An Enemy of the People (1978)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

One of Steve McQueen's last films which sat on a shelf for a bit & was a passion project for the late, great action star. People tells the story of a doctor who's spring, which was cultivated as a means for the townsfolk to heal themselves, is now a source of pollution. In an effort to alert his fellow neighbors of the dangers, his unscrupulous brother, who happens to be the mayor, turns against him fearing the town's future financial well-being to be in jeopardy. Adapted by Arthur Miller from an Ibsen play, this is more a filmed play than a film. One wonders why McQueen, an actor who staked his claim on less is more (he would periodically cut dialogue from his scripts) would value this talky, preachy exercise. Look for Ingmar Bergman regular Bibi Andersson as his wife.

I can understand the studio's apprehension to show this film in the States. After all, it lacks the story elements that are supposed to make a film marketable. The only thing it does have is fantastic writing (from a play by Henrik Ibsen) and a story that has a lot to say about human nature and the destructive power of the people.This story is set in Norway in the 19th century. A town is anticipating becoming rich as a spa town and there is a minor unanticipated glitch. The doctor who works for the spa owners (Steve McQueen) had the water tested and has found it's filled with harmful bacteria which is the result from runoff from a nearby tannery. At first, most of the folks he tells seem appreciative that this was discovered. But over time, selfish self-interest turns the town into a lynch mob and the power of the majority turns out to be a dangerous thing.This story is a HUGE change of pace for McQueen and it is relatively slow paced. But it also is brilliant and incredibly insightful...and packs a very, very strong emotional impact as you watch. Exceptional and well worth seeing...even if it is among McQueen's least known films.

As a childhood fan of Steve McQueen, I had been harboring in my heart for many years the hope that I would someday be able to give this up-until-recently "buried" picture a mature review. With this year's Warner Bros Archive Collection release--which amazingly, included this long-obscure title--I was able to do just that.Prior to typing this small review; I took a moment to read the 11 other IMDb user-comments for the movie. They are all quite spot-on in their assessments. I see little that I can add to them for the purpose of simply encouraging newcomers to seek out this McQueen episode. The film is exactly what they say; and if you are fascinated by the story of how the production came into being--as I am--you will be satisfied with the end-product.One place I veer from those reviews is in the labeling of the performances (McQueen's or Bibi Andersson's) as "Oscar deserving". The performances in this film are--I was relieved to see--universally very solid; and the actors more than stand up to the rare, theatrical material and this unusual stage/cinema experiment. But that's as far as I will go.There are many reasons to seek out this small, quiet movie; many reasons to savor every bit of it as it unfolds; and at the end of it all, there are quite a few reasons to enjoy and value the picture. Fans of Ibsen; fans of theater itself; fans of good acting; clever period set design; those interested in political theory; and enthusiasts of 1970s movies in general, will all be pleased by this movie. It is good to know that this type of film was capable of being undertaken in 1978.Of course, it is not a perfect outing. There is some awkwardness. There is some ineffectuality. Its a slow picture in places. And it is not a film that would have shaken the movie industry--or the world--had the studio allowed it to circulate.I'll just tick off some personal pro's and con's:Disliked: the camera spends far too much time on a couple of minor characters--the newspapermen (and their ethical shallowness); the romance between the newspaperman and the daughter is not developed (or later rescinded); and the ending of the movie is perplexing--this is probably the most serious flaw. The film just sort of "trails off". Additionally, the movie is almost **stolen** by a supporting character of no significance - the sea captain!Liked: the 'family dinner' scene; the superb acting of Charles Durning; the sets and costumes; the lighting and feeling for 'small town drama'; the quality of the adaptation in general (speeches and mannerisms were modern enough to not cause any "anachronism'); the sweet title and credits montage (daguerreotype style); the wonderful supporting players; and Steve McQueen, of course.Saving the best for last. Steve McQueen. I am so glad to be able to see him in this performance. It is just as vital to see him in this, as it is to see him in 'Papillon', 'The Reivers' and 'Thomas Crowne'. I watched with pleasure, his characterization. Because this film, as those others are, films he deliberately sought out to challenge himself; films via which he wished to broaden himself and express himself as an actor and a man. That is to say, expressing his values by his choice of roles.It was a treat to see all the familiar McQueen mannerisms shine through--to see his mind at work in the exercise of those mannerisms for each scene; and to observe the respect he pays to his character by keeping his powers under restraint. He discards all traces of the 'movie-star' McQueen here. He is slow and careful; with fine and detailed gesture and expression. Its a respectful performance; he acknowledges the duty he owes to the noble material.Remember that--this being entirely his production--his idea to even embark into these waters--he could have done anything he wanted. But he takes the high road. He worked for scale pay and he works in harness, like any other actor who cares about doing a good job first and foremost. Though his speeches are hoarse and controlled; though his hands shake and his shoulders are stooped--he is as powerful here in his meek, frail doctor's guise as anywhere else in his career; riding a motorcycle or what-have-you. To see him in the public meeting--after having been shouted down by his community--choosing to stride right through them with family in tow, making his way past their despising glares, is a true 'McQueen moment' and should not be missed by any of his fans.Its a heroic role; and McQueen had a heroic role in trying to bring this odd, unwelcome project to the big screen. I am mightily proud to have been able to see it.

First and foremost, I have waited 6 months to get this film and to watch it, I finally watched it and it was well worth the wait. The film follows the Ibsen play very well, although I was a little disappointed with the way the film ended, it followed the story, but I don't think it was as effective as the book.Steve McQueen is probably the only person who could bring Dr Thomas Stockman to life in the way he does. It's just a crying shame that this film never reached the cinemas (Warner Brothers didn't know what to do with it, after a few negitive reviews). Although Steve tried to get it realized in the art cinemas, it never reached the wider audience.If you get the chance to see this film, then see it you will not be disappointed with it, Steve deserved an Oscar for his performance, (and also Papillon and the Sand Pebbles). No idea how many copies of this film are available, but I was lucky to get it imported, and I'm glad that I was able to get my hands on a copy10 out of 10 for me