Readers may recall that I have an active 85 year mother. One of her main forms of entertainment, when not spending a few hours every week on the internet following all of the Colin Firth fansites, (as well as admiring the large Colin Firth calendar on her wall just near the autographed photo of him: you getting the idea?) is to watch movies, either in the cinema or on DVD.
I see few adult movies these days, but I still like to read reviews and watch how successful some are. My mother doesn't follow the reviews much; she tends to go by what passes for star power these days. Hence, for example, she may well be the only 85 year old person in the country who ventured out to see the
poorly received Colin Firth movie "St Trinians" last year. ("No girl or boy over the age of 12 would be attracted by anything so puerile" wrote the Financial Times. My mother agreed.)
This puts me in a position of having to warn her of the nature of certain movies which I can guess she may be planning on seeing.
Recently, for example, she brought a DVD of "The Departed". The reason: she quite likes Leonardo Di Caprio. But gritty, profanity-filled Scorsese gangsterfests are hardly my mother's favourite genre, and I could recall Margaret Pomeranz
really disliking it. (
She said "It's so violent, it's so vile in the language, you know, particularly the sexual language." That was enough to put me off seeing it too.)
I warned my mother; I think she was going to return it unopened.
Which brings me to another Di Caprio warning I have just issued to her.
Revolutionary Road has received pretty good reviews, but I had to warn my Mum that, despite romantic looking scenes in the TV ads, it is a story entirely about a marriage break up.
Now I'll do my easily ridiculed trick of rubbishing a movie simply on the basis of reviews I feel are probably right. In the case of Revolutionary Road, about an apparently ideal 1950's middle class American marriage, and how stultifying the couple find it, it would seem that many reviewer's reactions are related to how "progressive" they are in their social views, particularly on the question of the importance of self fulfilment.
For example,
Roger Ebert adores the movie, but writes:
Remember, this is the 1950s. A little after the time of this movie, Life magazine would run its famous story about the Beatniks, "The Only Rebellion Around." There was a photo of a Beatnik and his chick sitting on the floor and listening to an LP record of modern jazz that was cool and hip and I felt my own yearnings. I remember on the way back from Steak 'n Shake one night, my dad drove slow past the Turk's Head coffeehouse on campus. "That's where the Beatniks stand on tables and recite their poetry," he told my mom, and she said, "My, my," and I wanted to get out of that car and put on a black turtleneck and walk in there and stay.
Further down he says of the acting:
They are so good, they stop being actors and become the people I grew up around.
And he finishes with:
A lot of people believe their parents didn't understand them. What if they didn't understand themselves?
Comments such as this indicate that Ebert has residual disdain for conformism from his teenage years, and like many others, has fully absorbed the idea that happiness is reached via self-understanding and self-fulfilment. As such he is primed to admire movies on these sort of themes. Indeed, like most critics, he loved American Beauty, also directed by Sam Mendes. I found it terribly over-rated, theatrically directly, and far too contrived to be affecting.
The review of
Road which sounds to me to likely be more correct is by
Peter Rainer, the reviewer for the Christian Science Monitor, which opens with this:
What is it about the 1950s that brings out the worst in cultural historians? The received wisdom is that this era that gave us Mailer and Ginsberg and Kerouac and Brando and Dean was, in fact, a bastion of strait-laced – i.e., straitjacketed – conformity. People, suburbanites especially, lived lives of quiet desperation in their look-alike, ticky-tacky dwellings. Wives were obsessed with spotless kitchens. Commuter trains served up faceless men in gray flannel suits to the gaping maw of Manhattan and then back again, to the two-car garage and the 2.5 children.
The latest movie to plug into this cautionary myth is "Revolutionary Road," set in the mid-'50s and based, extremely faithfully, on the celebrated 1961 novel by Richard Yates. The director is Sam Mendes, who plumbed these shallows once before in "American Beauty," which, though contemporary, felt '50-ish. The new film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, who previously appeared together in "Titanic." This is another kind of disaster movie, on dry land.
Rainer makes the point, as do other some other reviewers, that the well received TV show "Mad Men", dealing with men behaving badly in the same era, at least shows the characters as having some vitality. In my view, its even more instructive to watch some of the quality films or television made and set in the 1950s (rather than modern ones
about the 1950's) to be reminded that people really did
live then.
Although I am too young to know of the 1950's directly, this point about it being too easy to overlook the "vitality" of day to day life in earlier times is an important one to remember. Westerners today do feel greater freedom in all kinds of areas, such as sexual mores, career path, and preparedness to end a marriage. Yet such freedoms don't necessarily mean that there were huge numbers of people living in the 1950's sitting around in a blue funk all day because they didn't feel fulfilled. Sure, there were some people who felt unduly constrained then, but that will always be the case for some, no matter how many freedoms are allowed.
Apart from doubting that they accurately reflect the general zeitgeist of the pre-60's world, the other grounds upon which a more conservative soul dislikes such movies is that they show no skepticism of the modern mantra of the importance of self fulfilment and "self realisation". As I think I have written here before, most people today have forgotten that this 20th century Western attitude is a huge turnaround from historic views that developing good character was something to be worked at, not a matter of self-discovery, and to lead a good life involved large components of duty and respect for others which often necessarily involved self-sacrifice.
I do know something of the 1960's, and of course there are some ways in which society now is significantly better, but other good features of the period have sadly been lost and show little sign of returning. I won't go into detailing the particular rights and wrongs of the recent past right now, but suffice to say that I have an inherent cynicism of movies which paint too bleak a picture of the pre-1960's world, when as an era it featured growing populations, strong economies, the birth of modern technology, a greater sense of obligation and duty, and movies as enjoyable as those of Hitchcock at his peak.
