Why Winona Ryder didn't win the Oscar, is beyond me. Why didn't she win!? She is one of mt\y favorite actress' of all time- and she doesn't (yet) have an Oscar. Anna Paquin didn't deserve to win.
Balancing scandal, social impropriety, and indiscretions of love in modern New York where old mores from the empire intrude. Michelle Pfeiffer lends her characteristic poise and elegance and has good chemistry with Day Lewis.
In Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Edith Wharton's 1920 novel, romance between an upper-class gentleman and an ostracized lady is doomed by 19th century New York society. Shortly after his engagement to blandly genteel May Welland (Winona Ryder), Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) is reacquainted with May's scandalous cousin Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). As the head of an esteemed family, Archer initially uses his standing to try to rehabilitate Ellen's reputation, but he finds himself increasingly drawn to her disregard for the codes of New York manners. Bound by ingrained society mores and his peers' insinuations, Newland tries to dodge his growing passion by rushing his marriage to May, but he cannot keep himself from confessing his love to Ellen. Recognizing that Newland could never abandon his sense of honor and be happy, Ellen pushes Newland to May and leaves town. The marriage proceeds as dictated, but when Newland unexpectedly sees Ellen again, he yearns for the affair to come to fruition. However, he underestimates not only what May knows but also her ability to uphold the rules of propriety. Sumptuously shot by Michael Ballhaus, the film offers meticulously designed costumes and settings that evoke a culture as seductively beautiful in its surfaces as it is stifling in its rituals. Unspoken emotions are expressed through such details as yellow roses or a clipped cigar, a fade to red or a single camera move. Using Wharton's original prose to comment on the setting's hypocrisies, Joanne Woodward's voiceover narration suggests how much decisive power is buried beneath dainty femininity. The Age of Innocence received five Oscar nominations, including Best Supporting Actress for Ryder and Best Screenplay for Scorsese and Jay Cocks, and a win for Best Costumes. Although The Age of Innocence seemed like a departure from Scorsese's prior work, Newland is as much at the mercy of his circle's Byzantine structure (and his own conscience) as are Scorsese's more familiar mobsters; Newland's persecutors just wear white tie and tails.
Of course, this film doesn't allow for the usual Scorsese violence, but coming from him, I expected something a little more...intense. The look of this movie is amazing, with its gorgeous cinematography, it's as if you are watching a 2-hour long painting. But, apart from the aesthetic aspect, it also resembles a painting in the fact that NOTHING happens. Sadly, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE is terribly boring. I never thought I'd see Daniel Day-Lewis in such a plain role, he did what he could with what he was given. Winona Ryder was good in her own, puppy-like way. The film's best was Michelle Pfeiffer. Her performance was flawed, but she was the one who kept your interest. Loved the narrator. Good script, but Martin Scorsese should stick to what he does best: BLOOD.
If "The Last Temptation of Christ" was the consummation of what Martin Scorsese does, this is the pinnacle of what he can do as a traditional filmmaker. Every component of moviemaking is drawn to perfection here. My doubts are melancholy and earnest that Hollywood may never again create this kind of film on such a large budget and epic scale.
Edith Wharton's Victorian age novel features a scene of incredible intimacy, romantic and emotional longing where two people...hold hands. Day-Lewis is fantastic as the tightly wound, emotional detached Newland Archer. Winona Ryder plays his finance who hides behind sweetness and a smile, but is really even more cunning and ruthless than most men of the era. Pfeiffer plays Ryder's older, more "modern" cousin whom Day-Lewis falls for. Really, how could you not fall for Pfeiffer? Stunning beauty. Wait...the lucky bastard has to choose between Ryder and Pfeiffer. Whoever wins gets Day-Lewis in the prime of his imperial sexiness.
