MovieChat Forums > Absence of Malice (1981) Discussion > Sally Field was miscast in this movie...

Sally Field was miscast in this movie...

posted 15 years ago by hannahp1
9 replies | jump to latest

She pouted through the whole movie-I did not believe that she would be a reporter-not hard edged enough.

That said this was still a good movie with twists and turns here and there. Also Melinda Dillion shined in a small role as a troubled young lady-Oscar nominated for this role. And Wilford Brimley was excellent in roles like this one, he looks and sounds just perfect in this movie and any other movie he is in.

If a young person watched this today-I wonder if they would realize that newspapers were very powerful before the internet/twitter/cell phones.

Good movie.

7 out of 10.

[–] Enrique-8 15 years ago

Who would u have cast? I thought she was perfect as the "girl reporter" who still has a lot to learn about the gritty world...

Enrique Sanchez

[–] pbl1 15 years ago

agreed! not her finest moment

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

[–] ellery-6 14 years ago

I think it's silly to assume that just because she has a sweet face and does not have a gin-soaked voice means that she was miscast. She gave an excellent and very believable performance, and that's what matters; not that she is too "cute" to fit the female journo stereotype.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

[–] damuser 14 years ago

I think Sydney Pollock cast her against type...to have exactly what you described...NOT a woman who looked burned out completely by a lifetime of printing "news", regardless if the slant hurts anyone, or even how much deep truth was really in it.

I can't believe it has taken me this long to watch "Absence of Malice", but it did. I was glued to my seat as I knew that kind of thing not only did happen, but still happens. I worked with journalists, newscasters and reporters from international and nation print and electronic media. This was in the 80's and the subject was child sexual abuse...before it became acceptable for the media to report on it. It was an uphill battle.

It was not only my job to set them up with interviews with therapists, adults molested as children and offending and non-offending parents...but to educate them on the subject.

I never failed to be gob-smacked when the story appeared in print or on TV. For the most part, my efforts paid off and if they quoted me they often made me look more brilliant than I was. (Joke...that's a joke!) But on rare occasions I would discover no amount of education would help as they came in with a pre-conceived notion and did NOT report the story as much as editorialize like today. Some of those had their own unresolved issues...and some just wanted to have/get a "big" expose type story.

I thnk Field's character wrestled between the girl her father raised with fairness, truth and ethics as a guideline and the editor's (another father figure) who tutored her about what and how to get the next "hot" story. "Sex, blood and guts sell." And don't forget, she was set up by the Fed's and the Strike Force. What she reported was "true" but the pre-conceived slant obliterated the "truth" from the piece.

Sally Field's look and demeanor gave the story another demension. Unfortunately, there is more of that kind of reporting today, especially with all the cable news networks, than ever before. I pity us should the day come when newspapers disappear in favor of TV and the internet. Even though this movie slams newspapers, and it's true it some times happens where the truth is irrelevant (think of Murdock's newspapers), most news editors and reporters work hard to dig to find the real, deep truth and get two confirmations for a story. And yes, there are TV broadcasters who dig deep to go beyond the sensational, though I long for the days of Walter Conkrite.

We need to reward and encourage honest reporting with our pockets (buy newspapers) and our eyes to read and watch what is going on. Above all, speak out and make your voice heard.

Sorry, 'bout all my own editorializing. But watch Absence of Malice then State of Play with Russell Crowe and Ben Afflect...much of it is about a newspaper hanging on by it's fingertips. Crowe is the old fashioned reporter who would rather miss a deadline than report garbage and is working along side an Internet Reporter who blog's several times a day! Their editor in chief wants a story NOW as she is getting pressured by a big corp-type company demanding an increase of sales and circulation. DAMN the truth! Talk about not fact checking! If we're not careful, one day you just might find your own name plastered across the internet slamming your reputation! Then who will you complain too? Both movies are cautionary tales about power, ambition, ethics and the truth. All strange bedfellows making a timely statement. (Look at State of Play" for the internet reporter. She looks younger, more wholesome, and more naive than Sally Field's ever did!)

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

She was probably too old to be able to pass off as a naive reporter but then again, they did not want to cast someone too young because there would be a mismatch of age with Newman.

Its that man again!!

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

She gave an excellent and very believable performance, and that's what matters...

Absolutely! The right blend of talent, enthusiasm and naivety. She was great as the spunky reporter who ends up out of her depth and an eventual subject of a story about which she loses control.

[–] ShaniquaJohnson 12 years ago

I wouldn't say it was exactly a pout, but she did her typical "cute little girl" thing. I kept wondering what the movie would have been like if someone who looked and acted more like a hard-boiled reporter came face to face with the consequences of her actions. We'd be less likely to believe she was duped into looking at that file, but that's not even necessary for the plot to work. He makes a big show of walking out of the room so that she can get a peek, thereby making it clear that HE didn't GIVE her the info. She just did her ace reporter thing, and everyone feels good about themselves.

With an actress not trying to be/unable not to be cute, it would have been a story with a deeper impact.

If a young person watched this today-I wonder if they would realize that newspapers were very powerful before the internet/twitter/cell phones.

And internet/twitter/cell phones is the blind leading the blind, with savvy people able to manipulate the players and the sheeple more than even this movie depicts.

[–] sirjeremy 12 years ago

I felt the same when I rewatched this the other night for the first time in years. She lacks a certain edge and I think the film suffers for it. It's interesting because in the featurette on the DVD, she says she felt she was 'stretching for the hard-boiled part' and she 'wasn't confident about the sexuality' her character had. I think all this is apparent in the film. Then Sydney Pollack says on her casting 'You have to forgive her, I was afraid if she'd played it hard-edged you'd make her a villain and not buy the love story'. I understand what he meant but I think Field played a complex role too simply and that Diane Keaton or Jill Clayburgh would have been better for this role.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Well if either of those had been the reporter, it would have had a completely different feel to it, IMHO. Neither of them have that "innocent" look. I'd not have believed them at the end where she struggles with how she handled what she'd done...how she described her trying it explain it to her father. I would not have believed either of them would have been a love interest of Gallagher. It took all the "sweets" Field's could muster to make that even remotely feasible. The look and feel of the movie in my memory retains Fields the perfect selection opposite Newman.