criterionforum.org

Another Oscar season drama about suburban malaise, this time with that Titanic duo directed by the guy who mined the same territory with American Beauty.

Here's the trailer.

Two things I have learned from the trailer (thanks, Antoine):

1) The cinematography and production design are gorgeous.

2) Kate Winslet is a stunning woman and Leo a stunning teenager.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Another Oscar season drama about suburban malaise...

Didn't this movie come out last year? Is Re_________ Road the new American _________?

From the trailer, the direction, sets, cinematography, acting, etc. look excellent while the screenplay seems absolutely atrocious - full of on-the-nose arguments "You made me feel like THIS and then you did THIS to me!" "Well you never do THIS and never make me feel like THIS!"

Yeah, people never have arguments that follow that pattern in real life.

What's the song?

its nina simone's "wild is the wind"... which I personally love.

mfunk9786 wrote:Yeah, people never have arguments that follow that pattern in real life.

People also have arguments about who left an empty roll on the toilet paper dispenser, but I don't want to see a movie about that either. On second thought, if that was the whole movie...

Matt wrote:People also have arguments about who left an empty roll on the toilet paper dispenser, but I don't want to see a movie about that either. On second thought, if that was the whole movie...

As with anything, it depends in what manner it is treated. For example it could be tackled as a generic 'art' film in which the empty roll is seen as indicative of our lacksadaisical, empty society and a rather obvious comment on gender roles.

It would just be one shot just showing the interior of the bathroom as the sunlight moves around it eventually illuminating the toilet (and empty roll) with a golden glow. That would last for ten minutes and show that the bathroom is often a transient area which people just pass through on their way to somewhere else but always has to be in a perfect condition for whoever finds it.

Then a woman comes in and after a brief assessment of the bathroom sees the empty roll hanging there (maybe with a small piece of torn paper still hanging to it as if to suggest that the final sections of paper were torn from it in some haste). This could be the place for an enormous close up of the cardboard roll to emphasise the woman's shock and horror at it being left there (this shot could last anything from 30 seconds to 15 minutes, according to taste). Before the woman notices would be the point to add a gratuitious shower or urination scene if you wanted to exploit things up a little.

The woman shouts to someone and after a brief pause a man enters. They look at each other, at the roll, at the toilet, back at each other. After another excruciatingly long pause he says "well, I did have the curry last night". Cue a sudden explosion from the woman as she knees him in the groin and leaves. We hear the door to the apartment slam as the man lies on the floor in the otherwise immaculate bathroom curled into a ball and rocking slightly. Cue long fade to black while a cello solo plays mournfully.

I think I'll call it "Roll of love"!

Mendes has definitely covered the territory before, but I'm very interested in this. Deakins' cinematography looks up to his usual impeccable standards, and the source novel (which I haven't read) is widely considered one of the best of the last century.

Looks like a well mounted snoozefest & that overbearing score doesn't help.

chaddoli wrote:From the trailer, the direction, sets, cinematography, acting, etc. look excellent while the screenplay seems absolutely atrocious - full of on-the-nose arguments "You made me feel like THIS and then you did THIS to me!" "Well you never do THIS and never make me feel like THIS!"

I'm sure the trailer for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf left people with similar impressions 40 years ago.

Has anyone here read the novel?

Wikipedia wrote:• Revolutionary Road, the first novel of author Richard Yates, was a finalist for the National Book Award in 1962 along with Catch-22 and The Moviegoer.

• the novel was chosen by Time as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present

• Kurt Vonnegut called it "The Great Gatsby of my time... one of the best books by a member of my generation."

• Tennessee Williams also praised the book: "Here is more than fine writing; here is what, added to fine writing, makes a book come immediately, intensely and brilliantly alive. If more is needed to make a masterpiece in modern American fiction, I am sure I don't know what it is."

The point I'm trying to make is that in my experience, people usually don't know exactly what's wrong and exactly what they're feeling and exactly what they need. The difference is the problems in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf are in the subtext - as in, they're rarely arguing about what they're actually arguing about.

Removing Sarcasm wrote:Yeah, people never have arguments like those in the Revolutionary Road trailer in real life.

But we'll see, hopefully the film will prove me wrong.

a.khan wrote:Leo a stunning teenager.

It's his voice that betrays him, as a friend pointed out to me recently. As a young actor, he was extremely talented but with the sound of his voice... Anyway, I didn't know what the dilemma in the trailer was... Were they upset because they lived in a nice neighborhood, god forbid? At least with Titanic, you knew their world would end with that ship going down...

chaddoli wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that in my experience, people usually don't know exactly what's wrong and exactly what they're feeling and exactly what they need. The difference is the problems in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf are in the subtext - as in, they're rarely arguing about what they're actually arguing about.