Cuidada extraordinariamente como siempre por Marty, se nota la impecable direccion. Gran produccion de diseņo, hermosa direccion de arte, vestuarios y fotografia, una muy buena adaptacion, es un retrato de la alta sociedad de New York de finales del siglo XIX, que cuenta con grandes adaptaciones de Michelle Pfeiffer y Daniel Day-Lewis, como siempre.-
'The Age of Innocence' isn't afraid or ashamed to be completely classical in almost every possible way. The film immerses itself in art and melody, symbolism and literature, and illustrates with startling, blatant truth coupled with a quiet poignancy how the society in 1880's New York restricted freedom beyond what we could begin to imagine. Daniel Day-Lewis is surprisingly on target as the modernist American gentleman, and Winona Ryder and Miriam Margolyes offer fanatastic support as wealthy socialites with plans of their own. The standout, however, is Michelle Pfeiffer's sensual portrayal of Countess Olenska; she exudes both menace and melancholy, but isn't afraid to manipulate where she deems necessary. While the film is told in a typically traditionalist manner, with a lyrical narration that is informative and absorbing - never irritating, it is the tocuhes of directorial flair from Scorsese that give the picture extra strokes of originality. The direction is almost pitch-perfect, the vast attention to detail reflective of the elegant costume and set-designs that were then so extravagant, and the slow pace lending the film a burning intensity that is never quite distinguished. The depth of the language and beautifully shot cinematography suck the audience into the tale of forbidden love in such an absorbing way it is almost as though we are watching an opera, or reading the novel itself; this is grand, sweeping film-making that provokes intrigue and genuine interest. You admire it for the sheer effort put into its making, but you enjoy the film for its dramatic, realistic handling of such a simplistic story, suffusing it with understated meaning and vibrant atmosphere.
Age of Innocence is a good novel and film...both worthy to check out. The film starring a very strong cast; Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Winona Ryder.
The film centers on the high society of the 19th century NYC. A young bride to be (Ryder) along with her beloved soon to be husband (Day-Lewis) are a perfect match. Enters the outcast (Pfeiffer) that just came back from Europe and obaining a unheard of and disasterous divorce. Things ignite betwen people...beuatiful costumes and well acted.
Although I can appreciate some of the sweeping visual lushness and Day-Lewis is a sexy bitch, I fail to see the necessity of making the film. His American accent freaks me out a little, but it's also kind of smooth. Needless to say, I have a complex relationship with Daniel Day-Lewis' voice.
It's just a shame to pass beside Scorsese directing Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Winona Rider.
A beautifully crafted dramatic triangle love story in the most wealthy atmosphere imaginable.
Was rather painfully slow at times, but that's compensated by a superb direction.
i love this movie because of one sentence at the end of movie that the son said to his fother about his mother testimonial
....i love that ...and very good acting from daniel day lewis ..
Interesting film when viewed in the context of Scorsese's work as a whole. His first real attempt of pandering to an audience and desperately trying to win an Oscar. Not a terrible film at all, but I've never been a fan of Victorian dramas and it did seem to be following a fad when it was released.
Film directed by Martin Scorsese, but based on the novel by Edith Wharton, 1920. So, forget the "typical" Scorsese, the one of action films. This one is a portrait. A portrait of the newyorker golden society at the end of the 19th century, a telling of a love story. But the plot is fading: what prevails above all is the psycological investigation of the three main characters who can be indicated, with a limited interpretarion, husband, wife and lover. Everything is studied: every single detail, from the dresses to the furniture, from the flowers to the dishes: in these details are reflected the personalities of the carachters, definined in particular by colours. Dialogs are perfect, tense, well balanced. Brilliant direction, that enriches every framing and every movement of the camera. Moving performances by the three main actors: Daniel Day-Lewis (Newland Archer), Winona Ryder (May Welland) e Michelle Pfeiffer (Ellen Olenska). I've nothing else to add, it's very difficult to describe a movie like this, all I can do is strongly advice it to everyone...
Gossip, scandal, society...these are topics that annoy me at worst, and are of little consequence at best. As such, a film related almost entirely to such topics is difficult for me to stomach, though not quite so difficult as the dry, detached, overly purple and incessantly descriptive but flavourless writing that it usually comes from. Strangely, it is usually circling romance like a vulture, pecking away at love and turning it inside out and vile, the opinions of others and societal customs tearing away chunks of it for reasons that are, on some level, utterly beyond me. This makes for a somewhat confusing experience as a half-closeted romantic. While I am engaged by the romance of such a story, I am repulsed by the imbecilic and unnecessary machinations that surround it. I am annoyed at the way characters take such passing opinions and actions as the greater valued occurrence than the emotion they feel for one another, yet at the same time find some appreciation in the fact that in a backward way this ends up an almost open criticism of that exact attitude.
So it is with mixed feelings that I approach this film, by one of my most favourite directors, possibly my absolute favourite. I do like many of the actors involved--Daniel Day-Lewis, playing Newland Archer, is a strangely unrecognized chameleonic actor, Michelle Pfeiffer is the first actress I admitted some attraction to in my youth (the context of which I will not elucidate here, but suffice it to say, this was a random grab under pressure), Winona Ryder...well, she is usually interesting enough, Jonathan Pryce is always fun, from Brazil to Something Wicked This Way Comes, Michael Gough has a vague history with Tim Burton (portraying one of the more definitive depictions of Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred Pennyworth)--but it's difficult to separate the elements of a plot like this that I dislike. Performances by most are quite good, though Day-Lewis is a bit unusually wooden (though this might be the fault of a role that is tight-lipped and maintains the convention of never expressing his true feelings), Ryder has improved her posh, high class accident from the preceding year (ie, Bram Stoker's Dracula) but remains lacking in control of her voice, though her physical performance is excellent, and Pfeiffer, much like Ryder, seems to have difficulty bringing her voice out of the modern age and imbuing it with the timbre that places it with the grain of being in a period piece.
