05.III.1430
Revolutionary Road was a surprise. But this review has spoilers.
i started out judging it superficial (the opening fight scene)
b/c their acting isn't that great let's face it. and the fight was
w/out proper buildup or establishmnt.
it made me feel as though all the exposition was left
to be covered by HBO's Mad men;
that the filmmakers actually presumed to assume that series as a prereq viewing.
but as it went on, came some good lines - unexpected from prior movies of that
caliber (caliber as measured by the niche of the two top billing stars winslet and dicaprio).
it seems told much more or totally (tho that would be hard) from a man's perspective.
this is because winslet's character is orbited by several men at different times, whereas each of the men sees nothing or nobody but his own self. But more importantly, as a male I was still as blind to her final motivations as i would be in a real relationship. The script didn't enlighten me at all about winslet's thinking
toward the end of the movie.
although others have argued that the movie works equally well when seen from either perspectives. see LaSalle, Mick. "Movie Review: 'Revolutionary Road' Year's Best." San Francisco Chronicle. January 2, 2009. but i wouldn't take his word on it.
there is an interesting article on Richard Yates the author of the novel, who sounds like a disaster - another familiar note. Reading this Independent article was what recommended the movie to me in the first place, so I watched it rather than another when I got the chance to watch a movie.
Sam mendes is not really up my alley. His american beauty (1999) had an appearance of striking introspection, unmitigated realism in depicting emptiness of suburban life, but to me it never really went far enough , and took silly and gratuitous turns that did not ring "real" for me.
didn't like road to perdition w/ hanks. then his involvement in the colonial kite runner , unfavors him further.
His outlook was thus stunted, and joined the line of "slice of life" realist movies that pop up every few years like grand canyon, magnolia that never quite make it to where they set out to go.
This film maybe goes a step further, but still belongs in the same fare. Not to mention that its retrospections were thoroughly co-opted by HBO's Mad Men, whose third season many are waiting for.
One of the factors that helped the film for me was that I watched it without knowing hardly anything about it. Any details i'd read in the Independent article were gone, and only some vague notion that it was up for oscar nominations or something - meaning nothing. ie, I was without any expectations other than the typical fare from its two top billers.
it was intense at times. hit familiar relationship notes sometimes.
it was like a collage of stories and situations from different relationships.
bUT IN the end, the whole still rang hollowWw.
And just like in 'American beauty', the tragedy itself is gratuitous. But that was what the drama was building up to all along, that was the story of the movie, right?
But Then the tragic end defeats the points the film was making does it not?
And there is no redemption. In this Mendes et al. remind me of that other claustrophobe, aronovsky. Why no redemption dude? Why so glum glummy?
The nihilism is literally dehumanizing.
Won't be watching it again any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment