This film is often considered a great departure from Martin Scorsese's previous offerings. Respond freely to what you thought about it. Please try to articulate the ways in which The Age of Innocence is similar and/or different to the other Scorsese films we've seen this semester. Also, if you can, consider the ways in which Scorsese aesthetically achieves, as he says in the interview I handed out last week, "that sense of memory and loss, deja vu almost."I look forward to reading what you write. Have fun with it!
11 comments:
Matt Fagerholm
Sometimes restraint can prove to be more emotionally turbulent than any amount of explosive outbursts. It’s no secret why the single most suspenseful scene I’ve ever experienced is in Alfred Hitchcock’s generally over-looked 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much. A concert is underway at the Albert Hall, as a large audience benignly regards a performance of the “Storm Cloud Cantata.” An assassin is preparing to shoot the Prime Minister, planning to have his gun fire on a single crash of cymbals. And all the while, a grieving woman (blackmailed by the assassin) stands observing all of this slowly unfold before her, forced to simply watch. The audience is held captive right along with her, feeling the tremendous amount of restraint she utilizes to keep herself from screaming (until, of course, the very end). It’s the fact she doesn’t scream until the end, and the fact that everything occurs at such a measured pace, and the fact that Hitchcock chooses to cut out all dialogue and sound effects (allowing the visuals and music to simply work their pure magic), that makes this scene so overwhelmingly intense.
It’s that same power I felt all the way through The Age Innocence, a film that like Merchant/Ivory’s equally marvelous The Remains of the Day (released the same year), is about people whose hearts are trapped by the laws of an oppressive society. There is a love at the center of both these films that remains infuriatingly unrealized, simply because any attempt by the characters to act on their true feelings would lead to ostracization. I love how Scorsese describes in the text how flowers are used almost as replacements for his characters inner emotions (as the yellow and red colors of the flowers fill the screen with their implied power). Since these characters can’t swear and punch like most of his protagonists, it’s astonishing how Scorsese utilizes the mis en scene to express in subtle terms what is usually conveyed with capital letters in his films. Amazing how the sound of a fireplace functions as a sort of Greek chorus, crumbling to ashes as the dreams of Newland Archer come tumbling down. Daniel Day-Lewis is one hell of an actor, and though he has proven more than game to chew scenery in Gangs of New York (a Scorsese film that is set a mere few years prior to this one) and the upcoming There Will Be Blood, it’s equally mesmerizing to watch him underplaying here, keeping all his desires bottled up in his desperately glistening eyes. As Joanne Woodword states in the narration, “we lived in a hieroglyphic world where nothing was said.” At one point, Day-Lewis closes his eyes and all sound disappears, as he imagines Michelle Pfieffer taking him in her arms. It’s more sensual than any amount of nudity.
Though this film may be considered slow for Scorsese, it moves like a bullet compared to Barry Lyndon, and it loses none of the cinematic exhilaration the filmmaker is so repeatedly lauded for. Every trademark Scorsese element is so present in this film—even the Madonna/Whore complex—that it’s only appropriate when Scorsese himself turns up in a Hitchcockian cameo as a photographer. Regardless of the film’s genre or content, this is a Scorsese Picture through and through. The uptight society folk almost function like the Mafia in Goodfellas, as they conspire against the intentions of Archer in the film’s creepily unnerving climax. He’s either in or he’s out, with no exceptions whatsoever. The judgmental witnesses to Archer’s forbidden romance seem to be standing in for the flashbulbs in Raging Bull. The film seems to consist of memories Archer is recalling toward the end of his life—with all the romanticized visuals and sumptuous music (brilliant work by Michael Ballhaus and Elmer Bernstein) that might be infused within one’s recollection of a certain time and place, but never faltering in its harsh ring of truth. If there is any déjà vu in the film, it is because Archer’s life seems to be series of repetitious encounters. As his life circles around endless extravagant dinners and opera performances, he is forced to avoid the exciting woman he loves while being inexorably bound to a dull woman who is content with having her life structured by tradition. This film is uncompromisingly sad, and no more intense than any R-rated bloodbath. It’s all in the restraint.
