Revolutionary Road (Sam Mendes, 2008)

[Jeff]

American Beauty is worse than Crash.

I don't know about that. That comment is kind of like the "x politician/executive/forum mod I don't like is worse than Hitler" comments. Crash is the Hitler of cinema -- or something.

[domino harvey]

American Beauty is worse than Crash.

I don't know about that. That comment is kind of like the "x politician/executive/forum mod I don't like is worse than Hitler" comments. Crash is the Hitler of cinema -- or something.

More like one's Goebbels and the other is Goebbel's assistant

[dadaistnun]

Glenn Kenny more or less raves.

[a.khan]

I feel I should get a medal for not bringing the house down, after reading this childish review:

As for Mendes, he lets the material and the actors do much of the work for him. He doesn't altogether eschew cinematic flourish, though. Working with ace cinematographer Roger Deakins, he tends to favor long takes here, but rather than aspiring to the fluidity of Ophuls/Preminger/Kubrick, he does his own thing with them—having a non-Steadicam-ed handheld keep up with Frank's impotent, enraged pacing around the house, or holding one character in focus with the background blurred, then shifting the focus to the other character for the remainder of the shot.

[Cde.]

When did well worn shot concepts like that become Mendes 'own thing'?

[Mr Sausage]

Mendes pioneered the rack focus?

[souvenir]

Having watched this, I'm honestly unsure whether Mendes was deliberately trying to make a film in the style of '50s Hollywood cinema or if he thought that was his only choice. Everything is well done, but almost too much so and to the point of being overly slick. Much of the film seems forced, especially Dicaprio's performance. There's conflict after conflict, but the larger problems between the characters struggle to gain any emphasis by the focus instead being on shouting (as opposed to, say, more subtle brooding). Like American Beauty and The Road to Perdition, I found some of Revolutionary Road to be extremely effective but Mendes seems unable to make an entirely cohesive film that resonates beyond obviousness.

The one unabashed upside is Michael Shannon, who's a joy to watch steal his couple of scenes from Dicaprio and Winslet.

[Anhedionisiac]

Oh man oh man I want to see Michael Shannon break through so bad I'm turning gay.
I don't even care that the movie looks smug as hell, anything that gives him the spotlight, however briefly, is a-okay by me.

[GoldenPilgrim]

I saw this followed by a Michael Shannon Q & A. He explained that the reason he "appears" to steal the scenes from Kate and Leo was that they were gracious and let him - in those scenes they are just reacting, while Shannon is doing. It's easy to agree that he's just being humble.

He also said he has been approached to fly down to Peru and act in a Herzog film!

[moviscop]

I saw this followed by a Michael Shannon Q & A. He explained that the reason he "appears" to steal the scenes from Kate and Leo was that they were gracious and let him - in those scenes they are just reacting, while Shannon is doing. It's easy to agree that he's just being humble.

He also said he has been approached to fly down to Peru and act in a Herzog film!

Could it be The Piano Tuner perhaps? I'm excited now.

[Jeff]

Could it be The Piano Tuner perhaps? I'm excited now.

Nope -- well, maybe, but let's scoot any further discussion over here to avoid taking this off topic.

[moviscop]

I was watching a few clips from Revolutionary Road and also some interviews with Winslet and DiCaprio. I think my biggest concern is about the writing. I watched the scene on Jay Leno last night and was very unimpressed by the realism both actors brought to the "beach scene", it was a let down in the context shown. For those who have seen the movie, do both actors mesh when conversing with each other or is there weakness in the dialogue?

[rs98762001]

The dialogue is fine when it's taken directly from the book. A few times, though, they make the fatal mistake of turning Yates' description of internal thought processes into dialogue, and in those cases it feels a lot more expository and heavy-handed as a result.

Overall, though, a clip taken out of context isn't the best way to judge this film. It's purposefully theatrical and stylized, from the dialogue to the composition to the performances. It won't work for everyone, but it mostly worked for me. It's not a great film by any means - it feels stilted and fussy at times, and Mendes only occasionally hits the emotional resonance he's going for (and which the book did so incredibly).

But DiCaprio was somewhat of a revelation. I've never been a fan, but here for the first time his boyishness is used deftly against him. Michael Shannon is worthy of all the praise he's going to get. Overall, it's Mendes' best film by some distance, even though that's going to seem like I'm damning it with faint praise.

