On the surface, Witness looks like a mash-up of two tropes: the good cop protecting an eye-witness from danger, and a fish out of water flick about a man forced to assimilate with another culture. While those elements are inarguably in play, this is one of those movies that falls under the category covered by Roger Ebert’s quote, “It’s not what a movie’s about, it’s how it is about it.”
And as directed by the great Australian filmmaker, Peter Weir (Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously, Fearless, Dead Poets Society, Master and Commander), Witness “is about it” in ways that few might expect from its basic description. I was recently surprised to learn that despite winning two Oscars (for original screenplay and film editing) being nominated for a total of eight (including Harrison Ford’s only Oscar nomination ever, for lead actor), and being a sizable sleeper hit, not all critics were taken with the film at the time of its release.
As I recently learned from Janet Maslin (the great former film critic for the New York Times) in a post of hers on social media, her predecessor as the main critic for the Times, Vincent Canby, dismissed the film as “pretty, but not much fun.” While Maslin didn’t name other negative reviewers in her post as she referred to the film’s initially mixed critical response, she did point out that Siskel and Ebert were two of the few to recognize Witness as an instant classic, which explains why my assumptions about the film’s reception were set in stone: back in 1985, the only two film critics who existed for me were Gene and Roger. It never occurred to me that if both of them loved a film that there would be any outliers.
I suppose the best way to start in talking about Witness is to go to the start. The opening ten minutes plus drops us right into the lives of an Amish community. A woman named Rachel (a luminous Kelly McGillis) has just been widowed and without any overt exposition, we meet her young son Samuel (Lukas Haas in one of the truly great child performances), her father Eli (Jan Rubes), and Daniel (Alexander Godunov) a man who wishes to comfort Rachel, but would also clearly like to be her next husband.
After the funeral, Rachel and Samuel go to the train station to visit family in Baltimore in the hopes the trip will stifle their grief. While you are told it’s Samuel’s first trip on a train, the wonder in the boy’s expression as he makes his way through the Philadelphia station makes that fact clear enough. Haas is quite marvelous here, never more so when his innocence is shattered when he sees a murder take place in a public restroom. Two men enter while one man stands in front of the mirror, the two men slit the throat of the man, and as his body drops to the floor, we see Samuel hiding in a stall, viewing the horror through the slit in the door. If the fear in the moment is palpable (and is it ever), it’s because it’s reflected in the eyes of Haas sans any sense of “acting.”
One of those murderers (McFee) is played by Danny Glover, in a rare villainous turn. As McFee’s anxious co-conspirator looks over as McFee casually walks over to the sink and turns on the water, his partner in crime asks with desperation in his voice, “What are you doing?” To which McFee replies with malevolent nonchalance, “I’m washing my hands, man.” If Glover ever delivered a line more icily, I haven’t heard it.
Among the film’s most wonderful attributes is its pacing of the film. It’s not until after the murder, a full 16 1/2 minutes into the film that Ford’s detective (the perfectly named John Book) arrives on the scene. You have to credit Weir’s confidence in the material here. It would have been very easy (and audience-friendly) to have introduced the film’s star early in the film, but Weir understood that getting a taste of the Amish culture and their traditions would be integral before immersing John Book into their community. In showing that restraint, Weir helps us understand that however strange it may be for Book to be among them, it is also strange for the Amish to let an outsider in.
You can palpably grasp how alien a police squad room is to Rachel and Samuel as they look through books of convicts and answer questions about the assailants—they are a very long way from home. While Samuel recognizes no one from those books or from the lineup of possible suspects he views, he does discover that McFee is a cop, and as Book carefully pulls down Samuel’s pointed finger from a framed article of McFee in the squad room, we quickly see in Book’s face that this is no ordinary case. The enemy is within.
After a shootout in the police parking garage leaves Book injured by McFee’s gun, Book whisks Rachel and Samuel away and back to their home. Book tries to leave them there and drive off, but he’s lost too much blood, and as you see his car wander off the road and take down a birdhouse, it’s clear Book will be staying for a while.
All of the crime-thriller aspects are a bit of a “MacGuffin” in Witness. The commercial trappings of the genre are just a lure to pull the viewer into the story Weir really wants to tell, that of an “English” hiding out in an Amish village, and, however briefly, becoming one of them.
As Book recovers in hiding (knowing he can’t trust his own chief), he slowly integrates with Rachel, Samuel, Eli and others in the community. Book’s efforts to fit in leads to multiple comic beats. Book dressed as an Amish man is funny on sight, and when Book struggles to milk a cow and Eli asks him, have ya never held a teat before?, Book’s response: “Not one this big,” is priceless enough to make Eli laugh at the outsider’s bawdy joke.
