Director: Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead)
Novel: Richard Yates
Screenplay: Justin Haythe
Producers: Bobby Cohen, John Hart, Sam Mendes, Scott Rudin
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, David Harbour, Michael Shannon
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 119 min.
While the reuniting of Kate and Leo might be the big news in the eyes of the general public and mainstream media, for me this gossipy-esque reunion news couldn’t interest me less. However, DiCaprio and Winslett are two performers who NEVER let down their audience and are always on my favorites list. Put them under the direction of Sam Mendes and the potential for greatness is sparked. With that spark, was there enough fuel for fire? In a word, “oh hell yes.”
Set in the 1950’s, the film opens with Frank Wheeler and April (DiCaprio and Winslett) meeting for the first time at a party. Flash forward a few years and they’re married. Flash forward a few years and they have 2 kids, boring, dead-end jobs and life is difficult and dull. And they fight… a lot. Sick of the pointless bickering and stagnancy of their dreary life, they hatch a plan to escape with the kids to France to live a whole new, exciting life. What they’ll do exactly and how they’ll make a living when they get there is only worked out in a superficial sort of way. Of course the neighborhood and co-workers are secretly up in arms about the scheme, but Frank and April are adamant about the adventure. That is until some unforeseeable circumstances provide obstacles that the two may not be able to overcome.
While it would be easy to dismiss this film as just another “crazy, withdrawn suburbanites” movie, there is so much more here to sink one’s teeth into than just feeling sorry for all these whacky, prescription zombified, alcoholic yuppies. No, this piece is much more personal and introspective. While much of the neighborhood does seem repressed and dull, the relationship problems between Frank and April go beyond what we usually see from this sub-genre of pictures. It’s not just the study of feeling left behind in life or realizing that your dreams have been left in the dust or getting on with an affair. It takes it a step further with extenuating, but reasonable, circumstances and the idea of what might happen should one try to chase those dreams after it is too late to do so and the consequences of failure.
As mentioned above, DiCaprio and Winslett never fail in their greatness. Revolutionary Road might have taken that statement to the pinnacle. While arguably showy, the two lead roles are portrayed spectacularly and deserve Oscar nomination for each of them. The fury, the fights, the love and the desperation is palpable as these two masters of their craft delight the audience with their performances. It may be the one thing that will win over general audiences who otherwise might not be sure what to make of this “less than mainstream” drama/period piece.
Beyond Kate and Leo is a rush of recognizable, supporting performances. Dylan Baker unfortunately is given very little to do, but also in the Titanic reunion cast is Kathy Bates who plays the motherly, but slightly emotionally unstable realtor and friend to The Wheelers. Her character brings a son to the mix who is literally certifiably insane. He’s undergone shock treatment and seems to have no ability to understand tact or restraint. He sees things as they are and has no problem saying so aloud. Another Oscar nomination in a supporting role is more than justified for this character, played by Michael Shannon. This is two years in a row that Shannon has absolutely floored me with a performance from someone I hadn’t even heard of before his great role in 2007’s Bug. After Revolutionary Road he is officially on my favorites list of terrific character actors. Here’s hoping some leads come his way in great films such as this.
Beyond performances and direction are all the technical merits of the movie. To encapsulate them all in one paragraph is near blasphemy, but I shall do so anyway. The thing is fabulously scored by Thomas Newman who you’ve undoubtedly heard before many, many times – especially in Sam Mendes films. It’s catchy, haunting, memorable and flashy when it needs to be. For the second time in as many years, I stayed behind to watch the credit for the sole purpose of listening to the music (Once was the first). The fabulous Roger Deakins (who’s been busy this year making everything look great) puts his auteur stamp on this one as well. And some standout costume design that is only stand out because it fits so wondrously within the time period. The costumes were extremely note worthy. Coming from me, that’s quite a compliment.
So if you add all that up, I count eight likely Oscar nominations for this film and that doesn’t even include the possibility of nods for editing and novel adaptation. I have to admit that it took me a little while to see where the movie was going, but once I realized that I loved the movie, I ended up really loving it. It’s tremendously acted and directed, it’s visually stunning and tells an interesting tale of heartbreak, desperation and unfortunate destiny. Yes, it’s fair to say that this will easily land comfortably in my top ten films of 2008.
I love Michael Shannon. He’s great in this. The acting is fine all around actually (Well didn’t care too much for Cathy Bates…)
I liked the ‘we are inadequate’ selfishness of the lead characters, although the film feels like a bit of reverse-empathy while watching it. These two selfish little know-nothings deserve their fates and whatnot.
