To all my fellow critics out there, and anyone who’s felt the need to prop this film up – come on people, is this movie really that great?? I have to admit, having finally gotten a chance to see this year-end cinematic critical darling; I’m a little bewildered. Where most see brilliance, I see the wrong kind of artifice, and feel ambivalence. But I’ll get back to that. For starters, I’ll toss out some other semi-random thoughts that the experience of “Revolutionary Road” inspired…
When one considers the ideological chasm between the messages of most children’s films (Believe in Yourself!) and a lot of the highly touted films directed at adults (life is empty and hopeless), it gives one pause. Which is it? Yes, life can suck, and Believing in Yourself above all else is most likely a road to certain disappointment, if not worse. So are we lying to our kids? To some extent, probably. But on the flip side, how many times do we need to hear that it’s all for nothing? Wayne Coyne of the band the Flaming Lips, when commenting on his recent film “Christmas on Mars”, basically said that life is ultimately meaningless, so it is up to us to find our own magic, our own happiness. While that idea may seem to straddle the above notions of the great positive and the great negative, it’s actually a tremendously negative idea. He says that ultimately, it IS all for nothing. But at least “Christmas on Mars” allows for innovation and wonder. The characters of Sam Mendes’ “Revolutionary Road” are tragically well beyond such mental platitudes. As wearing as they can be, stories like theirs are certainly worth telling. The true problem with “Revolutionary Road” is the way it goes about it.
Much has been made of the performances by the lead actors, a triumphantly reunited Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. They do indeed give their collective all to this material, but the notion of “Titanic” stunt casting never quite escapes the big picture. DiCaprio, as good as he is, delivers what has to be called a good Leonardo DiCaprio performance – meaning, like John Wayne and Tom Cruise before him, the movie star and the mannerisms he’s known for (and loved for) never go away. Winslet, by comparison, is a much more effective chameleon, but her cover is consistently blown by having to spend the film with Leo. Whenever the notion of “the Titanic couple” crosses the viewer’s mind, she’s outed by association.
They play what we’re told is a typical American 1950’s suburban couple, grappling with the extreme repression and phoniness of the era in the most repressed and phony area (the suburbs). They have kids (whom are barely seen), dream a little, and drink and smoke a lot, but mainly, they exchange blank stares, argue, and wonder what they ever saw in one another. Devoid of any true faith or depth, this is the Hell they get. Ingmar Bergman, who specialized in telling couple-based stories of hopelessness and emptiness, covered this terrain brilliantly again and again during his great career. When comparing his work to this film, “Revolutionary Road” is junior level at best. Of course Mendes is no Bergman, but for a moment, consider the amount of prestige that has been heaped upon Mendes in his relatively brief film career. With only a handful of films under his belt, he’s become one of the most prominent directors among a handful of filmmakers whom critics by and large are simply unwilling to criticize. Bergman may’ve been another such director in his day, but the difference is, Bergman consistently lived up to the hype, whereas Mendes almost consistently does not.
The prime offender in Mendes’ bag of tricks is the use of Michael Shannon as a certified mental patient who comes around throughout the film to flamboyantly speak his mind, and act the part of truth-sayer. Never mind the shallow notion that someone bold enough to speak unpleasantries in 1950s America simply MUST be insane – this character is purely a lazy device on the part of the screenplay. In the Mendes oeuvre, this hammy character’s forced existence in the film is second only Chris Cooper’s closeted gay military man in the similarly woefully over-lauded “American Beauty”. These characters, in otherwise thoughtful pictures, serve to yank us away from the perceived realities, and inform us in a very base way of what we’re already watching. A true cynic could even accuse Mendes of not trusting the actors enough to communicate the nuances of the film. Certainly, he doesn’t fully trust his audience.
Granted, I’ll admit I’m being a bit hard on “Revolutionary Road”, but upon finally seeing it, after having read one glowing review after another, and noting its presence on a great many year-end best-of lists, I’m more than a little disappointed. We’ve seen all of this done better before elsewhere, and more creatively. (Thank you Hollywood, we get it – suburban life sucks!) (Although I come from the suburbs, and oddly enough, it did not suck. Hmm.) I’m not sure the particular time and place reflect contemporary society in a the necessary way to bring out the bulldozer of current-day resonance that a film like this truly needs in order to maintain its level of adoration over time. Try as they might to draw the parallel, the Bush America of the early 21st century is not the Eisenhower America of the 1950s. Thus, “Revolutionary Road”, with all its precision era-accurate set decoration, becomes a domestically fused historical recreation.
