by Allan Fish
(USA 2008 119m) DVD1/2
Where we keep the euphemism
p Bobby Cohen, Larry Hart, Scott Rudin, Sam Mendes d Sam Mendes w Justine Haythe novel Richard Yates ph Roger Deakins ed Tariq Anwar m Thomas Newman art Kristi Zea cos Albert Wolsky
Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Wheeler), Kate Winslet (April Wheeler), David Harbour (Shep Campbell), Kathryn Khan (Milly Campbell), Kathy Bates (Helen Givings), Richard Easton (Howard Givings), Michael Shannon (John Givings), Jay O.Sanders (Bart Pollock), Dylan Baker (Jack Ordway), Zoe Kazan (Maureen Grube),
So what does this film have to do with Who’s Afraid With Virginia Woolf?; aside from them both featuring warring marriages? Nothing. Yet that toss away line written by Edward Albee could not sum up Mendes’ film more accurately if it tried. Revolutionary Road refers to the street where the couple at the centre of the film, the Wheelers’, live, and yet as Juliet said, “what’s in a name?” Revolutionary Road is a euphemism – one used to describe a cul-de-sac or, as is perhaps more a propos in such a film, a roundabout which the couple are stuck on, the roundabout known in more succinct circles as conformity.
Take our couple; Frank Wheeler meets April in his twenties, sweeps her off her feet at an otherwise forgettable party, they marry, have two kids and move to suburbia. So far, so ordinary, but that’s just it. It’s sooooo ordinary, and both feel suffocation grasping them round the throat like a wrestler in an arm lock. The problem is that this isn’t the free sixties, but the stifling, repressed fifties, so everyone around them thinks they’re nuts when they decide to leave for Paris to start afresh.
This is Mendes returning to his familiar American Beauty territory, and the links go way beyond mere surface thematics. In the earlier film, all characters were sick of their life, of their own perceptions of failure and mediocrity. They set about changing them. What Mendes does here is show that things haven’t changed much in fifty years, it’s just that back then such ideas were not thought of as brave but lunacy. That which doesn’t conform and is thus alien, has to be the result of a delusional mind, right? In some ways then, it recalls the forbidden loves of the Douglas Sirk films of the fifties and, therefore, of Haynes’ Far from Heaven. Haynes, however, was merely reproducing the fifties in all its hypocritical, garden fence, asphyxiating glory. Mendes is probing deeper; note even the mise-en-scène, where those who loved his earlier Oscar winner will delight in his positioning of his characters, especially at the dinner table. In Beauty, it’s the kids who unknowingly show Lester Burnham the way out, whereas in Road it’s a man released from an asylum. Mendes is helped not only by the gorgeous period recreation, but by the peerless Roger Deakins’ immediate grasp of the seeming unspoken understanding he had with the late Conrad Hall. Just as in Beauty, the house, and indeed the colour scheme of the entire film, is patterned after white, as if to match the characters’ state of mind, walking around an asylum of their own making. There’s no red in the film at all, until the most fateful scene of all, but just as the eponymous roses had symbolic meaning in the sister film, so the blood here shows the life-force draining from one of the protagonists.
Amongst all the visual trappings, the cast have to be up to them, and suffice it to say all memories of that damned boat movie are forever banished. One expects great things of Winslet, and yet despite his recent, DiCaprio rises to, if not quite revolutionary heights, then at least revelatory heights. Nor can one overlook the contributions of Bates (in the Agnes Moorehead-type role), Shannon (superb), Baker, Sanders and Kazan. The real piece de resistance, however, among the supports, comes from Easton, whose fadeout with hearing aid turned down is quite sublime. To sum it up in a phrase, it may be a strange parallel, but this is a film that listens to Mark Renton’s soliloquy running down Princes Street; “choose life!” It’s a film for all those who didn’t have the balls – we’ve all been guilty, let’s face it – to get out quickly enough from jobs and/or relationships that stymied us. Here’s to escape from all our Revolutionary Roads.