Logan M. Futej
"Age of Innocence" is one of the few Scorsese films that I have not seen up until last week’s class, and it was nothing short of what I expected. Even though it was somewhat slower then most of Scorsese’s pictures, there was still this fire within his lead characters that was waiting to just explode. Flawless seems be the best description for the acting that takes place in this film. For me, Daniel Day Lewis is usually always a given for a good performance, but the young Winona and Michelle Pfeiffer really put forth some excellent acting. I kind of forgot about Pfeiffer to tell you the truth, but this really brought back a true sense of her abilities.
It’s Scorsese’s personal agenda that is always clearly apart of his creations that truly make an impact on me, obviously. I understand the book and film are set during a very proper time period, when everything was very clean cut, but Scorsese’s voice is clearly still apparent. We see a man (Newland Archer) who on the outside seems completely happy and content with his life, but deep down is so isolated, and bearing a need to break free from his social restraints. Charlie Cappa, Travis Bickle, and Jake La Motta, just to name a few, all seemed to have this sort of predicament in their own knotty way.
Overall, this isn’t my favorite by Scorsese. Then again, most of his pictures that I consider to have a close kinship to I’ve seen numerous times, so I wouldn’t cancel it out. Not only does this picture have so much flying at you just with set and art direction alone, but we as the viewer have to also ingest the characters. I can honestly say this is a film that needs to be watched not just once, but maybe 4, 5, or even ten times. Once again Scorsese not only puts forth a personal picture, but he shows us his true love and knowledge of history, and a time period away from his own.
I’m thinking the institution of marriage doesn’t really work. The concept’s a little wack. It’s kind of a bi-partisan, non-binding resolution to stave off loneliness. And, like most bi-whatever, non-whatever resolutions, it doesn’t often stick. I wonder what Scorsese would point-blank tell you about marriage. Daniel Day-Lewis was going to sleep with Michelle Pfeiffer whether he was married or not. Martin Scorsese was going to leave his wife, pregnancy or not. Contracts, you know, they need escape clauses. But I can’t blame Scorsese for giving it a try with Isabella Rossellini.
That said, not much has changed since the 1870s. A bunch of ethics and gossip mangle a person’s life? Jesus, look at Britney Spears. Or Ruan Ling-Yu, the famous Chinese actress who offed herself when the press exploited an extramarital affair. But it works to go ahead and have this film set in the late 19th century, when the social pressures were so extreme and, in a way, decadent, that the pageantry of the whole sordid affair serves to accentuate the insane conflict that is choosing to do what’s proper or choosing to do what you truly wish.
The film reminds me of “Brief Encounter.” There’s loads of passion, but no sex. I mean, there’s off-screen sex in “Age of Innocence,” but not in “Brief Encounter.” Still, the point of the movie is to show strained intimacy. “Brief Encounter” sort of goes through the doctrine of good old English proper-ism. A woman is married to a boring, but apparently sweet enough, guy, and therefore absolutely freaks at even the chance of a stranger inferring that she kissed another man. And, in both these movies, it seems to be the correct emotional choice to have the affair. Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer are totally into each other. He’s not the first guy to get accidentally involved with Winona Ryder. Poor, poor, mistaken Johnny Depp.
So I kind of wonder what the film would look like where it made by someone who married his high school sweetheart and never dreamed of being with anyone else. Scorsese seems to pick stories wherein the main characters do things they know they shouldn't. I mean, who else would you expect him to make movies about? But, then again, most movies are about bad or ill-advised choices being made.
Scorsese’s attention to details is. I don’t know. He makes a point of displaying every meal, even went through an ordeal over whether to use a silver plate in one scene. The guy went nuts trying to make this film look accurate, but, moreso, he made a point of putting the intricate details right in the center of attention. I don’t know if this is absolutely mandatory for the movie. I think we’d get what kind of world the movie takes place in even if we didn’t get the fancy showing-off of all the anthropological work. It’s not that I don’t appreciate filmmakers taking extreme effort to make a film look the way it does, I just wonder why it had to be displayed so prominently at times. But, if I saw the film again, I might realize that we actually don’t get an embellishment of tiny details. I do remember that, as the film went on, all those little shots of what and how lessened. For whatever reason, though, when years passed, Scorsese didn’t throw an assload of details at us. I mean, it’s all there to see. The clothes, furniture, streets, everything changes. But it’s just not displayed as dramatically.
But, goddamn, why the stirring camera moves on people’s faces? It was like “Quentin Tarantino presents Madam Bovary!” I don’t know.