I found it an interesting strategy that the children are never seriously in frame (other than in the birthday cake shot where Dad is seriously unhappy). Is this a function when the novel was written where kids were less the center of the universe (in suburban circles) and just a part of the family(as opposed to things made later on which (likely) borrowed heavily from the Yates novel, such as Little Children, The Ice Storm and American Beauty. (FWIW, if I had to rank those four films it’d be from best-to-worst The Ice Storm, Little Children, Rev. Road, American Beauty)
Either way, it is a pretty savage takedown of one facet American Self Image, not so much the suburbs themselves, but that everyone is destined for greatness; overconfident of their self-worth yet scared shitless of failure. Thus confirmity and comfort are the safety net. (Perhaps represented by the ‘burbs, perhaps not).
Personally, I found Revolutionary Road sloppy and heavy-handed more times than not, although I did like the central ideas of the piece despite its raggedy edges. If the actors postured a little less (like Jarhead, the film is full of pretty cinematic poses which don’t always gel with the actual material – this, however, is a minor nitpick – Roger Deakins rules). I guess I found the script to be more interesting than the performance quality which was usually set to shrill. (Can someone please make a film version of A Confederacy of Dunces (one that preferably doesn’t star Will Farell? Perhaps Mendes should try his hand at that novel. Perhaps Philip Seymour Hoffman is available?)
I found the attitudes towards children interesting though. It’s not often a film will talk about children as a serious liability towards the parents dreams or self-contentment (this is brushed in a cursory manner in Happy-go-Lucky as well), and certainly in this day and age, it is interesting to see a pregnant mother smoke like a chimney and drink martinis like they are going out of style.
(Hmmm, maybe I should polish the above as an “Extended Thoughts” piece.)
The more I think about it. Where the fuck was Kubrick while this novel was sitting around since 1961? As a cool and distant (yet acerbic) observer of the human animal, this material seems right up his alley. I’d love to see that version of the film.
love the near final shot with Winslett standing in front of the window. It may a bit heavy handed, but it’s also artful and helps showcase the magnificent score.
And yeah, mom smoking and drinking like a sailor was a little off-putting. I wanted to reach into the screen and slap her.
Absolutely loved this. I think it’s safe to say another Oscar nod for both DiCaprio, Winslet, Deakins and Mendes. And I agree, Michael Shannon did indeed rule.
I also liked the way they dealt with kids and kept them almost completely out of the film. I think a part of it, to expand on what Kurt was saying, was demonstrating the selfishness of the parents, how neither ever thought of the children and what was best for them throughout the film – which is the exact reverse of what Frank was like at the end of the film when all he did with his free time was spend it with the children.
Also, Thomas Newman creates another beautiful signature score.
I thought this was excellent but I’m also in the minority that doesn’t look back to American Beauty and think it’s not as good as it was the first time around – still love it.
Though the performances are at time shrill, the quiet moments are wonderful and one scene I can’t get out of my head is the final visit from Michael Shannon. He’s standing at the door arguing with his mother and the focus is on Winslet’s face in the foreground with the argument taking place out of focus – that scene is brilliance.
So far, I’ve loved this the most out of the prestige releases though I still have to see Doubt and Frost/Nixon.
Yes it’s a very good movie, and made a much better one by the presence of Michael Shannon (and in only, what, 2 scenes? But maximum effect out of those scenes, even if they are a tad ‘stage-y’)
I found the attitudes towards children interesting though. It’s not often a film will talk about children as a serious liability towards the parents dreams or self-contentment (this is brushed in a cursory manner in Happy-go-Lucky as well), and certainly in this day and age, it is interesting to see a pregnant mother smoke like a chimney and drink martinis like they are going out of style.
Jesus dude, will you watch Mad Men already? Rev Road is about two years behind that show in every facet you praise it (RR) for.
@MATT: I only watch TV shows after they have been prematurely cancelled
Matt is right re: Mad Men, but I’m looking forward to catching Revolutionary Road anyways.
Do we get to call this movie a ripoff of Mad Men the same way Kurt calls you-know-what a ripoff of Robocop though? Can we apply the same bullshit to prestige movies Kurt likes
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Just back from Revolutionary Road, still got the score in my head (which sounds offly similar to an Eluvium song I have on my ipod). I can sort of see Kurt’s complaint about the poses but fuck it, I loved this film, I loved how inevitable every scene is, I loved that there was never going to be Paris. That sort of shit would usually bother me, but I think its kinda the point of the film, its about being smothered with your eyes wide open to the why and how… its what most people do in their lives, there is no covert secret, this is a story made in the fifties and just as true in 2009. As crazy dude says ‘hopeless emptiness’, there is no real hope in the film or I never felt it, its about watching a caged animal come to the realization of the cage, it deserves the sort of calculated and controlled dismantling the story gives. They may as well of started the film with a summation of what happens to the Wheelers, the where it ends up is not the point, its the minutiae of their settling that is.