So there, I said it. It’s an unsatisfying film. “Revolutionary Road” brings precious little that is new to the table. Yes, Kate Winslet does a great job of keeping that table free of crumbs, and DiCaprio keeps it stocked with empty glasses in the best Movie Star sense, but when the said table is built on the foundation of shallowness, argument, emptiness, and doom, one had better do a better job of actualizing the reality than this.
“Revolutionary Road” is a flat road that faces into the past in a contrived, award-baiting manner. Perhaps Academy voters will relate to the message of life being not just empty but hopeless, but that’s just not my worldview. But that’s not why I ultimately condemn this film. “Wall-E” and “Kung-Fu Panda”, both above average films, overdo it in the opposite way - but I’ll take their animated reality over Mendes’ meticulous portrait of 1950s suburbia. To go back to the beginning paragraph and Wayne Coyne’s “Christmas on Mars”, that film, while being the opposite of meticulous, is a much more effective negative-worldview film in its own slapped together, low-rent way. It is down to earth in a gloriously celestial way, whereas Mendes’ cynically fused view of the past, mired in contrivances and going through the motions, feels a lot more alien.
- Jim Tudor
Interesting review. I honestly didn't get the impression that Revolutionary Road had been all that widely praised, though. (It's got a score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment, which is only 1% higher than Quantum of Solace.) Seemed more of a case of a film whose positive buzz dissipated as soon as people actually got a chance to see it.
i have to thank this film for renewing my my respect for all those burton/taylor vehicles, esp Virginia Woolf.
Maybe, Sam Mendes should stick with action stuff like ' Road To Perdition '. Seems like a better fit.
With him having apparently drained himself of all dynamism to that extent, he could probably only go gangbusters in that ' Preacher ' flick ( that he's supposedly attached in ). We'll see....
When I watched it I was thinking the whole time "Yes, we get it... move along please" I think I actually said that at the screen in the last 15mins. I felt like this movie really didn't have that much to say and could probably have been covered with the exact same impact in a 20min short film because it never goes into any real emotional or thematic depth.
Daverat is right, I really had no sympathy for those characters they were acting like spoilt children throughout the whole movie.
mr tudor, i do indeed have a problem with you as a critical voice. i've been reading twitch for a long time now, and your articles always seem to rub me the wrong way.
first off, you never seem to watch very many movies, and secondly, your year end list are always, always suspect.
you fall head over heals for anything comic book, star wars, or kevin smith related. "manchild" isn't the right word, but it's the first to come to mind. i find a total philosophical and artistic immaturity in you.
the whole review, while well written, i feel is biased like i stated earlier. you act like titanic left a stain on your soul, you talk about what "adult films" should and shouldn't be compared to children films. like no one creates heart warming optimistic adult films. what? maybe if you had seen more movies this year you would think differently. you keep acting like you are going against the grain on this one like there is going to be some backlash against you. this film was very divisive, i'd say it split critics fairly evenly.
"emptiness for the sake of emptiness is nothing but posturing." - really is that what yates novel is, emptiness for emptiness sake? because then you would really be in the minority.
i'm not a critic, i'm not even a decent writer, but i saw many more movies than you. my favorite of the last year were:
wendy and lucy
let the right one in
milk
the wrestler
timecrimes
the chaser
revolutionary road
funny games u.s.
vicky christina barcelona
the good, the bad, the weird
you claim to have seen 24 movies and your favorite were
dark knight
ironman
benjamin button
why do you deserve a critical voice? what qualifies you?
"To all my fellow critics out there, and anyone who’s felt the need to prop this film up – come on people, is this movie really that great??"
This is a really interesting debate, and I feel compelled to throw in my two cents, because I completely agree with everything thecrimsoncurse has said and feel thankful that someone else shares my opinion and has defended it in a thoughtful and concise manner. I'm sorry Jim, but you're review of Revolutionary Road was very poor, full of blustery language but without any substantive argument to back it up. You're attempts to relate the film to Christmas on Mars, Wall-E, and Kung-fu Panda are tangential and inconclusive, and as thecrimsoncurse stated, you do not qualify your opinion of RR with any critique of the film's percieved formal/dramatic shortcomings, instead you spend your time childishly disagreeing with what you see as the film's unworthy or unoriginal subject matter. If you think the film is "a flat road that faces into the past, in a contrived, award-baiting manner" (whatever that means...) it's not enough to just state that. Tell us why, back up your opinion with legitimate examples from the film. Come on, this is film criticism 101 stuff.
