Revolutionary Road

Buck, that's OK.

I was at a multi-generational function a number of years ago and a guy I know socially, about the same age as me, with three kids, a guy about as straight as you can get came up to me and we were just talking and all of a sudden, he looks around and says, "You know the difference between us and our parents? Our parents ignored us". And he laughed. But he wasn't trying to be funny

And Dools, I understand your point but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the way my parents, who went through the depression and WW2, and our generation raised our kids

 

My thoughts:

I question relevancy. The movie's general subject is the relative suffocating nature of gender roles in the 1950s. Sounds trite maybe to say it, but we knew this. The Yates novel - whatever it is or isn't - isn't necessarily appropriate for an adaptation just because it exists. I doubt, for example, anybody really wants to see A Separate Peace or an adaptation of any of Joyce Carol Oates' earliest work ("Expensive People" or "Them"). The Chocolate War, for example, was made right at the moment when it probably could last be made. To make it now would seem odd, weird. Parochial schools aren't really like that anymore.

So I guess, in a lot of ways, I wasn't so much depressed by the proceedings as detached from them. We must be honest: Americans today wholly embrace their dreams and ditch their responsibilities. That's what reality TV is. That's what a 50 percent divorce rate is. That's what single moms and single dads represent. That's where no-credit mortgages came from. To see a movie that essentially condemns the 50s for the trappings of adulthood seems utterly at odds with current reality. I'm not defending that era, per se. I am suggesting we've gone completely in the other direction by now.

Casting didn't help. DiCaprio is pretty versatile in my book, but he's not a suit. Not the silent suffering trapped type. He's the opposite of that, which is Catch Me If You Can and The Aviator work so well - his natural charm makes you grin in scenes where another actor might rub you a different way. Kate Winslet does what she can with a mostly shrill, unhappy woman. You sense a greater wisdom in April, a kindness, that never quite busts out. Rather, her intelligence really manifests into an elaborate protest that culminates in, well, you gotta see the movie.

And Kathy Bates didn't belong within nine miles of this film. Good God. And I love Michael Shannon as an actor (all the way down to a little turn in that dumb Eric Bana poker flick) but if you're going to cast an "unstable person" you may not want to select who looks kooked the minute you seem him. Was Jeremy Sisto not available?

The movie's stagy, showy, all shadows and backlight and setpieces. Whatever, fine. Is it accurate to the time? Eh. Yeah. There weren't many women who looked like Kate Winslet, though.

 

You're sorta articulating why I think that movie essentially fails. Honest to goodness, for as much as critics liked it, a lot of regular folks struggled mightily with it. And to me, a movie that completely flies over the head of half the population is just trying to be odd.

The movie is intended to be a meditation, really. On the nature of evil, of its place in the world, of time passing while evil persists. The book has a more cohesive, consistent narration that clues you into it. The movie, IMO, doesn't. The last 30 minutes are a collection of scenes rather than a summation, and the scenes follow the book but they have no rhythm, no connecting tissue. I've spoken to a lot of people who figured Jones' last monologue is just a dream he had; in reality, it's the key to the film, the uplift, McCarthy's sole nod to a higher power. It went right over people's heads.

 

Just again reading Richard Ford's review of the novel 40 years after the fact, and I think this line summarizes my thoughts on the book and film (although Ford professes to admire the book greatly):

<i>"There are moments in reading "Revolutionary Road" when I'm made to wonder exactly which human qualities its author would finally sponsor as both virtuous and practicable. What would prove adequate to hold the fabric together long enough to get through life in one acceptable piece? Clearly something more's required than the standard livelihood protocols - the train, the office, advancement, collegiality - since all lead to other postures of controlled collapse. Marriage qua marriage is also plainly not adequate. Likewise parenting. Paris - the old, fragrant dream of freedom - seems out of reach."</i>

In many ways, the movie is a Greek Tragedy. Doomed from its opening, awaiting the deus ex machina at the end.

 

I disagree with those who can't stomach There Will Be Blood more than once. I think it repays repeated viewings.

On another topic? Zombie Vonnegut? Best handle I've seen in a while. I hope he's still a Coffee Achiever.

 

There Will Be Blood is many things. A rare film. The battle of wills between two conmen is not often that interesting.

 

I would venture to say that most parents these days don't really have much choice in the matter of "ignoring" their kids. It used to be parents could and would participate in a lot of their kids' activities. I used to play catch with my dad all the time because baseball was my favorite thing. I'd spend time on word puzzles and such with my mom. Do most parents sit with their kids and play video games these days? Maybe they do. I think the one thing that hasn't changed, though, is that most kids don't want their parents constantly paying attention to them.

 

Alma, great take as always. I do happen to disagree on the relavancy question, but only a little.

Maybe I'm inserting myself or my situation into the movie too much, okay, I definitely am........... but I had a great life as a sportscaster before I had a kid...... traveled, saw exciting things, met interesting people....... then I had my baby, cut back my hours, and basically live the suburban life. And a woman at my child's preschool asked me why I would want to have kids and trade all that excitement for the "dull suburban existence." This woman is bored silly with 3 kids and not at all very happy. There is some April Wheeler in her.

But you bring up a great point about divorce. Throughout the movie, I kept thinking: Divorce was not an option?? It was certainly an option for my grandmother, who was a mom in that era and divorced twice.

 

I think we're in an age of polar opposites, pall. There's the extreme of excessive devotion and the extreme of neglect. Few are able to find a happy medium.

 

There are always going to be unhappy people. But I'd argue that Little Children - a movie I'm not all that fond of, but still - could be adequately compared to Revolutionary Road and serve as a now/then juxtaposition. The differences between the two cultures are pretty vast, specifically in the way women viewed and treated their children. The men in that movie are suitably pathetic, but pathetic in a different (and relevant) way.

 

There Will be Blood is an amazing film, but I don't see too many people sitting through multiple viewings.

Everybody I know who has seen Revolutionary Road essentially says the same thing, "Yeah, it's well-done. Yeah, it's well-acted. But don't see it unless you really want to be depressed."

 

I've got no problem with depressing movies, but this movie lacks any real interest for me.
And Alma summed up why very well.
(I'll still end up seeing it on DVD most likely.)