Review: ‘A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood’ is (surprisingly) not about Mr. Rogers

(CNS photo/Sony)

“Children feel safer,” Fred Rogers once said, “when they know what the rules are.” So do moviegoers. And it is hard to believe they won’t be a little bit taken aback by the rule-breaking afoot in “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.” The fact that there is a big-screen “Mr. Rogers movie” is no surprise, nor is the casting of America’s perennial good guy, Tom Hanks, as the saintly (if not quite sainted) children’s television host. But this is not the “Fred Rogers story,” nor is it a dramatized version of last year’s first-rate documentary, “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” If Hanks wins another Oscar, it will not be for Best Actor. He is—as unlikely as it seems, given the context—a supporting player.

The central figure is Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys, of “The Americans”), a magazine writer based on the real-life Tom Junod, author of a celebrated Esquire profile on Rogers, whom Junod has credited with changing his outlook on life. It certainly changes Lloyd’s, though his journey from angry journalistic hatchet man to understanding father, husband and son may not be exactly the plot viewers are expecting.


The fact that there is a big-screen “Mr. Rogers movie” is no surprise, nor is the casting of America’s perennial good guy, Tom Hanks.

Even if one does not buy into the entire package—I certainly did not—the intentions are good, and easy enough to figure out: “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” is a movie about Fred Rogers the idea. It is about forgiveness, as both an elusive and an achievable quality. Lloyd, who has a professional reputation for taking his subjects down, is angry with his father, with no small degree of justification: Jerry (Chris Cooper), boorish and abusive, abandoned Lloyd’s mother when she was dying of cancer, along with Lloyd and his sister, Lorraine (Tammy Blanchard). When Jerry abruptly resurfaces at Lorraine’s wedding, it leads to a fistfight. Ugly, yes, and resonant. And revealing.

The short version: Mr. Rogers leads Lloyd down the path to forgiveness. En route, the director Marielle Heller—who, coincidentally, was also responsible for last year’s Oscar-winning “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”—takes quite a few chances. For exterior shots, she uses toy sets—just like the ones that used to adorn “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” Aerial shooting also reduces human characters to the scale of playthings as they travel around New York City and, later, Pittsburgh. Puppets—King Friday XIII, Daniel Tiger and other inhabitants of the show’s Neighborhood of Make-Believe—are worked into the narrative. The directorial flourishes are affecting. What is problematic lies in the movie’s DNA.

The directorial flourishes are affecting. What is problematic lies in the movie’s DNA.

The screenplay is by Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, whose most recent collaboration was “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil.” Their Mr. Rogers movie might have been called “Beneficent: Master of Serenity, Empathy and Agape.” Save for a moment at the very end of the film that concedes that a germ of disgruntled humanity might actually lie beneath the ever-understanding, cardigan-clad exterior of Fred Rogers, he is always in character. This may have been exactly who Fred Rogers was, of course, but because the film incorporates so many dream sequences and outright hallucinations—mostly via Lloyd—you are never entirely sure that Mr. Rogers is not intended as a mirage as well. This would not be an uninteresting idea, academically speaking. But a film is not emotionally engaging when you are forever wondering about what astral plane you are all supposed to be on.

Hanks inhabits Fred Rogers wholly, with an admirable consistency, but while “creepy” does not quite describe it, there is an ethereal quality to the actor’s presentation that borders on parody. Caught between the otherworldly Fred and the off-putting Lloyd, a viewer might not know where to turn, although Joanne Rogers (Maryann Plunkett), Fred’s wife, provides a moment of lucidity and spiritual reason. Asked by Lloyd what it is like being married to a “living saint,” she rejects his premise.

“If you think of him being a saint,” she says, “his way of living is unattainable.” One could argue that point, perhaps. But what Mrs. Rogers is talking about is the marketing of goodness. And for several generations of children, her husband was its master salesman.

Correction, Nov. 22: The name Maleficent was originally misspelled in this review.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

We don’t have comments turned on everywhere anymore. We have recently relaunched the commenting experience at America and are aiming for a more focused commenting experience with better moderation by opening comments on a select number of articles each day.

But we still want your feedback. You can join the conversation about this article with us in social media on Twitter or Facebook, or in one of our Facebook discussion groups for various topics.

Or send us feedback on this article with one of the options below:

We welcome and read all letters to the editor but, due to the volume received, cannot guarantee a response.

In order to be considered for publication, letters should be brief (around 200 words or less) and include the author’s name and geographic location. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

We open comments only on select articles so that we can provide a focused and well-moderated discussion on interesting topics. If you think this article provides the opportunity for such a discussion, please let us know what you'd like to talk about, or what interesting question you think readers might want to respond to.

If we decide to open comments on this article, we will email you to let you know.

If you have a message for the author, we will do our best to pass it along. Note that if the article is from a wire service such as Catholic News Service, Religion News Service, or the Associated Press, we will not have direct contact information for the author. We cannot guarantee a response from any author.

We welcome any information that will help us improve the factual accuracy of this piece. Thank you.

Please consult our Contact Us page for other options to reach us.

When you click submit, this article page will reload. You should see a message at the top of the reloaded page confirming that your feedback has been received.

[Are you a smart, funny, spiritual person who wants to chat with other smart, funny, spiritual people about movies? Join America’s Catholic Movie Club on Facebook!]

More: Films

The latest from america

The meeting “renewed the will to pursue the institutional dialogue at a bilateral level to foster the life of the Catholic Church and the good of the Chinese people.”
Gerard O’ConnellFebruary 14, 2020
Pope Francis is not the first: Pope Benedict XVI also called for a “civil economy,” in his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” (Retired Pope Benedict XVI being greeted by Pope Francis on June 28, 2016. CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano, handout)
The pope’s gathering of economists in Assisi next month is part of a long process of establishing a new economic model that goes beyond financial self-interest, writes the social entrepreneur Felipe Witchger.
Felipe WitchgerFebruary 14, 2020
Photo: Sony Pictures Classics
As did Martin Scorsese in “The Irishman,” director Marco Bellochio poses challenging questions about guilt and the nature of truth in “The Traitor,” a film which does much to remove the glossy veneer of organized crime.
Ryan Di CorpoFebruary 14, 2020
Photo: Unsplash/Svyatoslav Romanov
At times “10 Things” feels like being witness to little acts of self-liberation.
Jim McDermottFebruary 14, 2020