Session 001 - The Age of Innocence Who saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Friday, July 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Contributors
Labels
Essential Links
- A.O. Scott
- All Movie Guide
- Brian's Richmond.com Articles
- Brian's Temple News Articles
- Bright Lights Film Journal
- Dark Horizons
- Film Reference
- Filmspotting
- Greatest Films
- Hollywood Elsewhere
- The Hot Blog
- The House Next Door
- Internet Movie Database
- Mean Dawg Movie Reviews
- Metacritic
- The New York Times - Movie Section
- Pinewood Dialogues
- Roger Ebert
- Rotten Tomatoes
- Sean Burns
- Senses of Cinema
- They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
- Turner Classic Movie Database
- Watching the Directors
The Most Popular Film Script Posts
Widget by Blogger Buster
The Film Script E-Mail
Lists of Bests
5 comments:
I was hesitant to see this movie. It is Scorsese, but still there is no violence, no language, and it takes place amongst pompous aristocrats. However, this film has shown me that Scorsese has a lot more up his sleeve than even I give him credit for.
I'm not going to say it is anywhere close to his masterpieces, but I think it is a very important film in his canon. Here he is at his most skillful and elegant. I loved the overlapping fades that gave it a very dreamy quality. I thought Joanne Woodward's narration was pitch perfect. Her dialog was so poetic. The acting, while subdued, was all very appropriate and adhered to the society being portrayed. I also thought it had one of the most beautiful endings ever (also the opening credit sequence was gorgeous too).
I think one reason I like this more than other period pieces is because it is all about the society and its traditions, and doesn't hesitate to point out the flaws in it. The society is the very essence of hippocracy, but they stand by it because that is what they were taught.
I think this movie, more than any other, showed me how powerful the right words uttered can be. The prose is so eloquent, not just because of the time they are representing, but in how they speak, what words they choose to use, etc. It was all very Shakespearian I thought.
The story is a somewhat traditional one, especially for this genre, but I still felt invested enough in what was going on. I loved the use of lighting to accent or single out a specific person/feature.
One thing I didn't like was I couldn't tell who was whom. There are so many side characters and their own extended families, that it was hard for me to know anybody other the three leads.
Scorsese has said this is his most "violent" and personal film. Personally I don't think the movie was catty or even judgmental enough of others to be presumed to be "violent" and I really don't see how he could relate to these people. Scorsese is a Italian New Yawker who didn't have much of even a middle class upbringing. These people wine and dine and go to the opera every other night. If Marty lost his one true love than I guess I can see how he felt it was personal, but otherwise, if I ever am so privileged to meet the man, I will surely ask him how it was.
Also Mulligan, I think you should just randomly choose the next movie. Lets just keep it spontaneous. Also don't be afraid to choose ones I've already seen or vice versa. I could stand to revisit some of these films. Besides it is the conversation they create that is important.
After Kelly and I had finished watching this movie, she made a couple of comments that I'd like to pass along (just for the difference in perspective).
1. "The narrator was boring."
2. "How could any guy like that movie?"
3. "Anyone could have played those roles."
I happen to agree with the first one. The narrator is really unconnected to the storyline and other than Little Children, I can't think of a movie where that is an effective choice that adds to the movie. The monotone, emotionless speak and terminology she used also worked against the film because it lulled you into daydreaming half the time.
Still, I liked the movie. Scorsese has a much better handle on these sort of films than most filmmakers, The House of Mirth, another Edith Wharton update stands out. It's not one of his masterpieces, I'll make that clear immediately, but it's a solid film.
I liked the idea about how a single event (Michelle Pfeiffer's refusal to turn around on the pier) could alter an entire life. This same type of decision is alluded to in Spike Lee's The 25th Hour when Ed Norton's character must make the decision to drive to the prison or take off. It's fascinating. And in The Age of Innocence it really happens twice, as Daniel Day-Lewis is about to change everything and admit to his love for Pfeiffer right at the point Winona Ryder announces her pregnancy, sealing his future.
Scorsese also captures the atmosphere of the time period and does a good job of visualizing it (better, I thought than he did in Gangs of New York - although I think that's a better film). It seems more authentic than Gangs at least, less stylized. The final scene, like Chachi mentioned, is a good representation of love lost and regrets without ever showing Pfeiffer's character again.
I didn't have the same problem distinguishing characters most of the time and I can see where Scorsese would say this is his most 'violent' film (although I think he's exaggerating greatly for the effect and is only half-serious). But I did feel Scorsese showed the relationship between people in this society is, as you put it, 'catty.' Everything involving Pfeiffer's character alludes to that fact. The inability of people to voice their opinions of one another... only Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer really manage to ever speak their minds.
It's well done, if the story is rather typical of the era. The place where I think the film falters a little bit is the relationship between Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder. I don't think it was built up enough in the beginning to make it seem like Day-Lewis had any qualms about going behind her back (except to preserve his own image). He didn't really care about her at all, and is only trapped into his marriage after the unplanned pregnancy. Plus, in order to make Day-Lewis appeal more to the fans, Ryder's character is conveniently gone from a large portion of the first half of the film. That way his thoughts of infidelity are overlooked instead of seen as the acts of a scumbag. It's a bit of a scam on the audience.
As for the performances, Day-Lewis is very reserved (typical for this type of film) and it's really Michelle Pfeiffer's movie to walk away with. And to a large degree, she does. She's the most interesting part of The Age of Innocence, largely because it's like they dropped a snake in the middle of a group of mice and watched them squirm. Winona Ryder however comes across okay, but nothing better, she manages the naivete of the role but not the sincerity. Plus, there was little chemistry between Day-Lewis and herself.
In the end, it's a good film for a bad genre but it's not the hidden gem I was hoping for in Scorsese's canon. I might watch it again at some point, but I'd do moreso to revisit Scorsese's stylistic choices and the cinematography than to see any of these characters again.
After careful deliberation, I've chosen The Doors as the next entry in "In the Screening Room." We need some sex, drugs and rock n' roll to snap us out of our Victorian ways.
I like this movie. I for one, do love the narration, but feel that while the film is technically sound and the acting is good, feel let down by the story. I think it takes too long to start moving toward what is really going on, having said that, I am quite pleased with this once it does start rolling. Scorese made the right choice to shake things up with this, and yes, it does have a very dream like feel.
Post a Comment