Book’s assimilation is not without its bumps though. When Samuel discovers Book’s “gun of the hand,” Book carefully takes it from the boy, removes the bullets, and then lets the boy handle it—something Rachel is disgusted by. When Book hands her the gun for safekeeping, Rachel holds it like something that came out of homemade fertilizer. It’s a subtle moment, but it’s also a reminder (however intentional or not), that our gun culture in this country is a filthy one.
That sequence is soon contrasted by what might be the most beautiful scene in the film: the barn raising. As the village comes together to raise a barn for a newlywed couple among them, Book’s skill at carpentry (a gift that Ford possesses in real life) is put to use. There’s not much audible dialogue during the sequence, just a group of men constructing a barn with nary a power tool at the ready over Maurice Jarre’s gorgeous lilting score. Women are seen quilting, bringing the men lemonade, a beverage Daniel shares with Book even though he’s picked up on the growing chemistry between John and Rachel.
Watching Witness again, I was struck by how much of the storytelling is purely visual. Weir expertly shows Book and the Amish interacting by doing, not so much by talking. This is incredibly graceful and romantic filmmaking. There’s a beautiful scene set in a barn as Book tries to get his wrecked car going, but all he can accomplish is to get the radio to play. Of course, if the radio is playing Sam Cooke, then compensations abound. As John and Rachel dance to “What A Wonderful World,” they are discovered by Eli who later warns Rachel of becoming too close to Book, lest she be shunned. While an Amish village out in the rural sticks with no phones and less than spectacular public records may be a great place for John Book to hide out, his presence brings great risk to Rachel’s standing in her community. Because, the fact is, they do want each other.
You know from the way they lock eyes when Book stumbles upon Rachel topless, washing herself in a sink. Book’s mouth hangs open at the sight of her, and Rachel lets the moment linger far longer than safety would seem willing to allow. So, it’s no surprise that when Book is finally ready to leave, Rachel tells Samuel to “go to bed” at a time that is clearly early, and she and Book whisk themselves away as if taking a brief time out from the expectations of their opposing worlds. Book has to return to his world and Rachel must stay in hers. This stolen moment is all they will ever have.
Before Book can leave on his own, he is discovered (largely due to letting a bully have it in a very un-Amish fashion in the middle of town) by his crooked Chief Schaffer (a desperate and despicable Josef Sommer), who along with McFee and another henchman head to Rachel’s village to kill John Book, and quite likely Samuel and Rachel too.
It’s to Weir’s great credit that the romantic aspects of the film live so comfortably beside its more noirish aspects. The film integrates the emotional so well even in the action-oriented climax of the film that you never forget what is at stake. The Amish took a grave risk when nursing John Book to health, and Book (who we learn early has no family of his own) lets down his guard enough to fall in love with a woman he cannot have. The risks the characters take in this “crime thriller” are as much emotional as they are physical.
None of this would be possible without the seemingly effortless chemistry between Ford (never better) and McGillis. As John Book tells Samuel goodbye, he then sees Rachel. They regard each other without a single word, because not one is needed. As Rachel allows herself a slight smile as Book turns to leave, it’s a moment that has to be among the most heart wrenching goodbyes ever captured on film.
The final line of the film is a real beaut too. Eli waves over at Book as he’s about to enter his car and drive off. The old man says, “You be careful out there among those English.” For a brief time Book was as much one of them as perhaps any outsider could ever be. He will take a part of that with him.
Book then pulls out and onto the road, passing the birdhouse he fixed after breaking it upon arrival. He stops to talk to Daniel, who is coming to squire Rachel. Daniel is a good man who will likely make Rachel a fine husband.
He’s just not John Book.
33 Comments
Yup, it’s a good one. Like I said a couple of days ago, if the 1985 Oscars could be revoted this would win.
The Color Purple is the defacto winner in any revote, for 1985…
Witness is a great and beloved film, but TCP is something unique and truly special, and one of the best films of one of the top directors in history… Weir, as great as he is, is second tier after the likes of Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick Bergman, Kurosawa, Wilder, Lang, etc. Weir comes in the league of Cameron, Ang Lee, Carpenter (even if it for me, it would be first tier, but I acknowledge I am in the minority), etc.
But voters would know Spielberg has won twice and Goldberg won once. They could give Oprah the Oscar and be enough for the film.
