What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:
Next on my Netflix queue was The Age of Innocence, for which Winona Ryder was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; Martin Scorsese and Jay Cocks were nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar; Dante Ferretti and Robert J. Franco were nominated for the Best Art Direction/Set Direction Oscar; Gabrielle Pescucci won the Best Costume Design Oscar; and Elmer Bernstein was nominated for the Best Original Score Oscar (film year, 1993; awarding year, 1994). The other nominees in these categories were:
Best Supporting Actress
The Piano - Anna Paquin (Winner)
The Firm - Holly Hunter
Fearless - Rosie Perez
In The Name of the Father - Emma Thompson
Best Adapted Screenplay
Schindler's List (Winner)
In the Name of the Father
The Remains of the Day
Shadowlands
Best Art Direction/Set Direction
Schindler's List (Winner)
Addams Family Values
Orlando
The Remains of the Day
Best Costume Design
Schindler's List
Orlando
The Piano
The Remains of the Day
Best Original Score
Schindler's List (Winner)
The Firm
The Fugitive
The Remains of the Day
This film represents the fifth of five Martin Scorsese films topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track. This film further begins a couplet of Oscar-nominated dramas based on classical literature and a string of nine Oscar-nominated dramas in general categories, for future reference.
Yet again, my interest was piqued in The Age of Innocence because it’s a period drama based on a classic novel by Edith Wharton (which I haven’t read) and, therefore, another unusual experiment of Marty’s in his overall filmography. While the setting is Victorian New York City, the location Marty knows best, in the late nineteenth century, it’s also a study of the human condition in operation at the time, which emphasized subtlety, propriety, and etiquette, particularly amongst the aristocracy and particularly as it applied to women. Ultimately, however, the film includes some of the themes that Scorsese has incorporated in most to all of his films: what do humans, particularly men, do with tough choices, temptation, lust, passion, and the ensuing guilt and quest for redemption when sin or something like it is committed or flirted with by such characters. Thus, in many ways, this kind of story, which would seem so divergent from gangsters and guns, is kind of right up Marty’s alley, and the production values of this film prove that he seemed to take a shine to it as much as he would the mafia or any of his so-called usual subjects.
In The Age of Innocence, Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) has recently become engaged to May Welland (Winona Ryder), a member of another wealthy family and a sweet if naïve and shallow woman. While attending the opera, May reacquaints him with her cousin, Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer), who, Newland comes to find out, has flown from her wayward husband, the count, to return to New York and is requesting a divorce, something ladies of wealthy and genteel standing simply did not do at the time. As they were former childhood friends, Newland believes it is incumbent upon him to use his family’s good standing and connections to assuage Ellen’s deteriorating reputation. At the same time, Ellen is a modicum of individuality and a free spirit; she has scandalous thoughts and opinions that fly in the face of aristocratic traditions, and they excite Newland to the point of unadulterated lust. Thus, in order to stymie his burgeoning passion and keep within the social codes of well-bred manners and proper public behavior, Newland rushes to marry May, petitioning her matriarch grandmother to allow them to shorten their engagement. Soon after his pleas to May that the engagement be shortened, and May’s growing suspicion that Newland may be dallying with another woman, thus coming to her in a wave of guilt and causing her to deny his request, Newland finds that he cannot hold himself back any longer, and he confesses his love for Ellen. Though she may return his feelings, Ellen realizes that they can never be together because to deny May for her, in an act of volition that would only violate the traditions Newland finds himself an entrenched member in despite his yearning to walk on the wild side, would stifle Newland in a wholly different manner, so Ellen pushes him to May and leaves town. Newland and May marry, but when Newland later sees Ellen again, his longing for her becomes so all-powerful that he is willing to engage in the affair with her, even as he realizes that May and the rest of their wealthy friends may know more than he has hitherto believed.
The Age of Innocence is a beautiful movie, in terms of its visual presence. Marty and his production team, from painstakingly detailed art direction, to beautifully rendered period costumes, to colorful and bright cinematography, to a rich and evocative score by Elmer Bernstein that very much recalls the time period being recreated, the film’s presentation as something to purely observe was as pretty as a painting. It was hard not to be drawn into such a vividly recalled world from a past long gone with the kind of layering that occurred between all technical aspects of the filmmaking, and the skill used in piecing together these layers is undeniable.
Marty’s signature styles are also evident, from strategically placed camera wipes to frames that morph from one scene to another in a seamless fashion. He was able to match the subtlety of the themes being explored in the story with his own level of subdued bravado. I could tell Scorsese directed this film, even as it was a film that I never would have guessed was ultimately directed by him, and the result was a marvel. This film is certainly artistic and a wonderful addition to Scorsese's overall body of work.
The performances were also very good. The best performance, I think, belonged to Winona Ryder, who was nominated for an Oscar for it. I say this because she infused a sweetness in May which made her character ultimately sympathetic, sad, and strong, even as she was painted to be weak, frail, and ignorant of the larger forces at work around her. Though Ryder has often overstated certain performances or been completely miscast or seemed to be Winona Ryder playing Winona Ryder all over again, none of those characteristics were noticeable here. Her performance was as subtle as the story being told, and I forgot that it was her most of the time.
Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer also did well, but for them, I was less imperssed this time around, only because they have long-established track records. Day-Lewis has played many characters of widely different temperaments and motivations, so such a straight character with his smoldering, barely erupting passion did not seem like much of a stretch for him, and Pfeiffer has turned in performances of varied emotional range as well, though at times, I thought of Selena Kyle and Catwoman during this film as I watched her. Don’t ask me why.
The film also seems to be a wonderful adaptation of the source material, because I was never left for wanting in terms of the progression and resolution of the tale. The problem is – the film was boring, in its own way, and I think it was boring because this type of story is better suited for being read from the actual novel than for watching on screen. The visual presence was lavish, the performances were great, the direction was great – but, at least for me, this is not the type of story that sits well for two hours of viewing, and I think that there is a general reaction toward this film, about it being boring, that can be correlated exactly to the fact that it’s better as literature than as film. Does this quality detract from the film? Well, in a way, because I don’t feel it’s the type of film that can stand the test of a time, even as it’s understandable that this film would be an Oscar darling, considering that Oscar loves a good period film. Of course, this really is a good period film – if you go in for this sort of thing, i.e. a study of subtlety, repression, and the other topics previously mentioned.
In any event, it seems 1993 was a tough year for Oscar competition, considering that it was the year of Schindler's List and Philadelphia and a number of other films that have since settled more permanently into the public consciousness. These films also have a more timeless quality than this film, which plants two feet firmly into its lost-world days-of-yore period and may be less relatable overall than some of these other tales.
In any event, the Age of Innocence is a thing of beauty in its way, though it may best be appreciated in small doses. Ultimately, I think the viewers who enjoy this film most will also be those who have a predisposition toward literature grounded in the Victorian era, which tend to explore similar themes and exhibit similar tones. I enjoyed watching this film for a while but ultimately lost interest in the story, because I tend to have little sympathy for the mores of so-called uppercrust society, and the human condition for the rich is only as compelling as the degree of connection that can be created from these wealthy characters to those who are not wealthy. It is as it is. So, in consideration of all of these considerations, I think the Age of Innocence should be awarded an 8 for being very good/having minor flaws (because it can't be perfectly entertaining if I can't relate to the film in any way). As to the test, it does not pass. Sometimes, a painting, like a film, is only worth one look-see, even if it's a very pretty thing to look at, indeed.