Rain Man Analysis

I would say Rain Man’s reputation lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum when it comes to best picture winners. It’s not held in as high esteem as a Schindler’s List or Ben-Hur, but neither is it as reviled as a Crash or Oliver!. Instead, it lies somewhere in the realm of the Slumdog Millionaire’s of the world, nether beloved nor despised. After viewing Rain Man, I would have to put it into this middle category, but more towards the lower end of the continuum.
Rain Man tells the story of Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise), an avaricious L.A. resident who seems to make his money selling imported cars. As Charlie and his girlfriend Susanna (Valeria Golino) leave to go on a weekend getaway, Charlie gets a call that his estranged father has died.
Charlie returns home to Cincinnati, only to discover that he has inherited only his father’s prized rose bushes and 1949 Buick. The rest of the estate, totaling $3 million, has gone to an undisclosed trustee. Charlie does some digging, and finds that the money was left to Raymond Babbitt (Dustin Hoffman), the older brother he never knew he had and who is an autistic savant. In an attempt to get his share of the fortune, Charlie takes Raymond on a road trip to L.A. with him.
When someone talks about Rain Man, they will talk about Dustin Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance as Raymond. (Say what you will, though, this is a supporting performance, despite Hoffman’s first billing and his best actor win). Undoubtedly, Hoffman portrays the autism of his character convincingly. His monotone voice, vacant stare, and peculiar movements all seem entirely natural, so much so the audience can occasionally forget that Hoffman is performing. As impressive as Hoffman is, however, I hold some reservations about his turn because of its broadness. Hoffman doesn’t have to bring any subtlety to the role. He just has to go big and imitate someone who has autism, which means he doesn’t even have to show emotion. He does provide a convincing imitation, but in this case the broadness of the performance did detract from it.
Hoffman primarily shares the screen with Tom Cruise’s Charlie, and Cruise does fine in the role. This is just another typical Cruise character: cocky, endearing, handsome, and fast-talking. But at this stage in his career, it appears Cruise hadn’t yet achieved mastery over this persona as he did a few years later in films like A Few Good Men or Mission: Impossible. So, he does OK as Charlie, but in his body of work the role does not stand out and seems like minor Cruise. (Also, it should be noted that Cruise and Hoffman share some chemistry, but nothing mindboggling).
Overall, I would call the performances in Rain Man so-so. Hoffman is good, while Cruise is serviceable, but no one gives a fantastic turn. This so-so evaluation can also be applied to the directing by Barry Levinson. He uses an understated style of directing, which is fine, especially given how many people find the performance of Hoffman so captivating. Nonetheless, I wish Levinson had done something to make the film more cinematic, rather than just allow viewers to watch Cruise and Raymond interact. I wish he used more techniques like his use of long shots (at the first hotel Raymond, Charlie, and Susanna stay in, at the doctor’s office about halfway through the film and at the hotel in Las Vegas). These shots show the isolation of Raymond because of his autism, making him seem far away and separated from the other characters. If Levinson had used the camera or some other techniques to enhance the themes of the film more, he would have greatly increased the film’s entertainment and intellectual value.
Despite the passable performances and directing, my real problem with Rain Man resides in the screenplay by Ronald Bass and Barry Morrow.
My issues are twofold. First, this movie is utterly predictable. It follows the many of conventions of a road movie to a T, such as the characters running out of money and having to concoct a harebrained scheme to acquire funds. Furthermore, the entire relationship between Charlie and Raymond and the trajectory it takes was as conventional and trite as they come, leaving me with very little interest in the story because I knew where it was going from the second Charlie and Raymond go on their road
trip.
Second, this movie treads dangerous territory in its portrayal of mental illness.
About a year ago I wrote a paper for an intermediate composition class in college. This paper examined the portrayal of mental illness in cinema and its impact on viewers. One of the things I found was that when a movie links mental illness to greatness (as Rain Man does to a certain degree by making Raymond a savant, instead of just a normal person with autism), it can cause the viewer to think either A) that people with mental illness must be extraordinary people, or B) that only extraordinary people can cope with mental illness. Rain Man runs this risk by making Raymond a savant. This problem could have been solved by simply eliminating the savant aspect of the Raymond character. Granted, he may have been a little less inherently interesting and the whole Vegas sequence couldn’t happen, but this would have prevented any negative repercussions of linking mental illness to greatness.
In short, nothing at Rain Man particularly stood out to me. Hoffman’s imitation of autism is convincing, but too broad to move into the upper echelon of performances. Cruise is fine, but he plays this type of character better later in his career. Levinson’s direction is too understated in all but a few instances. And lastly, the screenplay is as predictable as they come and portrays mental illness in a morally gray way. The combination of the elements results in a below average best picture winner and movie in
general.