And, oh, poor Daniel Day-Lewis. Just like Celia Johnson in “Brief Encounter,” he’s so abiding by social conduct that, even as death did he part from his wife, he wouldn’t go visit that chick who played Catwoman in the Tim Burton movie.
The Age of Innocence
Normally, I definitely steer clear of period pieces like cow steers clear of a slaughterhouse. However, with Scorsese's branding and unique style on his film I must say it was not all bad. The performances Scorsese got out of some of the actors, namely Daniel Day Lewis, absolutely blew me away. There was such power and emotion in the performances that it was hard not to get pulled into the story and that world. It also helps that Scorsese went nuts trying to make this an accurate period piece. It seems like this would the ultimate creative, ocd project for him. His meticulous attention to details and all the gadgets of the era (how many times did we see a detail shot of a pen or a old-timey cigar cutter or dish ware) seemed like a painstaking effort to create this world. Not only was Scorsese's attention to detail and direction of actors clearly present but his unique aesthetic and soundtrack choices were as well. One example of this that I loved was the way he faded out the dialogue track when the main character stopped paying attention. It's this kind of choice that really allows you to get inside the character's head and take this journey alongside of him. Another moment that stood out to me was the interesting series of shots in the opera house. It was just a very nice to see this interesting, active camera in a genre that is normally very flat and sterile where shots are concerned.
Aesthetic choices aside, I found the story engaging but a pretty grim look at love and relationships. While I do see the messages of sacrifice and selflessness, I walked out fairly somber. I did appreciate the story and especially appreciated seeing Scorsese tackle another character who felt isolated outside of the world he inhabited. It is always interesting to see further analysis of a character archetype by Scorsese and I look forward to the next offerings on the subject...maybe not in another period piece.
Films about upper-class society are really difficult to full off. Personally, coming from a working-class background makes it rather hard to empathize with bourgeois assholes. Some of Woody Allen's films of the 80s, like Crimes and Misdemeanors and Hannah and her Sisters--though I like these films very much--suffer from the same problem. The difference between Allen's films and Scorsese's is that Allen belongs to the society he depicts (even though the characters he plays function almost solely to comment on and challenge that society) and Scorsese doesn't. For better or worse, Scorsese is a working-class man who doesn't really have any practical, first-hand knowledge of the bourgeois lifestyle, despite the exhaustive anthropological detail contained within The Age of Innocence. One could argue that Scorsese had achieved a certain amount of monetary freedom by the time he made this film, and that somehow qualifies him to make a film about 1870s New Yorkers with loads of money, but I don't think so. I can appreciate the effort Scorsese puts forth here, but do not feel that this film is even remotely successful. The onus is on the audience to relate to the characters, story, mise-en-scene, etc, and this was virtually impossible for me to do. I just didn't care. In fact, all I could think about during the film was my own life. Recently I saw Douglas Sirk's All That Heaven Allows, which has a similar theme. Some rich widow has to deal with the outrage caused by her falling in love with a landscaper/tree hugger/hippie/Thoreau-wannabe who represents the complete antithesis of every potential suitor available to her. Her snobby, asshole kids (who she has devoted her whole life to) can't deal with mommy slummin' it with Rock Hudson--even though she's in love with him and he makes her happy. She breaks up with him as a result and then through a series of highly improbable events comes back and resumes the affair. Happy ending. Of course, The Age of Innocence does not end happily, but the same class struggle is evident. Michelle Pfiefer, though she sort of belongs to the upper-class, is clearly an outsider, someone who doesn't care so much about money and prestige. But Daniel Day-Lewis can't break free of the constraints of his society. But who cares? I mean, if he loves her sooooooo much, then be with her. Presumably, that's all people need, right? We, as the audience, are supposed to believe that he loves her more than his fiancee/wife or any other woman in the world. But that's a bunch of bullshit. What he really is attracted to his the transgression a relationship (even a torrid, clandestine love affair) such as this would represent. In short, he's got a hard-on for this sexy little blonde broad. Great. Just don't turn some dickhead heir's moral dilemma into some epic commentary on the nature of societal institutions and the restrictions imposed upon people therein. Day-Lewis wants both his wife and the whore. Simple as that. He's the classic mysogynist. If he really wanted out of that society he would have tried to live a life with Pfiefer. But his money and status was more important to him. He is not a victim of society. People can break away and find their own sense of happiness, he chose not to.