Fantastic review here,really a thought-provoking piece. One of your best Mr. Fish. I am expecting some great performances here, and the “American Beauty” comparison is telling.
I managed to see the trailer to this film several times, so I have definitely been intrigued. I am a fan of “American Beauty,” but somehow I don’t see this straight-laced marital film falling in that category. Mr. Di Caprio seems to really be coming into his own.
This is an outstanding review, and as expected a most enthusiastic one. I guess for a film with so little happening except marital discord, one could easily lose interest. But what you say here (and what others have said in reviews) convinces me otherwise. Kate Winslet is really having quite a year.
I like that “white color scheme” meant to reflect the volvanic passions ready to erupt. Definitely one to check out over the next week or two.
Give me a call Sam,when you get a chance. I have an airport run for you, if you can manage it.
You, Lucille and the kids —Have a great 2009.
………..I have this on my “must-see” list……..great review………….
I thought this was a very good film, and I was present for the “trip” but there are several others I liked better his year. The two lead performances of course were great in a film tha esentially was about Kate Winslet’s character.
Allan, my comment is not so much on the film, which of course I haven’t seen, but on certain premises in your review, American Beauty, and the conventional wisdom that the 50s was a period of stifling conformity.
In the 50s were sewn the seeds of the 60s rebellion, not only the music of Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bo Diddley and others, but the movies of James Dean, the novels of Jack Kerouac, and in girls in tight jeans and ‘short shorts’.
I found American Beauty an ugly film. Here were people who did not know how to live – their rebellion was empty and consummated by acts of cowardice. I have little time for selfish bourgeois conceit with its arrogant sense of entitlement: I deserve better, ‘my life sucks’ and so on ad nauseum. The people with real courage, are the ones who struggle to make what they have better, not to escape to where the grass seems greener. To see life as more than ‘me’, but as a web of affiliation that garners understanding and has depth only to the extent we reach out to the other, and finding meaning exactly where we are, takes courage. To escape is easy.
Tony, you will be happy to know that our dear Alexander Coleman completely agrees with you on AMERICAN BEAUTY. I’ll let Allan respond further, but your points here are fascinating and excellent.
I liked ‘American Beauty,’ but didnt find it to be the masterpiece that so many others did. After reading your review and the follow-up comments, would you not say that this film was not a literal presentation of a’dysfunctional family’? Or is that what these two were, beneath the surface?
“This is Mendes returning to his familiar American Beauty territory”
I’m officially excited about this film now! I’m completely on the American Beauty bandwagon. It’s a modern masterpiece.
Unfortunately, I had to force myself to stop reading there because the film isn’t in cinemas yet here in Australia (like many others), so for the sake of making my own opinion, I’ll have to wait a few weeks before I can continue again!
Anders: I would love to hear what you say of this when you get around to it. If you loved AB that much, you will probably have similar feelings here.
I have added your website to my blogroll, and i assure you over the next two days I will be visiting and commenting. Thanks again.
I love American Beauty, and I love Revolutionary Road, but the two are very, very different beasts. Revolutionary Road is Mendes’ finest film though, and one of the favourites of the year.
Nick: RR won’t make my Top 10 I’m afraid, but I do like it quite a bit, and fully understand, respect and applaud your great admiration for it.
A personal happy New Years to you, one of my favorite of all I have met here at these sites. The best always!
Fine review, Sam. I’m looking forward to seeing it whenever I can.
Rich, actually Allan wrote that review while he was here for 18 days living with us (he has since returned to the U.K.) but in his behalf thanks.
I am excited to see you have a review of DOUBT up at Coosa Creek Cinema, and am now working on a response. I have yours and Alexander Coleman’s to read now. Fascinating stuff!
Allan — fantastic insights you have here! I was so caught up in the ACTING! (which was great by all measures) and trying to connect it all to my thoughts on Yates’ writing (which depressed me) that I overlooked much of the very fine technical aspects (for instance your mention of the color scheme). Bravo!