I have watched the first season of Mad Men and while I enjoyed it and look forward to the next season the comparisons to RR are superficial, thematically they deal with the same stuff but tonally its a different story altogether. There is virtually no levity to RR, its all spittle and shouting, quivering and lamenting. Mad Men is a pantomime to that, its more about the ideas, RR is about actualizing them in scenarios. I mean if you want to play by the logic of thematically MM came first, then Far From Heaven came before that and Douglas Sirk before that. Its not who came first, but who did the best with the material, and I am tempted to say that Revolutionary Road is better than even Far From Heaven. I generally dislike Mendes but he makes up for it with this one.
“I found Revolutionary Road sloppy and heavy-handed more times than not.”
This. I found the movie overly stilted and stagey, like a shitty local play that demanded us to know what’s important by overly shouting or overly posing. I didn’t think much of the performances, direction, and especially didn’t think much of the annoying ever present two-note Thomas Newman score.
Deakins does a very nice job wrapping an empty package.
2/5, and by far my least favorite Mendes film.
I guess I wouldn’t include Shannon in that list, he’s maybe the only thing in this movie to shake it out of its plodding predictableness.
from the Miami Herald:
“…an impeccably shot, studiously staged, passionately acted bore, one of those curious fizzles in which everyone seems to do everything right, but the film simply refuses to take off.”
That about says it best for me as anything could.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Couldn’t disagree with you more, Goon. I cannot get the film out of my mind, it has a sad inevitability to it that I believe is the point (criticism of predictability means nothing to me because of this). The unshakeable coldness of the film, the ferocity with which some of the characters try and rage against the serenity around them, the conspiratorial aspect of Paris as that one last vestige of opportunity they attribute to escaping their monotony, I consider these attributes not detractions to the film. How best to depict the still perfection of suburban lifestyle than impeccably staged… its exists as a counter to the Wheelers every quiver and squirm from it. The near final shot of April at the window is chilling (yes cold, yes impeccable, THAT IS THE POINT!) its like seeing a wounded animal in a cage, a monkey chocked full of antibiotics in a science lab, its ghastly to see, if you have any kind of sense of moral decorum you may even want to look away. What entirely makes the film is the sense of inevitability for me, its a sublime idea to depict, it hurts to think about it, about how all of us are more or less second-rate, all of us would give up Paris for a bit more comfort.
I suspect the people that dislike this film have philosophical differences with the premise underlying their superficial criticisms. Maybe comfort and compromise is not entirely a bad thing, its more nuanced then this story would have us believe, and I think that is a valid opinion. RR is stylized, its playing sharply with contrasts but it uses as a foil our nostalgic ‘Idea’ of fifties America, so its stylization has a kind of natural logic to it. Its a real life Edward Hopper painting, its something still but if you look at the small details, the inflections of April’s smile at the breakfast table say, or the way she wrestles always with processing the information Frank tells her (how many times does she say ‘Just shut up I need time to think’, I’m sorry but that is how female anger operates, from my experience, this lag time of rationalizing what is happening while the emotions flare, its very convincing, and done over and over again). The film does indulge in the explosion of emotions, but its like a kettle getting ready to whistle, think of Frank’s confrontation with Michael Shannon’s character, and even during, April remains stoic, tremors happen underneath the stillness and than reach a critical mass and explode… it is amazing to watch.
Put that aside, and just think about the story for a second, this is about as tragic a story as I can think of. Rachel Getting Married has the obvious tragic stuff, but think of how the Wheelers go from optimistic to tragic, there is no evil in the world to blame, no easy pat answers for things, its a sequence of small acts that snuff out hope… the idea of hope is planted, it in turn empowers the Wheelers, they find a strength, that strength sets in motion their undoing (Frank finally doing some inspired work at the office that baits him with promotion, and April finding new eroticism in her husband leading to an unexpected pregnancy). Equally poignant is this notion of neighbor’s living vicariously off people participating in the same self-delusion, the lowest common denominator factor I came railing on about, I cannot think of a better depiction than Shep and Marilyn, they are parasitic in their relationship, what constructs this world more than anything is fear of difference, the fifties America in Revolutionary Road is people protecting one another’s weaknesses in an unspoken oath that no one will aspire for anything more. Its what Thoreau was talking about, men living in quiet desperation, and here, our heroes, much like Winston Smith in 1984 strive to rise above it but in the end our subsumed by it. hopeless emptiness. The Victorian ethics has not gone away no matter how many play stations we have and how available pornography is, we are still a society of stunted people surrendering Paris under the pressure of convenience and acceptance.