And make no mistake, this is a damn fine period piece, insofar as costuming and set design--which it won and was nominated for an Oscar in respectively. I'm a little shocked by Ryder's nomination, I'll admit, but it's not stunningly bad (again, see the release from the previous year...) or anything. What it was also nominated for, though, was Elmer Bernstein's score, which I am in line for--it's a waltzing one, feeling appropriately contemporary to the film's setting, a strong melodic lead by strings, with a heavy underpining of lower brass--the woodwinds usually only taking over when the melody requires a greater subtlety, or a need to be pulled back from the forefront, even if still clearly audible and relevant. Of course, this is hardly shocking from a composer like Bernstein, but it is absolutely exquisite when married to both Elaine & Saul Bass' opening titles and the imagery that Scorsese chooses throughout--tight closeups of food resembling (portraying? it did exist at this point) nouvelle cuisine and the upper class extravagance that represents, and of silverware, photographs, paintings, snow-covered wagon wheels cutting lines in snow, and even a trip through the photographic process in a subtle, quiet and slow manner. It highlights the endless excesses and superficiality of the society these characters all live in, Newland Archer's secret love for Countess Ellen Olenska (Pfeiffer) despite his proposed marriage to May Welland (Ryder), within a society that acts almost exclusively on reputation, perception, rumour, artifice and class status. Certainly I feel these characteristics are being criticized and not glorified or espoused, though their beauty is clear--despite the shallow meaning behind them.
For that, I am certainly in line with the film's goals, for the romance behind it, for Scorsese's direction and Schoonmaker's--as always--artful editing. I hold some interest in the characters, though I find myself consistently irritated by their inability to speak their minds, an approach antithetical to my own approach to social interaction, leaving me vaguely frustrated despite the positive aspects. As such, I cannot rate the film poorly--it is fabulously well made, it is decently or better performed, and my opinion of the things that it portrays, being as it actively chose to portray them is not mine to rate against its quality. I will note that it is likely to end up shockingly least on my list of Scorsese films I've viewed, in contradiction to many opinions I've experience over time, but such is the way of things--it will hold to some tastes, and not others--but in no (major) way falters in execution. In fact, there are beautiful shots--sweeping from the foot of a closing door, ponderously up to see Archer, passing slowly through a window to make a slow downward descent, and Scorsese's favourite little tricks--bringing in an outer ring of darkness in such a fashion as to emulate the circular closeups of early film, and darkened curtains used for cuts and scene changes, as if it were a slowly opening aperture, or even the curtains of a stage, never intrusive, but managing to bring in the exact feeling he clearly wants in a scene.
Perhaps the most damning element for my personal taste, though, was the narration. It felt straight out of Wharton's novel--which I admit to never having read, but I can rarely make it through fiction of such an age--and so was lumbering, caught up in contorted and overly complex syntax, endless descriptions of characters' views, though with an amusing subtext of venomous critique, but on the whole a bit intrusive and difficult to listen to, especially with its rambling, omniscient, unidentified third person nature.
A beautiful love story set in the Victorian era, a time where manners, apperances and propriety meant everything. A love that never died throughout many years. A woman who went against the grain of society and suffered years of loneliness because of it. Beautifully shot, and beautifully told by director Martin Scorcesi.
Scorsese's aggressively shot costume drama has all the energy of Goodfellas but the tone of a Jane Austen adaptation. A painful story of lost love that is unfortunately hampered by the limited range of Winona Ryder. Pfeiffer and Day Lewis are aces though.
i like the story behind the movie.. michelle pfiffer looked mostly glamorous... winona ryfer looked maybe too young for the part she was doing in this movie...
This is one of my favorites. It is a well made and interesting love triangle story. It is set in 19th Century New York. It is also a remake of a film of the same title. This verison is much more interesting. The tension between Newland Archer, Countess Olenska, and May Welland Archer is well balanced throughout the film.
MCT:July 14, 2008
MCT:July 14, 2008
MCT:June 16, 2008
MCT:May 28, 2008
MCT:May 22, 2008