[filmnoir1]

I saw this tonight and I have to say that it blew me away. DiCaprio's performance is fascinating to watch because at times it seems as if he is channeling Gregory Peck in the Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and at others as if he is embodying the tender/violent masculinity that Brando made famous in the 1950s. While this film may seem cliche in light of recent shows like Mad Men, what makes the film work is Mendes ability to really show the mental, physical, and social pressures imposed upon this young couple to conform to the era of conspicuous consumption and the happy homemaker, especially in the early scenes. Both Winslet and DiCaprio are outstanding in this film but it is his film more than hers, both in choice of angles and the dialogue. There is a power and brutality to this film that is clearly reminiscent of American Beauty but here it is not just about the environment that creates a sense of angst and disphoria, it is the very people who sell themselves and their dreams out to fit the American ideal and in the process are reduced to mindless cogs who go around harming one another even as they make lots and lots of money.
I like the scenes of the men all going to work on the train. Mendes uses the power of the suits and hats as a metaphor to show that by living in a world where everyone looks alike then they can attempt to block out their pain and real feelings, feelings which are constantly dulled by alcohol. This sense of dullness and conformity is used in conjunction with the visual palette of the film: there are lots of blues, golds, greens, reds, baige, etc.
Easily one of the 10 best films of the year.

[John Cope]

For those of you who have seen the film and liked it (like you filmnoir1), I'd love to hear your reactions to this piece. Tully had posted his concerns about this adaptation a couple years back and he's linked to those initial observations here as well. A fascinating and distinctive take.

[John Cope]

So I guess I'll answer my own post. I'll actually go further than filmnoir1 and say that it's likely the best American film I've seen this year. Absolutely exceptional across the board and deserving of close consideration, especially given the astonishing amount of truly hateful responses it has received (like this one from Reverse Shot). I think the reasons for this antipathy go far beyond what is stated or implied or assumed on our part and constitute much of what is profoundly fascinating about the experience of this truly monumental work.

First, I will acknowledge that I have not read the book and I'm sure I am likely to be more generous to the picture than one who has read and loved it, like Tully above. Still, part of what I find most deeply valuable about it is the fact that it works so very well as cinema but with an aesthetic many may simply not like. But I really feel that unlike most times a proper favorable reaction to this particular film absolutely requires a direct engagement with its most virulent critics as what is at stake here is so significant and pivots on very specific cultural adjustments. As I say, much of Mendes' approach may simply be rejected out of distaste but this is to reject out of hand a systematically applied thematic and stylistic design which pays great dividends if we are willing to accept its legitimacy. Beyond that though there is the more problematic occlusion that occurs with the particulars of cultural perspective and that is harder to reconcile.

Having said all that I will admit as I watched this that I wondered how most would react to the film. I can't help but think it will have only a vague anthropological value for many. Do the specifics of these circumstances have great truck with a lot of people? I think the risk toward reduction is significant and inherent to the material itself, though to the credit of all involved it is not their fault if that is what happens. For my own part I was riveted from beginning to end and, beyond that, transfixed even; distressed on occasion to the point of distraction and distinct anxiety. RR resonated with me far more than I would like and in multiple ways. In other words, it became a profoundly personal experience and, as such, may render my conclusions somewhat suspect. But I do believe that it is the potent artistry on full display here that cut into me, and my reaction is not purely a product of a specific psyche.

I'm not sure where the notion has come from that so-called suburban ennui films are these oh-so-obviously banal didactic commentaries from and directed toward those with very little to complain about. This seems like a dangerously dismissive reaction to a whole subset of very real social and cultural problems. But I too am often hesitant with this kind of thing and went into RR with trepidation as I know all too well how easy it is to make a film which is an equally dismissive statement of this sort and deserves the derision it receives. Even an earnest picture with the best of intentions can simply regurgitate what we all already think we know and thus not challenge us and, in fact, simply congratulate us on our retrospective perceptive acumen, as with the posturing hyperbole and false hysteria of Haynes' Far From Heaven, a counterproductive self-conscious exercise.

It amazes me that critics are saying that this film has little to say about our own times. That certainly makes me feel more marginalized than ever in my own reaction. Perhaps it's the unfashionable idea that Mendes has that we are to take even the small moments seriously, especially as they are what lead to what is undeniably not small or petty. All this is tied inextricably into a formal scheme which cuts very deep and is not at all satisfied with superficial shots at a supposedly superficial time. Without this commitment the film would just be another pandering liberal assessment of a currently reviled era, cast in only the most shallow of terms.

But that is not what happens. From the start when April and Frank are introduced to us they are "in character", posturing with cigarettes in hand, perfectly coiffed, trapped in a fully formed, already fully realized image. But unlike Haynes's noxious self-congratulation under the banner of "love of the medium", these moments are a message to us to be alert to the depths and nuances of sensitivity and sympathy on display here. Because these are fully inhabited roles, not actors pointing out "Oh God, look how conformist the 50's were!". The tragedy of April and Frank is the tragedy of a limited spectrum of imaginative scope and vision and the gradual realization of same. Mendes' high artifice style perfectly captures the suffocating claustrophobia, not of the maligned times, but of two very specific psychologies , both of which are still as absolutely relevant today as ever. This absurdly laughable notion that because of highly touted economic ruination we are all post-consumerist is simply wrong. If the 50's are the template it is because they may prove to be the best go-to template historically speaking for a period that is still very much with us and will be till absolute economic collapse.