In my opinion Crimsoncurse's larger call-out on your general credentials as a critic is also well deserved and completely accurate. I too am a long time reader of twitch, and must say that the quality of the postings and contributors has gone far down as of late (if it makes you feel any better, you aren't the only lackluster writer on the roster, or the worst). I used to read Twitch because it had more consistent quality writing than other niche film news blogs, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. This is unfortunate, but understandable as the site has expanded to a much larger form over the years.
Anyways, you seem like a nice enough guy, but you may be better off sticking to reviewing your niche genres (comic book movies, etc). And your life story is fine and certainly understandable, but when you write something that is going out there into the public, you are implicitly acknowledging that it should be valid, defensible, and informed enough to warrant a reader's time. I know this is *just* a film blog and not the New Yorker or something, but I feel you have broken that professional code, and are now floundering to justify why we should all understand why your writing is sub-standard. Remember, you are critiquing other people's work, a film (as you well know) is a lot more difficult to create than a review, and it's not like Sam Mendes, or any filmmaker, can give you a litany of personal excuses for the quality of their work. If you are going to be a critic, at least give the work, whether you admire it or not, the respect it deserves by writing a well-informed, articulate review. If you aren't capable of that, I'm sorry but no, you should not "get to be a film reviewer" (though admittedly these days on sites like Twitch, the qualifications are much more lax, so by those standards, sure). My apologies if that seems harsh, but writing like this is why online/blog film criticism will never be viewed as nearly as legit as print criticism.
And this is perhaps what gives films like RR their value, the ability to instigate debate on not only the merits and lack thereof of a certain product. Sometimes it really is only more about what we bring to the film rather than the film itself. And perhaps this can all be considered positive in the long term.
Even if the film doesn't speak to us in ways we wished it could, the sparks that may fly can always be seen as the birthing points for greater & more articulate thoughts.
Like the inexplicable reaction to films like last year's Speed Racer, it is less a question of quality, and more about the current cultural attitudes & feelings. What RR sounds to me is more like another victim of inconvenient timing.
rustyjames - Harsh, dude. Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to review films as I am able, be it here or elsewhere. My more mainstream sensibilities may not be the best fit around Twitch - but they never have been, and that's never been an issue. For my money, Todd and the regular contributors do a consistently great job running this site. But honestly, I'm haven't been here often enough to take the blame for any perceived plunge in quality. (Remember, only 24 movies last year, many of which I didn't get the chance to write about!) I'm certainly not going to apologize for my supposed part in the lack of acceptance of internet film criticism. I think you're wrong about Twitch going downhill, though.
Thanks for the detailed critique of my criticism. Believe it or not, it is nice to know people are looking at this stuff, even if this is what I get from it. Sorry you didn't approve this one, but to paraphrase Burton's Ed Wood, my next one will be better!
Now seriously, enough about me. Has anyone actually seen "Christmas on Mars" around here?
this review represents one man's opinion. that's all any review is.
in my opinion, revolutionary road was a very powerful and important film.
i think RR examined the paradigm of suburban american family life in a masterful way. i also think that the "mentally ill" character was not at all too heavy handed. this is a movie with leonardo dicaprio and kate winslet. it is going to be seen by my millions of people. millions of people that have bought into the same lifestyle that this movie is attempting to dissect and examine. a large segment of the audience is going to miss some important thematic elements without having that strong voice verbalizing those ideas. in addition i thought that character was funny and provided some much needed comic relief.
i also believe that the director/writer made two masterful choices that really elevated the movie above many others on the subject.
1. they almost never show the kate and leo's children. this was such an amazing choice. through all their fights and hardships the movie never cuts away to that generic shot of the children sitting in their beds or standing in the hallway with tears in their eyes. this movie is about this couple. it is about their hopes, their dreams, their selfishness, and their children barely factor into their decisions so we don't get to see them.
2. the movie begins at the end of the relationship. aside from very few flashbacks, the movie begins as the marriage is failing. this is so refreshing. we don't have to sit through a half an hour of learning how this couple fell in love only to watch things unravel. by this point in a failing marriage, the way in which people met is irrelevant.
in addition i also would like to say that the cinematography by roger deakins is fantastic. that final breakfast scene and the way in which kate moves in and out of darkness at the end of it was heartbreaking.
again, just one man's opinion. and for the record, i am a single 20 something who has consciously rejected the institution of marriage and suburban life for many of the reasons explored in this film. i would be curious to find out if many of the people who disliked revolutionary road are married/suburban/parents?