On the other hand Harrison Ford has never won nor has Peter Weir, who surely is worthy enough to be in the list of winners.
While no one under 50 can remember who Geraldine Page is I suspect if we did it all again, Anjelica Houston would be moved up to lead Actress where she’d probably be the favorite to move away from the Oprah Juggernaut.
Although I do suspect Witness and The Color Purple would be a battle for the win. Although Harrison Ford has become such a major star over the last decades that love for him would probably be enough to carry the film.
This is a ridiculously fun premise, “If voted on today who would win the top 6 awards?” Hint… Hint… Ryan!
the historycal outrage is still that TCP won nothing and Goldberg was robbed…
this is literally the first time I read or hear that Witness and Ford were robbed or should have won. Is this a case of going with the flow? Positioning as closer to AD’s thinking? Like, what? Are we going to rewrite history? When talking about 1985, the films mentioned are usually The Color Purple and, specially, Back to the Future (THAT, was clearly robbed from many noms, and should have walked away with Original Screenplay, with ease). I find amusing someone would vindicate Witness over these two, as much as I think it is a great, great film and 100 times better than Out of Africa. But for Peter Weir’s Oscar… 1998 for The Truman Show, shouldn’t be?
‘Brazil’ was the best movie of 1985.
top 5, for me, but I still think that what TCP achieved was more deserving
And then some.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a6f83885aa2202ca9bc9dc15798ba2f86b5f297c22a29beda67191d6583f8cc7.gif
I’ll always take Blood Simple.
I am merely stating that if it was revoted today, with everything we know about 1986 to 2022 winners, Witness would likely win. This, of course, factors in the wins and snubs since then, like Weir not getting one and releasing such quality films as Truman and M@C. I am calculating that Goldberg might not win because everyone will know she won for Ghost a couple of years later. Everyone will know Spielberg has won twice so there wouldn’t be a desire for him to win over Weir. Everyone will know Ford went on to one of the most legendary careers in Hollywood but never once won (or even got nominated again).
I am not saying we go back in time. Maybe if we used today’s voting methods Color Purple would win BP, but I am assuming we are using the ancient voting methods with the Academy Members of that time. It would have been unimaginable that winning BD and BA didn’t automatically mean winning BP.
Peter Weir should have won the Oscar for directing The Truman Show.
p.s. He did win the BAFTA Best Director that season beating Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan) there.
You are the only person I know who still talks about The Color Purple. No. One. Cares.
Speak for yourself, Weir is up there with the very best directors alive and frankly leagues ahead of Spielberg.
On ‘85, it would be my second pick (significantly better than OoA/TCP), but Kiss of the Spider Woman is the best of those nominees. In hindsight, as a chance to reward Weir it would be great for that reason too, and maybe the best consensus choice of the 5 nominees.
Witness also isn’t one of Weir’s top tier works. The Last Wave, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Gallipoli, Master & Commander and The Truman Show are the big five that capture him at the peak of his powers. I personally think Green Card is just as good as Witness.
After The Colour Purple the best film in the 85 Best Pic category,Haas is wonderful,McGillis given not a great lot do but does it with deep feeling,Ford’s best Dramatic performance and also Jan Rubes who may have fitted onto the weak 85 Supporting roster.
Weir is always a master of mood more than anything else,fine with actors too,doesn’t let them go to Actorly.
Respectable film, but even though it won the screenplay award, it never made total sense. Why Book would go to the Amish community and endanger everyone’s safety to hide out while he healed is illogical. Also, I guess the FBI was closed when the whole thing went down, leaving him no one else he could go to.
Everyone knows there is no FBI in Pennsylvania. It’s because we are a Commonwealth, not a state.
There are 8 field and satellite FBI agencies in PA.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f6e65d5424e5632fe9fbaa59a6dec664a6a241d59d9120c6718e2a76e249ee7.gif
Clearly you’ve been accessing highly classified information and should probably be arrested.
I can help you though, I have this Amish friend who can help you hide…
https://insidefirst.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/amishtrainer.jpg?w=640
“The name’s Book. John Book.”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ec2f046577b04c2e6a2c0f883c45990e27a788792c90f0180a2046f8d4ef6b0.jpg
It was 1985. The records on the Amish were poor, there was no internet, and they weren’t in the phone book. It’s not that complicated. In the film itself it explains that finding a Rachel Lapp in PA Amish country is more than a heavy lift.
Especially with their distrust of outsiders.