Mendes' style is also the justification for his unique approach to character orientation. Critics scoff with irritation at the fact, for instance, that April and Frank's kids are rarely seen--as though this is some gaffe. Perhaps instead it may be profitable to ask why they are hardly ever seen. Frank's secretary is also little more than a prop for his ego and this is as it should be in a cloistered psycho-dramatic world such as the one in RR. All the other characters merely serve as enablers or sounding boards or, in the case of Michael Shannon, reflections of truth. To be honest, this is the only way the Shannon stuff works for me as otherwise it is simply too telegraphed, too much of an on the nose, flat on the screen literary embellishment. Interestingly in a film so full of real rage and emotional flare ups (so much more resonant for me that the similar stuff in Virginia Woolf), Mendes never loses sight of the horrifying point of his ruminations. They are all perfectly realized in the gradual fade out denouement; no satisfying resolution or even release being possible.

I couldn't help but think of my own circumstances and responses during the course of this but I also thought of friends who all, to one degree or another, filled in the gaps and articulated the truth of Mendes' vision of things. I have a friend for instance who is a fine artist but has endlessly bemoaned his social and economic circumstances and yet it is often hard to imagine that he is not in some sense grateful for the justification to be "unable" to pursue his ambitions. Similarly, I know a couple whose marriage is fraught with anxiety (though carefully subdued) due to exactly the kinds of romantic disillusionment on display here. Of course some will say, and rightly, it's no easy task to have a marriage but it's the particulars that interest me. RR is unsparing in the way it calls us all out on all our illusions. And the carefully rendered logic of the many arguments (all of which build and adhere to a welcome coherence) is impressive as it adds immeasurably to their force.

I realize I've said little about Dicaprio and Winslet. They are hardly incidental. They are revelatory, shattering here. The agony of these encounters never felt feigned to me, despite Mendes' admirable "high art". And the distress of faltering ego and the crushing force of recognizing inadequate spiritual courage was simply leveling.

One final anecdote if you'll allow me. I remember getting a ride home from work once with a woman who was very self-evidently upper middle class and aggressively content with her lot when asked about it. At one point in our conversation I inquired about her husband and she told me that he worked some kind of insane amount of hours at some job that sounded stupefyingly dull. I then asked her how he could handle that. She seemed genuinely put off that I would question his assumed satisfaction. She said that coming home to her and his "little darlings" were all the vacation he ever needed. I would have been less effected by this story if he had been the one attempting to convince me of its truth. Anyway, the image came back to me as I watched the scene in which Dicaprio returns home to his own "little darlings" and makes the effort to be appeased.

[Barmy]

The world really needs another suburban ennui film. There is nothing more pathetic than "urban" "artists" "looking" "at" "suburbia" "or" "corporate" "life" (sigh) "and" "envisioning" "ennui". If you actually lived among the suburban hoi polloi you might realize they are less ennuiy than you think. Actually I'm not sure whether it's better or worse if the sources of this earth-shattering VISION are wealthy themselves. (No doubt Kelly Reichart thinks this ilk is ennuing 24/7/365/6.) This sounds like the dumbassiest film ever. [-(

[moviscop]

Revolutionary Road wasn't the best film Mendes has done. In fact, it was almost too close to the progression of American Beauty for my taste. The score, the dysfunction, the cruel hatred; it all seemed so familiar. I enjoyed the film but could not help but feel that I had overestimated Mendes. He seems like a one trick pony who knows one trick very well. His one trick is crafting a very gloomy environment of dysfunctional families, tragic endings, and the same score over and over. He does it in a very sterile and efficient way but it is getting old. If Revolutionary Road wins Best Picture it would be the equivalent of American Beauty winning twice.

On a lighter note, DiCaprio, Winslet, and Shannon all did a phenomenal job acting. I can't speak for the book adaptation because I have not read it. However, the film did inspire me to read it and discover how closer (or far) they left from the original pages.

Armond was right.

[tavernier]

Armond was right.

Not the best way to end your post.

[John Cope]

I'm more sympathetic to Armond than most here but he's wrong about this one and it's no surprise as when he's wrong he tends to paint with an overly broad, dismissive brush.