I’m sure Allan will appreciate that effervescent comment David, and I must admit I completely concur with your observations there, including the’depressing’ writing and the technical work.
I liked the film for sure, perhaps not quite as much as Allan though.
Thanks so much.
Well, David, if I wasn’t still so lethargic with jetlag (it always hits me for about a week) I’d be close to feeling what Sam does once a day, overwhelmed. Thank you.
I finally got around to seeing this and wow, you weren’t kidding about it being a return to American Beauty territory.
The characters, the setting, the score, the framing…it was like a sequel. But whose complaining?
It certainly doesn’t feel as ‘fresh’ as AB or hit as hard in the conclusion (I feel like I should add that I haven’t read the book), yet Winslet and DiCaprio are so superb, any shortcomings are easily excused.
I was thoroughly engaged from start to end and I can’t ask for much more than that.
I’ll have to stew over the review a bit longer, but it will be up at some point!
Sam-
Fine review. Some very insightful comments with regard to the film’s color palette.
I came to the film with great skepticism – “Revoloutionary Road” is a book I love dearly, and I was terrifed that Mendes would screw it up.
I was greatly relieved to see that Mendes has made one of the best film adaptations of a great novel that I can recall seeing….ever. There’s a lot of backstory for the Wheelers that is omitted in the film, yet both Winslet and DeCaprio totally embody that backstory within their characterizations. And every supporting character is letter-perfect.
I know Winslet is getting all the buzz (and the awards), but for me, DeCaprio’s performance is the standout here. He completely captured every nuance of the Frank Wheeler I recall from the book.
Anders: You certainly do make some excellent points there in regards to the film’s similarity to AMERICAN BEAUTY, and that it almost has the ‘feel’ of a sequel, albeit one that doesn’t have the freshness or power. Like you Anders, I didn’t read the book yet. In behalf of Allan, who wrote this particular review, I thank you for your perceptive contribution here, and will look forward to your own piece soon. In fact, I’ll be sute to head over to “Cut paste review” tonite to see what’s brewing.
Pat: Again, in behalf of Allan I thank you for your kind words and fecund insights. I am very happy that this film worked this well for you. My own opinion of it may not quite be as high as Allan’s (who awarded it the highest rating in his review here) but I do think it’s a very strong work, and there’s no question that the lead performances (I can well respect your passion for Leo’s particularly) and that of Michael Shannon’s were extraordinary.
Of course, Pat, having read the novel, you are in a much better position to judge the worthiness and quality of the adapation, which you have done quite well here. I will look forward eagerly to your review Pat. thank sso much!
Thanks Pat and Anders, glad you enjoyed it so much and it wasn’t just me.
Apropos my earlier comment here, after having seen Revolutionary Road, I must admit to a back-flip of sorts.
Contrary to my expectations, I was impressed.
The acting is fine, the artistic direction excellent, the direction accomplished, and while the screenplay moves too slowly, it is substantive and lets the story unfold unhindered by weighty symbolism or rhetoric.
I don’t agree that a voice-over narrative is needed – indeed, like in our own lives, how well do we really know or understand ourselves let alone others? Ambiguity and ambivalence enrich this picture. The situation and the angst portrayed are very real and not confined to the 50s. What is of interest is the dynamic of reconciliation with life that we must all make. Each takes his or her own torturous route, and there is no winning or losing, only a path.
As Joni Mitchell wrote:
“From win and lose and still somehow
It’s life’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know life at all”
I love that “Both Sides Now” excerpt Tony!!!
I agree with you on the voice-over thing, but I’ll let Allan (who wrote this review) address you comment.
I may not like the film as much as you or Allan, but there were a number of very effective aspects about it.
Yes, I’d agree with much of that, Tony; life is a cul de sac…we go nowhere, we die…it’s one of the best films of the year.