I’m at a loss for why there are so many rave reviews for the Revolutionary Road debacle. Sam Mendes’ attempt at a different kind of American Beauty pales miserably after the deadpan humour and sly cinematics of his Oscar sweeping masterpiece. But Variety’s Anne Thompson called Revolutionary Road “powerful and beautifully written and filmed” and “a modern classic.” Was she watching the same movie? She puts this adaptation of Richard Yates’ book on Oscar watch. Ummm, why?
Well, because all the parts are here- actors Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, with cinematographer Roger Deakins and composer Thomas Newman, nominated for Oscars 3,5,7, and 8 times respectively, plus Oscar winner Kathy Bates. The story is universal fodder for uncertain times- man’s search for meaning, in suburban hell. The real story is an important one that is not told often enough, – woman’s search for meaning in her role as wife, mother, and person. Though Leonardo questions his stifling, ludicrous job and the identity he forms there, his wife is told to see a shrink for feeling lifeless among the walking dead. It’s the post-war 1950s, and though hubby is tinkering around with the girls in the office and wifey is at home bored suicidal, to ask for an interesting life or to refuse to bear more children makes you a nutcase. When during an argument, Leo becomes violent and enraged and tells her how sick she makes him carrying his unborn child, the desperate wife looks into the abortion option. Polite society is no longer so polite.
Leo plays this guy again!
With a few million dollars and a bunch of Oscar-able actors, you’d think this could be made into a movie that isn’t so …boring. There were about eight amazing lines, and the rest of the writing was unbelievably forced. While I appreciate subtle unfolding in a film more than I do flashing lights and car chases, this had neither. It was an hour of sitting there wondering why Leo always plays the same guy. I respect Leo’s cool work buying limbs for landmine victims in Africa, and also his acting talent. Sometimes. Here, it looked like they were filming a theatre rehearsal. Leo was absolutely wooden. Where was the chemistry between Rose and Jack, albeit marred and used up, as marriage is wont to do?
Kate’s performance was subtle and strong, but not dazzling enough to make up for the monotony and some of the ridiculous lines she had to deliver. And for all the talk about the awesome cinematography, there wasn’t much to look at, and nothing arty in its absence.
Here and there some blood was pumped into the film, not enough to rescue it by any stretch, but enough to keep me from leaving my seat, just barely. When the toodle-looing neighbour, Kathy Bates, comes over and suggests Kate and Leo entertain her son, recently released from the funny farm, Kate welcomes the diversion. The couple finds their nut bar neighbour easy to talk to, and open their souls to him about suffering suburbia. Kate doesn’t feel he is crazy at all- he is tormented, truthful, and genuine, and he encourages them to get away from the hopeless emptiness Leo observes. Later, he comes for dinner and one of two scenes with an event occurs. Turns out Mr. Wacky Job is a bigger and better man than poser salesman Leo. Which leads to the big fight between husband and wife, the unsatisfying climax, and the still less satisfying denouement.
curl up with the book instead.
What went wrong? It would be easy to conclude that the subtext of feminist examination needed a feminine touch, but we had Kate’s very satisfactory one and it didn’t go far enough. Yes, the film is supposed to be bleak. Bleak, not boring. A bit of humour or colour beyond the nattering neighbours could have gone a long way. The script would need a total overhaul by another writer. Someone not so horribly heavy-handed. Remember what they told us in writing class: show, don’t tell.
Once Ann Landers did a secret study, asking people to anonymously report whether, if given the choice, they would go back and have children all over again. Fully seventy percent wrote back and said no way, no way, no way. It was earth shattering to the kind of social circles and societal pretensions portrayed in this film. It’s still earth shattering today. Because it’s still considered unnatural, crazy, and selfish for a woman to not want more children, or not want them at all. But really, we have a population and environmental emergency where it’s actually most selfish and crazy to keep having kids- come on, what if all six billion of us have children? We’re already living that nightmare end. For these reasons, any art reflecting on this topic is urgent viewing.
Otherwise, this would have been a one-word review: tedious.
Visit Lorette C. Luzajic at www.thegirlcanwrite.net.