To: thecrimsoncurse
"maybe i misdirected some of my aggravation with him towards you." - Funny thing, I was thinking the same thing right before I came back and read your comments.
"anyone who has seen let the right one in or martyrs and enjoyed it, is a-ok in my book. which makes me really conflicted with what i’m about to write." - Don't worry it's our very similar and radically different tastes that keep these kind of discussions interesting.
"Yates was saying to the culture of the 50’s - why stay in a loveless marriage? get that divorce, and have that abortion if you think it’s best. " - except abortion was illegal & highly dangerous as April found out too late.
"damn society and culture and it’s rigid format. why have kids in the first place? to make you so passionate against the film, i can only assume it succeeded on some level." - I think the worst thing a movie can do is leave me indifferent. So to instigate so much hatred for it, it did do something right.
"I mean your applying your own personal financial situation to a film set in the 50’s. why?" - As a married person who has usually had a pretty good idea of what he wants, a job within the industry of my own choosing, and in a marriage that has had no affairs and no children, it was about the only thing about them & their their situation that my wife & I could relate to.
"if i were married i couldn’t imagine watching this with my wife. i really mean that too." - My wife & I had absolutely no desire to see this movie. Even when I came home with the screener she had no desire to watch it and I certainly was not in a hurry to either. But then she went to bed early and I popped it in. About 15 minutes later she came out, unable to sleep, and ended up watching the whole movie.
"but let me ask you, why does this movie affect you so personally?" - Maybe because it's attacking something that I know quite well but with two characters I can't really relate to at all.
"why by your reasoning is the wrestler a better movie? (and let me be clear, the wrestler is a far better movie.) or how about the characters from let the right one in…thats a very twisted ending, morally speaking. why apply the litmus test of your real life to revolutionary road and not other films?" Maybe because wrestling & vampires, in my "real" world are so alien to me where as problems in a marriage are as natural as breathing. And what Frank & April's problems were and how they handled them or failed to handle them informed me that they were nothing but delusional idiots who had some how blinded themselves to believe that they were better than everyone else.
"I believe it’s because this movie affected you. i know it affected me - some of the fights in this movie were too real. too close to my own life." - The only way it affected me was it bored me to death. I was generally predictable. I watched it cold without ever reading the book or reviews. And not once during the movie did I ever think that it wouldn't end very badly for both of them. As soon as he started sleeping with his secretary I knew he'd go home to a wife who passionately wanted him. When he pulled that stunt at work I knew he would be getting a promotion for it. When the "nut" came over to visit I knew he would say inappropriate things that pointed out the truth about them. Though Michael Shannon was the only thing I did like about the movie. As soon as she started talking about an abortion I knew what her outcome would be.
"i’m not trying to convince you that revolutionary road is a good movie. i’m just trying to point out that i don’t think you have been fair to it." - Why should I be fair to a boring & predictable movie while people keep heaping on the praises for it mainly because of the immense talent and craftsmanship that went into such an ultimately mediocre film.
And I liked Benjamin Button only a tad more.
I saw this movie last night at a free screening. I was left asking myself and others "What was this movie about? Did I miss something?" Don't think so. Everyone I spoke with after the screening was wondering the same thing so I was not alone. I was bored to death waiting for this movie to say something profound other than playing out as though these people were victims. I am glad I didn't spend $10 to see it and I would not recommend it. Perhaps you may want to see it on cable if you have nothing better to do. I won't be wasting my time watching it again.
I agree this film has been grossly overated and I think the major flaws lie with Mendes. He has a background as a theatre director and consequently his films feel overtly staged and mannered. It's as though he's just trying to film a play - why not just do it as a play. The novel's dialogue just doesn't work so well on screen and the whole concept of oppressive 1950s suburbia is a well worn path - a path to which he didn't bring anything new, either stylistically or in content. Kate and Leo were both great. And I really like Titanic for the crass, OTT, ambitious, spectacular behemoth it was. Mendes' choice of score is dreadful and added very little every time it cropped up, seemingly unmoderated between scenes - hey, it's an emontional scene, crank up that same score. And Jim, I'm with you on Michael Shannon. When Kate Winlset comments about him being the only one who understands, it's a truly cringe-inducing moment that insults audience intelligence.