Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

"Cross Creek" the 1983 Martin Ritt film tells the story of feisty author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, how she came to be attached to Cross Creek in Alachua County, Florida. The script by Dalene Young, based on Rawlings' own memoirs, along with engaging music by Leonard Rosenman, do at times seem like a Hallmark TV movie, yet a Martin Ritt film is never without poignancy, contrasting elements of conflicts and choice decisions. Thought-provoking drama, emotional highs and lows, not forgetting dashes of humor (be it in brief exchanges between key characters, or bemused scenes that'd elicit a smile from you) and jolting dark moments that's part of living - it's a Ritt movie, alright.What a talented cast assembled: the Alfre Woodard's Geechie scenes opposite Miss Rawlings, played by Mary Steenburgen, gave us the exceptional camaraderie rare at such time and place of the '40s; the confrontational yet congenial Rip Torn's Marsh Turner encounters could be heart-wrenching at times and whimsical at another; the tender and vulnerable segments with Dana Hill's portrayal of 14-year old Ellie Turner facing her Pa (Rip Torn) over the keeping of the fawn (the yearling) are memorable; the simultaneously comfortable and contradictory feelings when Marjorie and Peter Coyote's Norton Baskin meet at their varying circumstantial moments - what a treat to watch their facial expressions and sensitive performances. The nuance acting did not stop with the four key roles, as the supporting cast that included Paul (Ike Eisenmann), Mrs. Turner (Joanna Miles), Tim's wife (Toni Hudson - the scene of Marjorie visiting her and the new baby did momentarily remind me of the 1979 w-d Victor Nunez' small gem of the film "Gal Young 'Un"), the Turner children, however small the role may be, had made "Cross Creek" whole.The opening credits included a frame thanking Mr. Norton Baskin (Rawling's second husband who survived Marjorie by 44 years till 1997) for his assistance in the preparation and production of the film. In the 17-minute featurette "Cross Creek: A Look Back with Mary Steenburgen" on the DVD (distributed 2002 by Anchor Bay Entertainment and Studio Canal), when asked if the film was true in depicting Rawlings at the 1983 Cannes Film Festival, Baskin responded favorably, "it's as close as you can get." We see the various moods and aspects of Marjorie, be it tempestuous, headstrong, or sheer charming, especially when the subject is food and cooking.And it is absolutely true, "Cross Creek" the film wouldn't have been (existed) if not for cinematographer John A. Alonzo's supremely enchanting camera-work. The bayou marsh vegetation scenes, the trees and reflections in the waters, the sky and clouds mirrored in the river surface, the natural nature scenes that are very much Cross Creek's own in the rain, wind and sun - we are blessed by Alonzo's cinematic artistry and craftsmanship. Excerpt quoting of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings': "Who owns Cross Creek? The earth may be borrowed, not bought; may be used, not owned; it gives itself in response to love and tenderness, offers its seasonal flowering and fruiting." This is a guarantee of worthwhile viewing, indeed. As Mary Steenburgen pointed out in her featurette on the DVD, "Cross Creek" the film included a 'bonus' 20-second cameo appearance of Norton Baskin in person at the beginning (about 7 minutes into the film) - catch it if you can.

I actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matinée on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.

I was inspired to revisit this classic after seeing Mary Steenburgen in Time After Time with Malcolm McDowell. McDowell had a small part in this film also as Rawlings' publisher.Eighty years ago, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings gave up everything to move to Florida and write. She went as far away from everything as you could go. In the land of orange groves, cypress trees, and wildlife abundant, she found the inspiration she needed. This is her story.It is peppered with colorful characters that lived in the backwoods of Florida, a place that hardly exists anymore with all the development. It featured outstanding performances by Rip Torn as her neighbor, Peter Coyote as the one who was trying to win her heart, Dana Hill as the young girl that inspired "The Yearling," and Alfre Woodard in one of her first roles.Torn and Woodard got Oscar nominations for their performances.One of the most impressive features of the film, other than showing the beauty of Florida that is long gone, is the respect shown for the land by Rawlings. Any Native American would be proud of her respect for the land.It is an inspirational family film that is worth revisiting over and over.

Sorry - but I have to strongly disagree with anyone who thinks this movie's boring. I think they've missed the point. The story is supposed to be reflective of the times in which it takes place. This is a VERY "laid-back," rural Florida. Although a "woman's story," in a certain sense, I admire the bravery that this "genteel" woman had - just as I admire anyone who "does their own thing." She took a LOT of chances in order to follow her desire to make something of herself - on her own.I could go on about specific points in the story, but really don't have the time right now to do that - and, in any case, some others on here have already done that. What I will say is that this is one of the best "character studies" that I have EVER had the pleasure to see.Perhaps we have become too accustomed to the continuous action-packed and often violent films of today for some viewers to fully appreciate a just plain good dramatic character study such as "Cross Creek." Perhaps we've become too used to the language in today's films: i.e. every other word being "the f word..." Maybe that at least in part accounts for how and why some might consider a just plain down-to-earth GOOD drama as being "boring."Give it another chance - this time watching it without expecting a "thrill ride," but rather in studying the effort in acting which goes into each and every one of the characters in the story. I guarantee that you will then appreciate it a lot more, viewing it as I believe its creators intended.