Sleepers
**Trigger Warning: “Sleepers” touches on subjects like rape and sexual abuse involving minors.**
“Sleepers” might have one of the most stacked productions in terms of talent to be a film that no one really thinks about now. It didn’t really cause a blip in the careers of Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Minnie Driver, Robert DeNiro or Dustin Hoffman, other than being the lead-in to a much better collaboration for the last two with writer-director Barry Levinson in 1997’s “Wag the Dog.” Jason Patric didn’t really get a bounce from it ahead of his panned star turn in “Speed 2: Cruise Control.” The cinematographer is Michael Ballhaus (whose best American work was with Martin Scorsese), and while the music by John Williams got nominated for an Oscar, it feels like one of those “Williams composed something, he needs to be nominated” type of nods for the master. Normally, this would have been a prestige Oscar bait film for Warner Bros., and I remember it being sold that way in 1996. What happened?
If the film hadn’t gotten bogged down in the same controversy as the 1995 novel it was based on, it might have had a chance for that prestige run. (Though given how much voters went with indies that year, maybe not.) The novel was the second one by Lorenzo Carcaterra, and the author’s insistence that it was based on a true story, despite the New York DA not having a case like it in their files, set off a firestorm of heat around it. Levinson was always an interesting choice to write and direct it, but watching it for the first time since 1996, he was probably the best choice because he could get strong work out of the cast that was thrown at this film; even small roles for Bruno Kirby, Billy Crudup, Ron Eldard and Brad Renfro are strong characterizations. Carcaterra later admitted to changing names and dates, but stood by the veracity of the story; I still don’t believe for a second this story is entirely true (taking name and date changes into account), but the feelings of friendship and loyalty between the four friends in this film, and the people in their orbit, are palpable. That is what I think is most honest in Carcaterra’s writing, and what comes through most in Levinson’s adaptation.
“Sleepers” begins in 1966, and follows four friends in life around Hell’s Kitchen in New York City. Shakes (Joe Perrino) is our narrator, but it’s his adult self, played by Patric- he is the character Carcaterra based on himself. Shakes, Michael (Brad Renfro), John (Geoffrey Wigdor) and Tommy (Jonathan Tucker) are seen playing street ball, pulling pranks, going to church and struggling with home lives involving abusive men. On the streets in where they thrive, and they have a friendly priest (DeNiro’s Father Bobby) looking out for them, and a friend in Carol (played by Driver as an adult) who will help them. They eventually get caught up with King Benny, a local gangster, and get bolder in what they do. During a prank against a hot dog vendor they’ve ripped off dozens of times, a man almost gets crushed to death by the hot dog cart, and the boys are sent to the Wilkinson Home for Boys, where they are looked after by a sadistic guard (Bacon), whom sees them as ripe prey for physical violence and sexual abuse (which is more implied than shown).
That is just the first part of the film; eventually, the kids get out, but never talk about it. One day, in 1981, Tommy (Crudup) and John (Eldard)- whom have continued to work for King Benny- walk into a local bar, and they see Nokes, Bacon’s character, and the memories come racing back. Tommy and John confront him while still in the bar, and shoot him in cold blood. Shakes (Patric) is now working at a local paper, and Michael (Pitt) is an Assistant DA who leaps at the chance to prosecute Tommy and John’s case. Why would Michael do such a thing? He wants to throw the case to become a referendum against the abuses they faced as boys. The only thing missing is a defense attorney whom will play along (played by Hoffman) and a witness who will lie about being with Tommy and John on the night of the murder; who better than their boyhood priest?
If you can honestly look at those two paragraphs of plot synopsis and say truthfully, “Yes, I believe that happened,” I’m not even sure what to say. The scheme Michael cooks up as an adult is enough to take it out of the realm of believability, because I would think a case like this would have been bigger news before Carcaterra’s book. This story isn’t the makings of a prestige Oscar film, even with crime, abuse and courtroom drama (which was in ample supply in 1996, between this, “A Time to Kill,” “The Chamber,” “Primal Fear” and “The People vs. Larry Flynt”); this is pulp, and taken as such, it’s entertaining to watch. I think Levinson understands that this is inherently pulp, as well, because the way some of these scenes are staged feel straight out of crime fiction rather than real life dramatization, and that’s why “Sleepers” works as well as it does. 2 1/2 hours is way too long for this movie, especially since much of it revolves around the courtroom case, and what we see of said case isn’t really enough to hold our interest. The actors are fine in the roles- Eldard and Crudup don’t have much to do after the murder- but Pitt still feels too young for this role, and Patric isn’t really a leading man. The most interesting work is done by DeNiro, whose Father Bobby has a difficult moral decision to make, and Hoffman, whose lawyer seems just competent enough to pull this off, but still shaky enough to make us think he could blow it, as well. (Driver is underused. I wish she had been a stronger part of this story than just window dressing.)
Levinson does a great job of drawing us into the world of the kids; he approaches the first part of this film with the same sense of youthful remembrance that Scorsese brought to Henry Hill’s early life in “GoodFellas.” He’s wise not to show the abuse except in hints of what’s happening- that would have been a bridge too far- but when these characters grow up, he falls into very typical crime thriller cliches that not even Williams’s score can bring to life. The last scene, however, with the friends reunited, brings the warmth and sense of youthful friendship these four lost at Wilkinson back to the film. Even if the film up to that point feels implausible, that sort of reunion landed with me, and the film ends on a strong emotional note.
