 |
| Did I hear wrong or did she just have an original thought |
In today’s world ruled by virtual interaction and
instant gratification it is difficult not to feel nostalgic for simpler, more
innocent, days gone by. By viewing the past through idealized perceptions,
however, we often fail to acknowledge the hardships, restrictions, and
expectations that people were forced to endure in past eras. One film reveals
the hidden struggles of the past in a way that will give even the most
nostalgic of viewers a greater appreciation for the present. In his adaptation
of Edith Wharton’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Age of Innocence, director Martin Scorcese presents a tale of
love, loss, and regret that exposes the hypocrisy and oppression that tarnished
what is too often remembered as a pure era.
The story begins as Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle
Pfeiffer) returns to New York after requesting a divorce form he European
husband. The countess’ scandalous return occurs just as her cousin, May Welland
(Winona Ryder), is preparing to announce her engagement to lawyer and fellow
aristocrat Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis). While May and her family
patiently tolerate Ellen’s presence, Newland is outraged that his chaste fiancée
is being associated with her much gossiped about cousin. When Ellen announces
her intention to make her divorce final, however, the Wellands reach their
breaking point and plead with Newland to take Ellen’s case. For the sake of May’s
reputation, Newland reluctantly takes the case and sets to work persuading
Ellen to remain separated from her husband without taking the disreputable step
of obtaining a divorce. When Ellen finally agrees to stop pursuing a divorce,
Newland is elated and immediately begins pressuring May to consent to a shorter
engagement. By the time that May’s family agrees to a sooner wedding, however,
Newland has begun spending more time with Ellen and has come to regret his
decision. As the wedding approaches, Newland realizes that all the qualities that
he once cherished in May are the very qualities which he admires Ellen for not
possessing. Although Newland knows that he cannot be truly happy in a life
without Ellen, the conventions of New York society prove to be a far greater
barrier than either he or Ellen had ever imagined.
Like Wharton’s novel, the film’s greatest strength is
the way in which it explores the onerous demands and vicious retaliations of
its supposedly innocent society. The film accurately portrays the traditions
and mores of Old New York while remaining true to Wharton’s biting social commentary.
Throughout the film, Newland is conflicted between the life that he desires and
the life that he has been conditioned to live. This conflict mirrors the
greater division between individualism and conformity that New York society
imposed upon its citizens. For instance,
while it is widely known that Ellen’s husband had been both abusive towards and
unfaithful to her, her friends and family ostracize her for going against
convention and asking for a divorce. Similarly, Ellen’s family prefers May, who
possesses none of Ellen’s generosity or intelligence, because despite any
shortcomings that she might possess, May both knows and adheres to the
standards of her society. Newland is faced with the hypocrisies that he had
been previously blind to when he finds himself being persecuted for loving
Ellen even though the couple never acts upon their love. Although both Ellen
and Newland want to be honest about their feelings, they know all too well that
such an infraction would not be permitted to go unpunished by society. As a result, the
pair is forced to hide and repress their love for one another while those
around them carry on affairs and other social indiscretions just out of public
view. By making her protagonists honorable outcasts, Wharton adeptly denounces
the double standards of society while highlighting the dangers of conformity.
 |
| The days when it was acceptable to treat your fiance like a puppy |
The cast superbly brings the deceptively simple tale
to vibrant life through the nuance and depth of their performances. The central
cast manages the difficult tasks of conveying their characters’ inner torment
while still maintaining their outward propriety. Daniel Day-Lewis’ understated
performance remains true to the story’s repressive milieu while still maintaining
enough intensity to make viewers empathize with Newland’s loss. Similarly,
Winona Ryder excellently plays both the outwardly innocent child that May
pretends to be and the inwardly manipulative woman that she is. The film’s
standout performance fittingly belongs to the actress playing a heroine who
cannot help but stand out; Michelle Pfeiffer. Her combination of world
weariness and idealism makes Ellen a complicated heroine whom viewers can’t
help but root for. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent and helps draw
viewers into a time that is entirely foreign to modern audiences. Through their
performances, the cast provides audiences with a glimpse into the lives, loves,
and conflicts of gilded age society that reveals the guilt, hypocrisy, and
cruelty lying just beneath its glittering surface.
Through its combination of love, loss, and social
commentary, The Age of Innocence is a
film that remains relevant to any age. With its condemnation of social hypocrisy and
blind conventionalism, the film’s historical tale echoes a warning that is as
pertinent today as it was in the gilded age in which it was set. The excellent
cast and crew capture the story’s subtleties and complexities in a way that
ensures that the film is able to remain both enjoyable to modern audiences and
historically accurate. Though far from innocent, this film is as poignant,
profound, and ultimately heartbreaking as any love story past or present.
 |
| Just imagine the thought bubbles for these three |
No comments:
Post a Comment