By the way, finally saw Scream 6 and… at my surprise, it should be totally in the conversation for Picture, Adapted Screenplay and Film Editing (I’d add Sound) right away. 2nd best in the franchise and way more than just entertainment, the meta commentary actually works as a game of mirrors – as in the best of the franchise – to the audience and the film industry itself. There’s not a single bad film in this franchise, despite 3 being somewhat disappointing.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87cfc54f98d082fc1cbe11fc3e7b931e19aa64677b51fe8361f9750780c4937b.gif
watch the damn film. If it came out last year, it probably would end on my top 10. It’s popcorn, for sure, but only the set pieces alone, and it would have been an amazing theatre experience with a crowd, from the get-go… I am sad I couldn’t watch it at a theater (my fever didn’t go below 38, with peaks of 40 degrees celsius, for 3 weeks, I almost ended in an hospital and lost 7 kilos… still pending on many tests, my health isn’t recovered but I am working again) when it was released. Watched it a second time the day after I posted it, and it holded perfectly, knowing what was going on. Second best entry in the franchise, almost as good as Craven’s original.
The opening, the supermarket, Gale’s fight, the underground and the apartment scene, brilliant set pieces, full of twists and unexpected turns… and while never abandoned the soul of the franchise, it still delivered surprises and introduce ideas, opening for the 7th film and supposed closure of this new trilogy. It felt completely fresh, and that’s great for a 6th entry on a slasher (actually more thriller than horror) and it made wonders with the NY setting
Don’t worry, it won’t compete for awards at all. But it is worthy, way more than plenty of Best Picture nominees in the last years.
I’ve seen all of them and the only decent one is 4, and that was saved only by the scene where Emma Roberts beats herself up. The series has grown stale and repetitive and the Hayden Panettiere “death scene” in 6 is so poorly staged, it’s risible. Let the damn thing die in peace.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b398266cfcce93cf898220b4dbf0396882ff3db77cee8c54fca5b0e862530b54.gif
I think we don’t see films with the same eyes. Scream is tremendously self-aware and some wooden acting is kind of demanded, given what’s commenting about.
It’s the deeper layer, the one that actually works as a mirror to audience and the industry – and therefore, to our society itself – what makes this franchise so poignant, about the spectacle and fascination with violence and the lack of actual empathy…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb566bb38627b8648a2b757903e8585cf31ba5af24dceb834eb8ac08cd7b8e10.gif
Again, this thread is about Witness. Who cares about Scream??? Are you so bereft of friends that no one wants to listen to you going on about your tangents? JFC. I really wish you wouldn’t comment on my articles. You lower the discourse.
I saw Witness a long time ago but I need to rewatch it as I was too little at the time. 🙂
Still, when it comes to Peter Weir how can one forget the masterpiece The Truman Show..?! 🙂
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/319945ec43765ee11dc2bd6bbf2c4407bee77248efeb4fb5b4da77b7b4a88f13.jpg
He’s a giant. More people should say so.
And the article begins with a grievous omission: no mention of Picnic at Hanging Rock, one of my favourite all-time movies.
It’s not a laundry list. I wasn’t going to write out every single movie Weir has made. Seeing as how he’s made no bad ones, it would take up a lot of space. That’s what IMDB is for.
Spider-Man: Across the Multiverse review embargo is finished in Spain. 2 reviews, two raves saying even better than the first, both say that blow your mind in every single aspect, and one of them says not only a lock to win Animated Feature but probably would be up for Best Picture (praising also Screenplay, Film Editing and Score, specially).
Also that one, warns audience that 1) it doesn’t have a post-credits scene and 2) it’s the first half of a bigger picture, as the other half is scheduled for next year, Beyond the Spiderverse, so don’t expect a closed ending, but an open one.
If that review is right, it could be up competing to be nominated in Picture, Adapted, Film Editing, Score and probably Sound as well, along with a locked Animated Feature nom, if that happens, I don’t see it losing Animated, but if it only scores Animated, it won’t win it, as there’s a 3rd part coming this year, and also the original also won… it would be like forcing the AMPAS to give the franchise 3/3 and that’s asking for too much.
EDITED: embargo is ovr and 95 RT and 86 MC and raves all around. Some review even states that is in the running to be the best superhero film ever…
WTF does any of that have to do with Witness? You are so disrespectful to the writers on this platform. You just want to talk about whatever you want to talk about, and not actually engage with the article itself. How the hell do you go from Spider-Man to Witness unless all you care about is whatever nonsense you want to go on about? If I sat next to you on a plane, I’d ask for a seat on the fucking wing.