Critics said Pacino delivered a convincing and eerily lifelike impersonation of Paterno HBO
HBO's "Paterno," directed by Barry Levinson, debuts Saturday and stars Al Pacino as late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, whose "career ended in scandal," according to Ralph Russo of the AP. The movie "chronicles a two-week stretch" in the fall of '11, beginning with Paterno's record 409th career victory and going "through the arrest of former longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to the first game played by Penn State after Paterno was fired." Former Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter Sara Ganim, who "won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the Sandusky scandal, was a consultant on the film." Pacino "portrays the coach as somewhat disinterested in initial reports of Sandusky's arrest and the indictment against him, and then confused as to why it would involve him." As the story "erupts into national news," Pacino "portrays the coach as being so focused on football that he failed to take stronger action when a young assistant coach told him about possible inappropriate conduct by Sandusky years earlier" (AP, 4/5). USA TODAY's Bill Keveney noted what Paterno "knew about Sandusky’s criminal behavior has been a frequent topic of debate." The film "goes into detail about Paterno being informed" about an '01 incident, which he "reported to university authorities -- but not to police -- without taking further action." Levinson said that he "avoided taking a stance on Paterno’s complicity" (USA TODAY, 4/5).
THE TRUTH PREVAILS? In Boston, Matthew Gilbert wrote "Paterno" is a "quietly damning portrait of those at Penn State, and specifically its beloved star football coach, who turned a blind eye" to Sandusky’s child sex abuse. The strongest aspect of the film is its "stealth approach." It is "only later in the movie that the script, and Pacino’s fine performance, edge slowly but surely into the issue of Paterno’s legal and moral liability" (BOSTON GLOBE, 4/4). In L.A., Rob Lowman wrote the film "avoids rigorous judgments" on Paterno, letting the audience "decide, but clearly casts him as culpable to some degree" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 4/4). In Philadelphia, Ellen Gray wrote she "found the film’s portrait of a man whose extraordinary focus could play like tunnel vision, and whose background may have left him dangerously naive, to be plausible" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 3/30). CNN.com's Bryan Lowry wrote where the film "feels somewhat hollow" is by "essentially joining this story late in the fourth quarter." There are "too-few glimpses" of Penn State in Paterno's heyday, when "he and others conveniently looked the other way" (CNN.com, 4/5). In S.F., David Wiegand wrote the film's script is "weak and the direction is weaker, as Levinson tries to walk a fine line on the issue of Paterno’s involvement for the sake of the tacked-on finale." Pacino’s performance "counterbalances the problems with the film" (SFCHRONICLE.com, 4/2). In DC, Hank Stuever writes Levinson "sticks to the futile rage within House of Paterno." It is "possible, in Pacino’s nuanced performance of Paterno’s frailty and confusion, to find a reserve of fleeting sympathy for the man, who refused to resign and instead got fired." At the same time, it is "never possible to forget the horrors that happened where he ruled" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/6).
PRAISE FOR PACINO: The HOLLYWOOD REPORTER's Daniel Fienberg noted "Paterno" basically "delivers exactly what you'd expect" from Pacino. He "challenges you to reconcile conflicting qualities -- his Paterno is avuncular, scholarly, frail, fiery and deluded -- and he doesn't let Paterno off the hook for anything, while making it easily possible for charitable viewers to still do so" (HOLLYWOODREPORTER.com, 4/4). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Dorothy Rabinowitz writes Pacino's Paterno is "so convincing, and eerily lifelike it becomes necessary from time to time, to remember that this isn’t the actual coach." The film "not surprisingly avoids judgments about the justice of the accusations" that Paterno "knew more than he let on" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4/6). In N.Y., Cindy Adams wrote the film is "terrific" and Pacino's performance is "A-1" (NYPOST.com, 4/4). In L.A., Yvonne Villareal wrote Pacino was "careful not to mimic" Paterno, as his main research was to "watch a lot of footage of the coach" (LATIMES.com, 4/5). In Pennsylvania, Wallace McKelvey wrote "Paterno" is the "filmic equivalent of the notebook dump, recounting the ignominious final months" of Paterno "without conveying any sense of why we should care." Pacino "looks and sounds the part of the aging football coach, but the script doesn't give him much to work with" (PENNLIVE.com, 4/4).
POWER OF THE PRESS: In Pittsburgh, Rob Owen wrote “Paterno” avoids “drifting too far into crusading-journalist theatrics, but goes there just enough to show the value of such work” (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 4/5). In Toronto, Johanna Schneller wrote Levinson “takes pains” to show us that Ganim had “published a story six months earlier" about Sandusky, which "everyone ignored” (TORONTO STAR, 4/5). In Pennsylvania, John Luciew wrote the movie “maximizes the David vs. Goliath structure of a young female reporter up against a powerful-if-aging college football legend.” Ganim said, “That’s what they were looking for -- the young reporter bringing down a big giant. You know it is more complicated than that” (PENNLIVE.com, 4/3).