This is the most restrained piece I've seen from Scorsese, however, in the history of film it's still a stylized piece. Period pieces are interesting to me, they can be done well, in the right hands, but often they are the weak attempts we see from great directors. History in historical context isn't terribly interesting, when Mallack tried to show us his vision with THE NEW WORLD, we saw something more accurate than usual and in turn a much slower piece. It's a delicate balance, the director wants to apply his/her style to a historical event, and to enhance the theme of the film but too often we are taken out of the film.
Age Of Innocence is a curious change for Scorsese, but primarily in terms of the story being told. What I found almost annoying was his inhability to decide on consistant style throughout the film. Style was applied throughout the entire picture and I appreciated this unified vision. With Innocence we see a frustrated director, he pushes the beginning too much with his zooms that he seems unable to escape, but then he moves into sweeping romantic shots through the rest of the movie. It's a strange juxtaposition, one that I don't believe compliments the film well.
This said, there is a lot of poetry in the sets, and there is one of the best performances I've ever seen. Daniel Day mesmerizes with every performance, it's as though he is creating a child that exists for the life of the film production then it dissipates. Which makes me wonder the need for stylized segments, when his role would have easily carried the film.
Very interesting. It’s hard to believe that the director of movies like Raging Bull, GoodFellas and Casino is also responsible for such a completely different piece of art. It is art, to some extent. I’m really intrigued about this time period and everything that comes along with that, but I’m not completely sure that I liked this film. I do know that I would have to watch it again to fully get all the characters, and the conflict within the story. But strangely enough it didn’t grab me. At times, I thought the acting was very staged and, well, “acted” indeed, and I saw actors on the screen “playing” characters as opposed to having actors who “are” the characters. Aesthetically I was of course impressed, especially production design was just phenomenal in this piece and all the work in details. Recognizable Scorsese work was certainly again the use of the camera, appropriately slowed down and sometimes “concerningly” still which is usually not to be expected from the cinematography in Scorsese pictures. And while it was smoothly resting on the characters and gave a chance to the viewer to breath in the whole atmosphere and the world of the characters, Scorsese couldn’t help but add again a few dolly shots that completely took me out of the story and therefore need to be called out as overuse of a moving camera.
I need to see it again because I fear I missed some minor things that might have made the picture more worthwhile to watch.
And then the technique used in the beginning of the picture. If I wouldn’t have known the reason and intention of the shuttering and the panning, I don’t think I would’ve gotten or understood it. But again respect to Scorsese for being such a diverse and rich director who can bend his talents and be so very versatile. I will give this movie though another chance and watch it again, probably with subtitles, because the sound was not very good at some points.
The Age Of Innocence - Personal Response
Joe Legut
I’ll admit. I fell asleep during this movie. I just could not get into this movie at all. To me, nothing was happening. I couldn’t relate to the main character or any character for that matter. I never lived in that time nor do I know anything about it. There was no action, no fights, no explosions, no comedy from what I could tell, I just struggled immensely to make it to the end. I need something to happen to keep my interest. I have a very short attention span.
After that is all said, it was still a beautiful movie, with accurate looking detail in every scene. It looks as if it took him days just to create one scene. I’m sure it didn’t actually take that long seeing as he is on a budget. The colors were so vibrant and that is what sticks out in my head. Also, I enjoyed the ways he would focus us on details by darkening the surrounding picture and making us look at people talking. He would also use the sound or, remove the sound from the surrounding areas so that we only heard what Scorsese wanted us to hear. It is a creative idea and I agree with one of the students in the class who had mentioned that. He said that it was a great idea that he would have never thought of. I agree, I would have never thought of doing that either and it was interesting to see it done.