Whether Paris is a valid option or not, is another debate, that we do not try is what gets highlighted in RR, its an indictment of our cowardice, and I think, maybe not all, but a lot of the negativity towards the film is not being able to fess up to that indictment. Its an ugly film, I admit, its not for everybody, it hurts to think about it, but that is what I look for in cinema, not the feigned emotions, the stinging ones.
All I can say is I watched the whole thing and felt nothing. I didn’t ilke or dislike them, I didn’t care about their situation or dreams, I simply wasn’t involved with it whatsoever. Just complete and utter apathy at something that looked pretty.
I wonder if it should be of note that so many reviewers I’ve seen who read the book say all the passion is gone. Makes me further thing the distance in the film is a flaw and not a feature.
I have only listened to the Revolutionary Road review but I would recommend spoiler warning, its pretty heavy, you go over every beat of the film essentially.
As to the acting in the film, I think it is natural, whats unnatural is the environment and the cadence of social interaction, but this is a pretty familiar perception of fifties living that it is in its own way naturalistic.
I am going to repost my comment from the RR thread here because it serves to counter Kurt’s points as much as it does Goons.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Couldn’t disagree with you more, Goon. I cannot get the film out of my mind, it has a sad inevitability to it that I believe is the point (criticism of predictability means nothing to me because of this). The unshakeable coldness of the film, the ferocity with which some of the characters try and rage against the serenity around them, the conspiratorial aspect of Paris as that one last vestige of opportunity they attribute to escaping their monotony, I consider these attributes not detractions to the film. How best to depict the still perfection of suburban lifestyle than impeccably staged… its exists as a counter to the Wheelers every quiver and squirm from it. The near final shot of April at the window is chilling (yes cold, yes impeccable, THAT IS THE POINT!) its like seeing a wounded animal in a cage, a monkey chocked full of antibiotics in a science lab, its ghastly to see, if you have any kind of sense of moral decorum you may even want to look away. What entirely makes the film is the sense of inevitability for me, its a sublime idea to depict, it hurts to think about it, about how all of us are more or less second-rate, all of us would give up Paris for a bit more comfort.
I suspect the people that dislike this film have philosophical differences with the premise underlying their superficial criticisms. Maybe comfort and compromise is not entirely a bad thing, its more nuanced then this story would have us believe, and I think that is a valid opinion. RR is stylized, its playing sharply with contrasts but it uses as a foil our nostalgic ‘Idea’ of fifties America, so its stylization has a kind of natural logic to it. Its a real life Edward Hopper painting, its something still but if you look at the small details, the inflections of April’s smile at the breakfast table say, or the way she wrestles always with processing the information Frank tells her (how many times does she say ‘Just shut up I need time to think’, I’m sorry but that is how female anger operates, from my experience, this lag time of rationalizing what is happening while the emotions flare, its very convincing, and done over and over again). The film does indulge in the explosion of emotions, but its like a kettle getting ready to whistle, think of Frank’s confrontation with Michael Shannon’s character, and even during, April remains stoic, tremors happen underneath the stillness and than reach a critical mass and explode… it is amazing to watch.
Put that aside, and just think about the story for a second, this is about as tragic a story as I can think of. Rachel Getting Married has the obvious tragic stuff, but think of how the Wheelers go from optimistic to tragic, there is no evil in the world to blame, no easy pat answers for things, its a sequence of small acts that snuff out hope… the idea of hope is planted, it in turn empowers the Wheelers, they find a strength, that strength sets in motion their undoing (Frank finally doing some inspired work at the office that baits him with promotion, and April finding new eroticism in her husband leading to an unexpected pregnancy). Equally poignant is this notion of neighbor’s living vicariously off people participating in the same self-delusion, the lowest common denominator factor I came railing on about, I cannot think of a better depiction than Shep and Marilyn, they are parasitic in their relationship, what constructs this world more than anything is fear of difference, the fifties America in Revolutionary Road is people protecting one another’s weaknesses in an unspoken oath that no one will aspire for anything more. Its what Thoreau was talking about, men living in quiet desperation, and here, our heroes, much like Winston Smith in 1984 strive to rise above it but in the end our subsumed by it. hopeless emptiness. The Victorian ethics has not gone away no matter how many play stations we have and how available pornography is, we are still a society of stunted people surrendering Paris under the pressure of convenience and acceptance.
Whether Paris is a valid option or not, is another debate, that we do not try is what gets highlighted in RR, its an indictment of our cowardice, and I think, maybe not all, but a lot of the negativity towards the film is not being able to fess up to that indictment. Its an ugly film, I admit, its not for everybody, it hurts to think about it, but that is what I look for in cinema, not the feigned emotions, the stinging ones.