I figured that was your point, and agree with you that a film full of phony, shallow marital arguments would be tiresome. A trailer makes it hard to tell if that's the case though (see Woolf), and given the esteem the source is held in, I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt.

It's rare to find insightful entries from IMDb posters, but this little note brought a smile to my face:

beyondtheforest wrote:It's a movie for people who really don't have anything to complain about. I'm not sure how this film is even relevant, or who it will appeal to, among today's shrinking middle class. The movie may be about the hollowness of living the so-called "American Dream," but I'm afraid a lot of people these days who are losing their jobs and houses would love to have that possibility back.

Let's see a movie about the misery of working low-wage jobs and not affording rent or health benefits. Now that's a real American drama. Let's just say that my heart doesn't exactly bleed for these two characters who have money and the white picket fence, but are still so dissatisfied. I mean, I look forward to having a better life someday. It's called hope. And here this movie comes along to say, oh don't bother, it's all a sham. So what am I to do then, sit home and paint pictures and collect welfare checks?

The book could be, by all means, fantastic. I still would not trust Sam Mendes to turn it into anything resembling an interesting movie. He had great books to work with for his last two movies and he turned both into mediocre, albeit great-looking, mush, and it looks like he's about to do the same to George Eliot.

For the record, I loved Road To Perdition. I was sorely disappointed at how it didn't get the Oscar attention I felt it deserved.

I'm not expecting Scenes from a Marriage or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, but if this is my trite Oscar bait, rather than something like Crash, I'm perfectly okay with that.

Oh, and I liked both American Beauty and Road to Perdition. Excellent performances in both. I had no idea they were so hated. Do I have to turn in my cinephile card?

Grand Illusion wrote:Oh, and I liked both American Beauty and Road to Perdition. Excellent performances in both. I had no idea they were so hated. Do I have to turn in my cinephile card?

I believe Matt was referring to Jarhead and Road to Perdition. I think I might be the world's only huge fan of Jarhead, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Jeff wrote:I believe Matt was referring to Jarhead and Road to Perdition. I think I might be the world's only huge fan of Jarhead, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Oh yeah. Totally forgot about Jarhead. I didn't hate it. It just tried to be too many things, a little Apocalypse Now, a little Platoon, a lot of Full Metal Jacket.

Some of the imagery was fantastic though. It's definitely a film that I don't want to know what was CG and what wasn't. I'd rather keep the illusion of my first viewing.

Jeff wrote:Has anyone here read the novel?

Yes, and it is something of a masterpiece - if Mendes has retained the lion's share of the dialogue, then the screenplay will be far from 'atrocious'. There's something about the pairing of DiCaprio and Winslet that doesn't feel right at all, but I suppose it could have been a lot worse. My advice would be: read the book beforehand, and don't bother seeing it if you haven't - Mendes will only fashion a glossy approximation.

For me, I always have something of a problem watching a film about white, privileged, upper middle class people complain about their lot in life. That isn't to say they shouldn't or don't have reason to want something more substantial, but the majority of the time, films of this nature play out on such a superficial level that I simply can't sympathize with the characters. However, as Little Children proved, films can be well made in that territory. That the book is reported to be very good gives me some hope this isn't as trivial as the trailer suggests.

As for Mendes, Jarhead and American Beauty were more interesting than accomplished, but I have to say I'm a big, big fan of Road To Perdition.

Jeff wrote:I believe Matt was referring to Jarhead and Road to Perdition. I think I might be the world's only huge fan of Jarhead, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

I really dug Jarhead as well. I've always felt it to be a very underrated film but there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in that one.

Antoine Doinel wrote:For me, I always have something of a problem watching a film about white, privileged, upper middle class people complain about their lot in life. That isn't to say they shouldn't or don't have reason to want something more substantial, but the majority of the time, films of this nature play out on such a superficial level that I simply can't sympathize with the characters.

Isn't that true of most films, regardless of the protagonists? It usually comes down to the screenplay, and for this one, at least we know the source material is good.

I think upper-middle-class white people have an opportunity to present different issues in cinema. If you're making a film like Chop Shop or a similar socioeconomic subsection, your main conflicts will revolve around survival, getting by day-to-day, possible racism (explicit or implicit), etc.

Privileged characters have the luxury of dealing with more philosophical issues, such as existential crises, male/female relations (without the pressures of economics), etc., by virtue of not having to survive through the film.

Obviously, those issues can move up and down the spectrum, but strictly from a character perspective, it opens up new conflicts when the leads aren't trying to make ends meet for the whole narrative.