Revolutionary Road -- "downer" or legit tragedy?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 1:31pm

Of all the dark movies at the year's end, this may be the darkest.

Is it a downer or an honest to God tragedy?

(MILD SPOILERS) Since most people haven't read the famous '61 book, this is a surprise package; those expecting MAD MEN with the TITANIC stars are in for a shock. The movie is almost unrelentingly bleak, with virually no let-up in the grim, bickering tone set by the dark pre-sequence prologue. The trailer makes it look like a delicious period soap, FAR FROM HEAVEN-esque (reason enough to buy a ticket, in my opinion). In style and substance it couldn't be less like HEAVEN. Though Eisenhower era suburbia is rendered with a painstaking attention to period detail, the film offers no homage to the cinema of the time (the way HEAVEN evoked Sirk)and actually works hard not to look and sound like a 50s film.

Yes, there are brief highly stylized montage sequences that bring to mind the Mendes AMERICAN BEAUTY eye -- a sea of gray fedoras sweeping through Grand Central is prominent. But underneath is a gritty, domestic realism that offers few moments to breath, even fewer to smile. (Kathy Bates, slimmed down and elegant here, might give you a chuckle or two, but only early on.)

In every way, this is a daring, even dangerous film for a release in 2008, because those seeking an opportunity to escape the economic crises and fall in love with Kate and Leo again are in for a disturbing jolt. This is one of the most despairing portraits of an ebbing marriage ever put on film. DiCaprio is remarkable, and for the first time seems fully formed as an adult male. His performance makes it must-see, but everyone should be forwarned -- this is a troubling place to go over the holidays.

Updated On: 12/29/08 at 01:31 PM

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 1:42pm

Yeah. No kidding. Especially if you've read the book.

I just wanna see how many people go to see this expecting TITANIC 2. It'll be hilarious.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 1:46pm

Eh. This strikes me as a Sam Mendes special, i.e. "If its grim, that means its deep" presentation. I'll wait for DVD...maybe.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 1:52pm

But most people have not read the book -- long in and out of print, hardly a staple on most shelves -- certainly not Kate and Leo fans. And the advertising campaign is very MAD MEN, which is a bit of a cheat, since the "isn't suburbia corrupt?" point of view is approached with unblinkint despair. The movie is very faithful to Yates' novel, and worldview, but these stars appearing in it, in the America of 2008, create a strange friction between context, audience expectation, and the reality portrayed in the book. Will be interesting to watch the responses of critics and the word of mouth.

(I'm remembering a film that belied its genre: THE PERFECT STORM. I remember people being stunned that the journey would take them, well, to the bottom of the North Atlantic, after being led to believe it was a tale of survival, redemption and "the triumph of the spirit." There was no triumph, and survival was all too brief. The take away, some one said, was watching George Clooney drown. Right or wrong, movie goers like to be reassured that they're getting what they pay for)

[bestinshow2]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 4:18pm

I came out of this movie thinking "what is the point?". It's certainly not entertainment. Granted, I knew nothing about the plot going in but if I had paid $10 to see it (thankfully I saw an award screening), I would be massively disappointed. It's not that it isn't a good film but 2 hours of misery is not exactly what I would want to spend money on. It's unrelentingly bleak.

I suppose my main issue is with the expectations of uninformed moviegoers. Honestly, they should put a tagline in the vain of "Be forwarned: portrait of failing marriage and depression. Not a feel good movie."

Design wise, I thought the Grand Central shots were entirely OTT. I love though that I saw them filming the scene of Frank sitting on the park bench watching his kids (final scene) in the tiny playground on the corner of West 21st Steet and 10th Ave. They then edited a lush park in the background.

Updated On: 12/14/08 at 04:18 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 4:58pm

Not a lot of love for it here

[danmag]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 4:59pm

Wow. I'm sorry to hear all the bad reviews. I really loved the book.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 6:25pm

Sam Mendes, the guy who packaged tired suburban gomorrah cliches in AMERICAN BEAUTY, now tells us all what is wrong with America again.

I'll pass.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 3:34pm

Bumping this up, to get a few more reactions, now that it's open in a couple of cities.

I watched it again this morning, and found myself more impressed with its artistry and careful avoidance of stylization (again, a few shots of grey suited men in fedoras aside). And the NY Times take -- that Mendes has a chilly, removed take on the material -- isn't quite fair. Many of the confrontations, starting with the first, achingly sad one, when Winslet bombs in a community theater production, are hot-blooded. I cannot fault Mendes for tryng to find a visual lexicon for the era that does NOT hit us over the head with a FAR FROM HEAVEN-esque palate (admittedly, that film is a masterpiece; this one is powerful, but in a lesser league.)

The movie is one of the more ambitious projects of the year. I will be curious if it makes any money, especially once its downward trajectory becomes more common knowledge.

Updated On: 12/26/08 at 03:34 PM

[nexttoelectric]

Posted: 12/26/08 at 4:06pm

I just got home from seeing it. I went in knowing what it was about, in general (I had read a two or three line description about how it was the story of a slowly disintegrating marriage) so the subject matter and bleakness didn't shock me.

I saw it at about 1pm and the theatre was MUCH fuller than i expected, but still only at about half capacity (maybe a little less).

Kate and Leo were both stunning. Kate is such a beautiful woman and for my money looked the part the most of all the characters (except the woman Frank has the affair with). Kathryn Hahn was a nice surprise and while i can understand some people not liking her style but I'm a huge fan.

Im pretty exhausted cause i didn't sleep last night (and saw Frost/Nixon immediately before RevRoad) so my thoughts are a little scatter shot.

