Sam Mendes has potentially one of the most unique ways of looking at American society. He always seems to have a certain way of showing us the stereotypical mask but under this there is essentially something darker and deeper than meets the eye, something ghostly that cannot be escaped. His latest instalment, Revolutionary Road, is no exception to this. In fact, it could be argued as being his finest work to date.
In terms of plot and narrative, the film cannot be compared to any other that I’ve seen in recent months. The pacing and plot development are flawless and the way in which it engrosses and surrounds you is so drawing that the film itself feels about 10 minutes long. The exposition and character depth that is explored is also almost perfect and by the time the ending credits roll it makes you feel almost guilty for having watched it, the voyeuristic nature and unpatronising way that the film is told can only be compared to Hitchcock’s finest.
The film follows the young and aspirational Wheeler family whose goal is to eventually move to Paris to start their life again. However, when problems develop at home and the happy veneer that the couple have starts to crack, the film quickly develops into an exploration of mind games that the couple play on each other and affect this has on the family as a whole. The film is a nostalgic look into the struggles of a young couple and their adaptation to the social surroundings that they have, it has everything you could want from a 1950s drama, but all the guts of contemporary cinema. It also seems to imply heavily that the problems the family are having are still present and still as valid as they were fifty years ago.
Aesthetically the film handles a difficult task very well as it could have easy fallen into a trap of Sirkian glamour and mid-class dialogue and seemed more like a prequel to American Beauty. However this is not the case at all, Mendes does a great job of applying aesthetic principles used and perfected by Hitchcock and Sirk but brings it up to date by not being so overtly glamorous and uses much more muted tones and colour palettes. The effect of this leaves you with a much more natural and honest interpretation of the film’s themes and settings: it has all the charm and brilliance of a period drama, but has none condescending traits.
As a couple, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio couldn’t be more perfect on screen; they mirror each other with such elegance that it becomes hard not to like them and by the time you’re leaving the cinema it feels like you’ve just watched a home-movie with a sense of empathy stays with you for long while after. Also, think of the way in which they were in Titanic and the reflection of that in which they are now – that young and sprightly couple have now grown up (if only Jack hadn’t died that is) and have more problems with each other than you can imagine.
In terms of Revolutionary Road and Mendes’ career, I may be bold to think that it’s his best, but in terms of actual depth; quality and sheer brutal honesty it cannot be compared to his others and it certainly haunts you afterwards.
5 comments:
I enjoyed it a lot too despite it's intensity; it was a very authentic slice of Americana.
Did you not think that Deakins' cinematography was a little lacking though? He usually wows me, if only subtely, but I thought that his work on Revolutionary Road was quite unspectacular when compared to what he did on No Country and The Assassination of Jesse James.
I love Mendes' work, he is amongst my favourites, but I think that both Jarhead and Revolutionary Road would have been better of Hall had of worked on them. As much as I love Deakins, Hall's work on Road to Perdition and American Beauty was just spectacular.
No, I really liked it. I enjoyed it because of its subtly and also the way it more natural.
I think if Hall would have done it, it would have looked too much like Road to Perdition and American Beauty, which although are great films, the two are very different to Revolutionary Road because although the 'white-picket fence look' is there, it isn't and it becomes not so much about the stereotypical veneer which you see in American Beauty, but about a subtle veneer.
Does that make sense, or does it just make sense in my head?
I agree, it really felt like it had gone by in a brilliant flash; the mark of a great film
Hey Jim, I thought Deakins worked wonderfully. The tone felt kind of like a bruise being intermittently covered with a foundation (look at the colour of their walls). I mean that as a metaphor, for the beating their 'European dream' takes, and the subsequent pretense/veneer of ideological American dream that they vehemently adhere to. Does that make sense?
I think a special word to Michael Shannon, for his interpretation of the "wacko", and how wonderfully honest his character is, a walking talking conscience bomb.
Red leaf, that makes perfect sense. A very pertinent metaphor. I think I need to see the film again, I probably won't return to the cinema but I'll definately buy it when it's released.
I suppose though, in relation to my earlier comment, Deakins does do an extremely good job of externalising the film's themes visually. If it was more flashy, and Hall's work frequently was, it might have damaged the integrity of the film's message. Deakins' other work has been more obviously stylistic but perhaps it's a sign of his greatness that he can adapt his approach in such a way.
Post a Comment