As The Wheelers, a perfect-seeming, golden-blond, white American middle-class married couple in Revolutionary Road, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet press all the high-drama buttons, yet they don’t resemble anyone anybody actually knows. Their marital problems, based on each person’s sulky personality—Frank’s a restless philanderer, April’s a frustrated artist, they’re both jealous of each other—could fill an HBO mini-series. It’s cynical dramedy for people who pride themselves on being smart—that is, unsentimental.

Well, I'm the farthest thing from being unsentimental and laud that quality as much as Armond does, but he's simply being stubborn and undiscriminating here. First, as I said, the Wheelers certainly do resemble people I know and, yes Barmy, people who actually live in the suburbs. Are those people atypical? Perhaps. But isn't the Wheelers disruptive self-consciousness the point? It's the specificity of their experience within what feels like a claustrophobic milieu that counts. That's why the hemmed in theatrics and the slick style and layed-on-thick musical score are so important; even the sparkling sheen of Winslet's hair is critical. Mendes integrates these motifs into the fabric of what is eating away at the characters. They pile up and register the inescapable and undeniable, often appropriately visual, boundaries to vision; the limits to perception. This conscious awareness of the inability to not integrate or assimilate the mundane and middling is the tragic element. And it represents a baser societal dysfunction because it does more than condemn one set time; it demands a reconsideration of the ways in which consensually derived social structures delimit perspective. In other words, if not capitalism, what would or could effectively handle the Wheelers' disaffection? Or is it simply endemic to the particularities of a certain character?

As to moviscop's remark that the whole thing is overly familiar and too reminiscent of American Beauty, I would say, without arguing the merits of AB, that this should not necessarily discount the potential truth of the scenario. This particular truth is one dependent on personal resonance I'll grant you but recognition of the emotional element is key to Mendes' strategy. Also, I view AB as a dry run for the more vexing and persistent truths on display here.

And for what it's worth I don't align myself with Kelly Reichart.

[moviscop]

I understand what you are saying and don't bash you for liking the film.

But...

I watched it for a second time tonight and was disappointed. The main problem is that both actors aren't very good in this film. DiCaprio isn't ready for a husband role and Winslet is too immature to realize the depth of her character. Armond put it brilliantly when he said "Leo and Kate resist a Catch Me If You Can good time." This is what bugged me so much about their performances. Their was that faint insincerity in their performances. It was almost like they were laughing in-between takes. They didn't mesh together as a believable suburban couple in my opinion.

Also, the entire film was too shallow to even be on screen. American Beauty at least had a definite beginning-middle-and end that were poetic and beautiful (no, I didn't think it was pretentious). In Revolutionary Road, even after the first scene, one cannot come up with a plausible ending that would bring some sort of structure to the film. It comes as no surprise to anyone who has seen American Beauty and Road to Perdition that Mendes fixates on the

Spoiler

gloomy endings.

The film just wasn't that good. It isn't an American classic by any means, nor the best film of the year. It was a shallow piece of melancholy cinema from a man who does suburbia well, but can obviously not bring out anything deeper about dysfunction than he did with AB. Mendes needs to branch out and start experimenting. His sterile cinema is starting to wear thin on plot points and created a really pitiful portrait this time.

[Jeff]

DiCaprio, Winslet, and Shannon all did a phenomenal job acting.

The main problem is that both actors aren't very good in this film. DiCaprio isn't ready for a husband role and Winslet is too immature to realize the depth of her character.

[moviscop]

watched it for a second time tonight and was disappointed.

A lot of people on this forum like measuring their dicks by throwing other people under the bus. Post thoughts and rationally retort if necessary. Anything else is just malicious and immature.

Can we return to the true point of this thread now?

[Jeff]

A lot of people on this forum like measuring their dicks by throwing other people under the bus. Post thoughts and rationally retort if necessary. Anything else is just malicious and immature.

I'm not sure how I'm being malicious or immature. I understand that opinions on films often change over time, especially after multiple viewings. It struck me as odd, however, that you would develop such strongly disparate reactions to a single aspect of the film (the performances of the leads) in 24 hours. "Phenomenal" to "not very good" is quite a change. While I won't get to see the film until next week, and cannot comment on its quality, there's nothing wrong with noticing something unusual about your reactions and commenting on that. It's hardly tantamount to throwing you under a bus.

Responding to my post by explaining why your thoughts on the acting changed so much would have been much more constructive than your response above.

[moviscop]

Your intent was pretty blatant.

The reason my opinion changed so much was because after my first viewing I found both actors doing a very good job with the script. They seemed to click a lot and I felt the power in DiCaprio's performance. However, on my second viewing I started noticing subtleties and both Winslet and DiCaprio acting off each other instead of conducting their own character. It wasn't as evident the second time, but I could imagine them laughing in-between takes instead of giving it 100%.