To say that Age of Innocence is a departure from Scorsese’s style is the same as saying Barry Lyndon is a departure from Kubrick’s style, in both cases I don’t feel it’s the truth. Age of Innocence isn’t aesthetically fast and raw like most of Scorsese’s work, but that is what makes it special, if you look at Scorsese from an anthropological stand point then you would have to look at age of Innocence as a film which describes more clearly the artists style when related to other works. In reality this film helps to define Scorsese’s aesthetic choices from his personal style. This is clearly evident in that soft jump cutting that Scorsese utilizes in the study. Winona Ryder rises to address Daniel Day-Lewis and with three seemingly awkward cuts Scorsese describes exactly what is happening to this relationship visually, this is Scorsese’s style. While on the other hand if you are to look at the long establishing shots of the young couple’s honey moon you see Scorsese making clear aesthetic choices, these shots to me represent an attempt by Scorsese to capture a kind of impressionistic feel, these shots remind me greatly of the urban landscapes of Camille Pissarro, the way light and color are captured show Scorsese’s nod to some kind of artistic movement, these ideas are what make this film import, it is a kind of Rosetta stone to Scorsese’s work, a way to greater define his personal authorship.
Age of Innocence
Brandon Schiffli
I saw William Wyler’s THE HEIRESS, which Scorsese noted as being an influence on AGE OF INNOCENCE. They both take place in the same time period and very much have the exact same production design. Scorsese’s film might be a little more elaborate, but it can be seen that many of the settings and characters are right out of THE HEIRESS. The themes are very similar as well. The main characters long to be with another person, but really shouldn’t be with that person.
The biggest difference between the two films is the style of filmmaking. I believe that Scorsese has had trouble making period pieces. His style of filmmaking doesn’t quite match. His earlier period pieces such as THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and AGE OF INNOCENCE are oddly juxtaposed with Scorsese fast paced style of filmmaking and story telling. I’m comparing them with his later period pieces such as GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR in which he did a better job by holding back some of his usual techniques. RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS don’t count in my mind. While they are both period pieces, Scorsese’s filmmaking matches these worlds and these are time periods which he grew up in.
Like THE LAST TEMPTATION, AGE OF INNOCENCE has this strange modern feeling to it that doesn’t fit well with the world that is being presented. It’s the moving camera combined with the style of editing. Although, he tried to create a more elegant method of editing by creating these smooth transitions between shots, it still didn’t fit. I think it was another good attempt because the film turned out to be really interesting and it had an effective ending, despite that cheesy editing method when Day-Lewis remembers that time at the lake. It was strange and out-of-place with the rest of the film.
Story wise, the first forty minutes of the film went over my head. I felt that Scorsese was either holding information back or it wasn’t coming across well through the character’s old fashioned dialogue. I had no idea what was going on. However, the narrator, who had a very modern voice, really helped me understand this world from an outside perspective. At some point in the film I had a clear understanding of character motivation and where the story might be headed and I think it was the narration that guided that.
I would be untruthful if I didn’t readily admit to my innate aversion to period pieces. I feel that they all suffer from the same flaws that keep them just out of reach of my enjoyment. I feel that oftentimes the directors are so enamored with creating the universe around the stories that the plot and characters are almost an afterthought. The Age of Innocence, to me, seems to be cut from this same cloth. I found the opening scene that I had read so much about to be far too self-indulgent. The grand tracking shot through the gallery past all the ornately dressed people would occasionally break from the scene and focus it’s gaze on the paintings on the wall. I realize the intention, but it’s such a flagrant example of masturbatory vanity that I couldn’t help but chuckle. Scorsese and his team of researchers spent so much time making sure that all the minutiae of the film was perfect that it almost seems like they wanted to find every opportunity to show the historical authenticity. These camera moves were tantamount to a person admiring him or herself in every mirror they encounter.
The other reason I admit to not being able to enjoy period pieces is that I think the language and situations of the characters are so far removed from my realm of experience that it’s hard to relate. The manner of speak of the bourgeoisie is so theatrical, so stagy that it doesn’t seem genuine. It’s almost as decadent as the world that surrounds them, which I cannot relate to either. When I watch a film like this I feel like I’m taking a guided tour of Versaille, you get to see all the splendor of the building, but it’s hard to believe that actual human interaction took place within the walls.
My views on period pieces might seem narrow minded or brash, but it’s a particular genre that doesn’t reach out to me emotionally. I find it hard to relate to the problems of upper echelon socialites who concern themselves with how their clothes make them appear at balls. I also find it hard to relate when the director is obsessively concerned with getting the proper spoons so that the scene can be set authentically. These details should be exactly that, details. They shouldn’t play a prominent role in the film, thus bringing the audience out of the most important “detail” of a film, the plot.
Post a Comment