Revolutionary Road -- "downer" or legit tragedy?- Page 2

[best12bars]

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

I haven't see the movie yet, and I'm avoiding spoilers.

But there's something about the basic subject matter and the notion that "buying into suburbia" traps you in Hell that just rubs me wrong.

I think people create their own "hells," whether they're in big cities, suburban sprawls, or on country farms. They trap themselves in their own "I can't move" situations.

Maybe if I saw the movie, it would say something intelligent about this. But from what I can gather, all it does is paint these two people as "victims" of their own circumstances and poor decisions, and I find that trite and foolish.

And for that reason alone, I may avoid this movie altogether. Regardless of the appeal of the two stars or the artistry of the film itself.

If that's what it's about, I'll pass.

This is one of the reasons why liked the ending of "Benjamin Button" so much. As sad as it (sort of) was, there was a very hopeful message about life and how we choose to live it. How we "invent" ourselves as artists, or teachers, or swimmers, or mothers, etc. And how we can reinvent ourselves and start over as many times as we want to.

I dig that a lot more than two people screaming at each other in their pretty house.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 4:18pm

Oh good, I'm going to check tomorrow!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 4:24pm

They're not victims. I understand your concerns and reactions, but this couple would likely bristle at that thought.

I was reminded of the Mary Beth Hurt character in INTERIORS, someone who couldn't find a venue for expression. When DiCaprio character admits he has nothing to express, and no means to do so -- that he's not an artist or even a wannabe one -- it's a turning point. He sinks into self-acceptance in profound ways the Winslet character cannot. To my thinkint, the story seriously de-mythologizes the quest to be "creative." I think that's the part of it that speaks (spoke to) many in their 20s, who thought they'd be special, unique, with something to "say."

[misschung]

Posted: 12/30/08 at 7:22pm

I agree, Auggie. And I agree with Dicaprio's analysis of Frank when he says that much of what he longs for is to be patted on the head and told "you're doing a good job."

Now whether or not those actions would prevent his infidelity, I'm none the wiser. But I think that what's startling about the film - to add to your statement - is the way it says "we don't have as much to say as we think we do."

I think that the demise of both these characters is partially due to their inability to individualize themselves at home. They're emerging from the period in time when ex-patriotism was in vogue... the sense that the grass is always greener, and that it's somehow necessary to be elsewhere in order to find yourself.

The book is really a reader's novel, in my opinion, and I think that's why the film doesn't sit particularly well with some critics. At face value, the story and characters are superficial, but when you really start discussing them, the house of cards comes tumbling down. Don't get me wrong - there are definite flaws - but I think overall it's an excellent adaptation.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 7:57pm

Finally saw the movie today. I went in looking for the fabulous DiCaprio/Winslet chemistry that they have been hyping on all the media outlets, and I left with a very different experience than expecting. After reading this thread and various articles on the film, I knew what I was in for, and I was prepared. However, I wasn't prepared for how well these two people would play their roles.

I don't find much to like in April or Frank Wheeler, but I was amazed how "Leo" and "Kate" flawlessly melted into this troubled couple. While there were many Titanic parallels in small details, I rarely thought that this were the famed couple that led the hit movie.

While I don't think I particularly liked all of the film, I will say that it is a film that makes you step back and think about life in general.

I think that you are kidding yourself if you think you can re-invent yourself at a moments notice, and I think this film does a good job at explaining why. As you get older, your responsibilities and life's twists and turns will limit the possibilities. That doesn't mean that you can't be happy with what life gives you or what you get out of life, but it also doesn't mean that you will be particularly happy with how life turns out. It takes guts and risks and possible failure to change what you don't like in your life. And I think that this is an extraordinarily important point in the film. While the suburbs make an excellent setting for this film, I don't think the themes are particularly limited to the suburbs. This just happens to be where these two characters are. I could see with them with similar struggles in the city.

Overall, I was impressed, but it will be awhile before I can see the film again.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 8:06pm

I liked it, despite the banality.

[nexttoelectric]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 8:39pm

I liked it BECAUSE of the Banality.

Life is banal.

[violet72]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 11:16pm

Just got back from seeing it and I thought it was good. The acting was fabulous. I think that April was a bit bipolar, very childlike, and also a victim of the time. She wanted more in life and thats why she wanted to be an actress (I also think she probably wasn't that great) and when she met Frank she thought him to be exciting and so she was attracted to him, so when she finally moved to the suburbs and had a family she felt trapped and wanted something exciting. Just look at how she was trying to find happiness in different ways, with the neighbor, moving to Paris, and her production she was in. I believe Frank was miserible because he wanted to make April happy and didn't know how. *****Spoilerish.......The end of this movie was disturbing and upsetting but really what were her options? She had no way out. My mom and I were talking about this movie all the way home.I am so glad I am not a women living in the 1950's. April reminds me of my aunt who was married very young(she was 18 and was married in 1959) and was expected to stay at home, raise children, and never question her husband(who hit her). She had a nervous breakdown and left her husband after being married to him for 17 yrs.

Also Michael Shannon (Kathy Bate's son in the movie) was outstanding. He should be nominated. Also both Kate Winslet and Leo should be nominated

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/2/09 at 11:23pm

I'm looking forward to reading the book. I'm hoping that it will give a bit more insight to the characters.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 4:20pm

The "crazy" person who cuts through the artifice and banality of life is a bit of an overworked cliche ... yet I thought it was powerful here, used in an original way.