[yeah]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 11:23am

I loved the book, I can't wait to see the film tomorrow. I think it's getting some unfair notes simply because it's "The Stars of "Titanic" and the director of "American Beauty does another suburban angst film." There are so many "dark" films, why is one getting a lot of negative attention for being dark?

[pushdabutton]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 5:29pm

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.

[pli1018]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 7:56pm

I didn't love the movie as a whole but I did find both lead performances top-notch. I agree there were some high points but there were many more low.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 9:12pm

Stephanie Zacharek in Salon.com:

This is a movie about two people in pain; the last thing they need is for Mendes to turn his cool camera on them. But that's all Mendes knows how to do. He's a clinical director, and whatever feeling he puts into a movie is measured out in careful quarter-teaspoon increments. Some people would call that restraint, but I always get the feeling that Mendes, whose background is in the theater, believes deep in his heart that movies are the lesser art form. Instead of reveling in the glories that are specific to movies -- the ability to reach many people at once, and to foster an intense intimacy by collapsing the distance between performers and the audience -- he always seems disappointed that the movies can't be theater. Mendes' movies always look good, to a degree: He's made it a point to work with the most esteemed cinematographers, including Roger Deakins (the DP on "Revolutionary Road") and the late Conrad Hall. Yet there's something oddly un-cinematic about his pictures: All of Mendes' movies -- including this one, with its thriving manicured lawns and claustrophobically cheery postwar interiors, look beautiful but lifeless. The characters are prisoners of those surroundings, of their meticulousness. They suffer -- oh, how they suffer! -- but they do so eloquently, aided and abetted by the best art direction money can buy.

"Revolutionary Road" is difficult to watch, partly because it's stately and dull and partly because its actors are trying so hard to make the material work, even when their dialogue is either histrionic or just numbingly bland (and in this screenplay, adapted by Justin Haythe, there's almost nothing in between). This is a movie where the quiet, placid surface of suburban life hides many dark corners; the people stuck living these lives tend to either shriek at one another or sit silently, stoned on their own resentment. We've seen this sort of thing in movies and in literature over and over again, done well and done badly. But Mendes presents this simmering, dangerous discontent with a decorousness that gussies up, and softens, its potential rawness; the movie is like an open wound that's lucky enough to have its own stylist.

[misschung]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 10:20pm

"difficult to watch" pretty much sums it up for me. Even the love scene was painful, just because it was so desperate on both their ends.

I've seen it twice now, and that pit-in-your-stomach feeling doesn't really subside, even after a second viewing..

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/28/08 at 12:19am

"the movie is like an open wound that's lucky enough to have its own stylist."

If they give awards for most straw-clutching similes/metaphors in reviews each year, this one would assuredly be a contender.

I'm looking forward to the movie and, as a movie person, as soon as I saw the people involved knew it was destined to be a complete downer.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/28/08 at 12:45pm

"...as soon as I saw the people involved knew it was destined to be a complete downer."

Is it supposed to be a musical comedy? Nowadays it seems that any movie that tackles a serious subject in a serious manner is considered a "downer". Are "downers" what they used to call "dramas"?

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/28/08 at 4:55pm

"Is it supposed to be a musical comedy? Nowadays it seems that any movie that tackles a serious subject in a serious manner is considered a "downer". Are "downers" what they used to call "dramas"?"

No, a downer is a relentlessly unhappy movie. Surely there's more to drama than sadness, right?

[nexttoelectric]

Posted: 12/28/08 at 5:02pm

There's more to Revolutionary Road than just sadness.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/08 at 12:15pm

I agree. I'm taking "downer" out of the initial subject line. There's a pejorative tone, and I think the more accurate description might be the underused (these days) "tragedy."

[misschung]

Posted: 12/29/08 at 8:48pm

Sam Mendes said that he chose to cut the flashback scenes of Frank and April's childhood because he thought it would take away the characters' accountability. He thought the audience would be more forgiving of their actions later in life if they had witnessed the faults of their upbringing, and while I understand the thought process behind that sentiment, I actually think it's detrimental to the story. Reading the book, I didn't feel inexplicably sorry at all for April and Frank, despite their past. It's clear that they've also embodied a sort of self inflicted misery that they're both clearly incapable of escaping, undoubtedly due to their upbringing, at least in part. But in the movie, I think that there's such a lack of "background" so to speak that the audience doesn't feel much empathy at all for them, or at least not as much as I think you get after reading the novel.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 3:23pm

Judith Warner wrote a great piece on our new obsessesion ("Mad Men," et al) with this era in Today's NY Times. Available at the website, it discusses how post-50's generations love to watch the systemic dysfunction of their parents and grandparents, and emerge from the analysis the "winner" in terms of progress. In other words, we love to see the tightly controlled world we've all rebelled against and survived. No matter how lousy our current situations, seeing the rigidity of post-war America makes us feel better about our plight in comparison. Those of us who grew up, at least in the late 50s, have sense memories of the era at least -- and of course, as Mad Men demonstrates, the era carried over well into the 60s. For most, the death of John F. Kennedy marked the start of "the 60s."

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 4:04pm

I'd like to read the book before I see the movie. Do you think it's available at most or any libraries? Or no.

[danmag]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 4:08pm

I think so Stockard. It's Richard Yates. Also, I'm sure it's at all the bookstores now in paperback since the movie is out.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 4:16pm

Nice new trade paperback, 14.99 at B&N. Just bought one. Whatever one remembers, the first 25 pages are so sharp and fresh, I see now why the film has caused controversy.