as this are the only way most teens get their history. I know, as I've taught US and World History--kids are THAT gullible...really. I can't really blame the folks from "Pleasantville" for this lack of awareness in teens, but it did concern me as I watched the film.

By the way, one thing I liked about the film was the courtroom scene and William Macy's acting. While he said very, very little, his face showed so much expression--now THAT'S acting!

Very good for 2/3's, ruined in last act

[Horror-yo · 6/10 · 29 March 2017]

So obviously reading just the synopsis you understand the sort of film this is going to be: metaphorical, proverbial, working on two levels, that sort of thing...

So the film does well jumping straight right into its plot, almost too quick perhaps but the whole first part and middle part are really well made. You're right in the thick of what the movie-makers set you up for, and you find yourself willing to play the little game to see just where exactly they're taking you. It's lots of fun, and the anticipation for answers is at a high level. The whole thing with the colors, the symbols, the 'changes'...

Eventually, the last act, about the whole last third, gets increasingly disappointing as it goes. Very broadly, instead of a deeper unraveling of the concept of truth or something along those lines of philosophical nobility and wisdom and touching, we're fed a totally biased ideological realization of the plot. All of a sudden, it feels a bit like a hoax to have been sitting for two hours plus of this. It ultimately promotes chaos and going wild and doing just what you want solely because you want it at that time. Basically the whimsy responsibility-free behaviors of adults of our day. Now that can't be a good message.

Some points for the intriguing, genuinely interestingly crafted first part, but it could and should've been plenty deeper in its conclusions, kept its level quality from the first to the last part, and most certainly should've had an ending at least the quality of the girth of it, rather than the girth being much better. It's wrapped up, manufactured and rushed into our faces like a mere consumable product when it's supposed to be deep and emotional and intellectual and all.

6/10.

Oh, how the world has changed. Or has it?

[MadWatch · 1/10 · 12 October 2004]

Brief recap of story: A brother and sister from the 1990s are magically transported into the world of a fictitious television show from the 1950s. There actions have consequences and result in major changes with the characters from the show.

The misandric (anti-male) messages abound. As the (positive) changes occur in the town, the adult males are the ones that are shown as being adamantly opposed,and are shown as stereotypical stuck-in-the-muds that don't like change. The adult males are shown as incompetents that are unable to even cook for themselves and gripe about having no one (i.e. their wives, which they are *dependant* upon like children) cook, clean or prepare their clothing for them.

The movie goes into depth to portray what the expectations of women back in the 1950s (e.g. cooking and cleaning), yet does NOTHING to portray the limitations and responsibilities imposed upon males, like providing for the family, wearing a suit and tie everyday and "male"-oriented work like yardwork. As with most aspects of modern culture, only the lamentations of frustrated women are shown and males are shown as living in a utopian society with no worries or limits.

Just as other movies, this movie shows a woman having a extra marital affair and it is "justified" because she has grown weary of her married life. Despite the fact that she never *discusses* the matter with her husband, who remains OBLIVIOUS to the changes that are happening, she has decided that her husband cannot cope with her newly discovered sexual desires and seeks out another man. This, of course, would be *taboo* if a man had done it; there are enough movies showing what a creep a man is who cheats on his wife, yet a when a woman has an affair it is always "justified". The father character is shown as being a nice guy, who never accosts his family, provides for them and seems to do nothing wrong, yet this also portrays him as being boring and therefore needs to change.

The movie started with an interesting premise and had really good acting and good special effects, I just found it difficult to stomach the frequent negative attitudes about males and the male bashing. This movie would fit in well in the book, Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Males in Popular Culture.

Overall the movie was pretty hypocritical. The basic premise was, "People should be free to do what they want, as long as what they want is what we tell them they want." For example, the father character was comfortable and happy with his old life. *That* was the life he wanted and he was happy with it. But this is portrayed as wrong because he is not "changing" his lifestyle to conform to what the other people are saying. Huh?