(MILD SPOILER)

The way the Bates and Easton couple tried to "balance" their son by exposing him to "those nice Wheelers" was a fascinating wrinkle in this story. They had a perverse sense of denail, and even more perverse sense of entitlement, forcing the boy on this couple, as if somehow their perceived normalcy would rub off and ground him. What it revealed, of course, was a complete disconnect from the reality of their son's illness and worldview. Everything is surface solutions.

The Bates character, though a timeless type, was so very era-specific, with her obsession with class and appearances -- everything is okay if you look "sweet" and act classy. Her diction, the sort of lofty, high-falutin tinged speech, was fascinating -- I saw her as a kind of counterpoint to the one played so distinctly by Patricia Clarkson in FAR FROM HEAVEN.

[wexy]

Posted: 1/3/09 at 9:10pm

I saw this afternoon at BAM. It was pretty crowded. Was a bit of a downer.When I saw how these couples got along, I didn't feel bad about having run out to see it by myself..
I'll also check out the book.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/4/09 at 12:08am

" he always seems disappointed that the movies can't be theater."

Interesting, Borstal, because I commented while watching a screener tonight that this should be a play, not a film.

This is indeed a downer and for me had no light moments. The good:

superb performances by Winslet and DiCaprio. Every performance was good, but I could see the leads being nominated for oscars.

The art direction was outstanding.

The character of John (the "insane" one) made the most sense.

It was hard to watch for me-at this point in my life I don't usually enjoy such bleak, negative downer films. An exception-I recently saw and loved Four Months, Three weeks, Two days.

Updated On: 1/4/09 at 12:08 AM

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 11:03pm

saw the movie today i quite enjoyed it... wonderful acting from both kate and leo... kate definitely deserved her golden globe win... but wow is this movie a downer... geez... but i enjoyed it nonetheless

and off topic.. what the heck is up with people who have to sit right next to you at the movie!?!?! so theater had tons of open seats around... i was sitting in a row all to myself (in the very middle) and there were tons of empty seats in front of me... yet this woman chose to sit DIRECTLY next to me... aaarrgggh!

[justme2]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 11:35pm

I saw this movie and thought the same as someone posted earlier...what was the point? The movie went off in too many directions, and I was unsympathetic towards any of the characters. Yes, suburbia is a life sucking hell...I get it.

...and who the hell has two children that are NEVER around? It's the 1950's...and her children are NEVER seen? I think I heard one toss away line saying something about them being at a birthday party. WTF? Nobody's kids are that absent, especially in suburbia. I actually found that distracting, always wondering where the hell their kids were!

[Q]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 11:43pm

"there were tons of empty seats in front of me... yet this woman chose to sit DIRECTLY next to me"

American sense of 'space' cracks me up. I hope you didn't feel too violated. Perhaps a shower will help.

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 1/13/09 at 11:59pm

and off topic.. what the heck is up with people who have to sit right next to you at the movie!?!?! so theater had tons of open seats around... i was sitting in a row all to myself (in the very middle) and there were tons of empty seats in front of me... yet this woman chose to sit DIRECTLY next to me... aaarrgggh!

I'm guessing this other person also prefers "in the very middle" seating herself and next to you was as close as she could get. :)

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/14/09 at 12:03am

ok the odd thing... i was sitting about four rows from the last row... nowhere near the middle of the theater but in the middle of the actual row of seats, justto clarify... oh and it wasn't stadium seating at this particular one...

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/14/09 at 12:11am

People do the same thing on the beach. You could be sitting on an empty beach, someone will come and put their blanket right next to yours. I never could figure that out, but someone once explained to me that there are some people who feel safer if they're sitting next to another person rather than isolated if there are very few other people around.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/14/09 at 1:06am

makes sense Jane2... oh well... still annoying!

and Justme2... i was thinking the same thing... where the hell are these children??? and how long was this damn birthday party? haha...

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 1/14/09 at 2:44am

Thanks for the clarification, eatlasagna.

Re. the movie, just so something I post here is more on topic: For me personally, from all I've heard, this one might be way too much of a downer for me, especially to view on the big screen. Maybe later on dvd or cable, on my 20 inch tv screen. :)

[Q]

Posted: 1/14/09 at 2:56am

"this one might be way too much of a downer for me"

That's kind of where I'm at regarding this flick. I just don't need or want to 'go there'.

[misschung]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:14pm

Justme - I agree about the absence of the children.I just sucked it up to artistic license...or something -- same as the .5 second sex scene.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:27pm

After repeated viewings, it was my second favorite film of 2008. (Number one is THE WRESTLER on my final list).

Powerful, stunning, incredibly moving, and gorgeously acted. Mendes is a brilliant film director and while he still hasn't achieved the flawlessness he did with AMERICAN BEAUTY, this is his best work since then.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 4:36pm

i think what really sold me on this movie was the performances of leo and kate... it was just like watching people who really knew the craft of acting... amazing watching these two

[yeah]

Posted: 1/15/09 at 8:42pm

I find his work here to be far better than "American Beauty." I just am not a fan of that film at all.