Review: Revolutionary Road

A young 1950s All-American couple (Ambitious salesman Leonardo DiCaprio, dreamer/homemaker Kate Winslet) seek achievement of The American Dream, so that one day DiCaprio can leave his job, they can sell their house, and move to Paris to be happy. Instead, they endure disappointment, boredom, denial, ferocious arguments, disillusionment, and a feeling of being trapped in a soulless suburban existence. You see, he hates his job, while she’s a wannabe actress who rarely gets to live her dream once the duties of housewife and mother take precedence, neither are destined to be happy whilst they remain together. Kathy Bates plays their real estate agent who (in a major contrivance) introduces the couple to her recently released ‘mentally disturbed’ son Michael Shannon (who endured electroshock therapy), who sees right through their phony ‘Apple Pie’ exterior and calls a spade an effing shovel, whilst his mother is in total, cheery denial. Since when have real-estate agents befriended their clients and introduced them to their nuthouse sons anyway?

 

High-minded 2008 Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Jarhead”) directed adaptation of a Richard Yates novel (apparently his first of several that I have never read) is the first pairing of Leo and Kate since their infamous 1997 blockbuster “Titanic”, which to this day I still don’t see the appeal of (it’s not even the best film about that incident). But y’know what? It’s light-years ahead of this episodic, unenlightening, unoriginal, and ultimately pointless and utterly miserable film. If this were made in the 70s, it’d star Jack Nicholson and Jill Clayburgh (or Ellen Burstyn, or maybe even Meryl Streep), and it’d likely be a whole lot more convincing. If it were made in the 1960s, it’d star Richard Burton and Liz Taylor, it’d be called “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” and it’d be excellent and riveting stuff. There’s nothing new or insightful here about relationships, and due to the fragmented structure (jumping forward and back in time frequently), it becomes impossible to be involved in the characters and their trials. How do we get to know these people when you keep leaving great chunks of their lives out? What are Mendes and writer Justin Haythe (or author Yates) trying to say here? Marriages are tough? Pursuing the American Dream ain’t easy? What’s new about that? What’s interesting about it? Nothing, certainly nothing Mendes hasn’t already better conveyed in “American Beauty” (which also had the benefit of dark humour). An unwanted pregnancy that forces dreams and happiness to go on the backburner for a while? How profound!

 

Leo (reminding one of a young Nicholson at times, actually) tries hard and isn’t bad at playing a narcissistic a-hole with outer boyish charm, who still earns a shred of sympathy simply because this poor guy never quite figures out what he wants to do with himself and is totally insecure. However, only Bates (in a role that in the 50s would’ve gone to Agnes Moorehead, no doubt) manages to truly convince in the period setting. Sadly she’s not in it enough, she was also just about the only good thing in “Titanic” too (aside from maybe Winslet’s naked torso). I’m particularly baffled as to how the always intense Shannon (a usually interesting, idiosyncratic performer) managed to earn an Oscar nomination for his entirely embarrassing, unrestrained performance here. His shameful showboating is totally out of place amidst the serious material.

 

Narratively I knew where this film was headed, but at no point did I have any good goddamn idea what was being said here or why I should care about any of it. Pointless, unoriginal (in addition to “American Beauty”, you’ve seen this material in better films like “Ordinary People” and “The Ice Storm”), and caricatured. Surely the book is more ambitious than this non-entity, but the fact that it was released in 1961 pretty much spotlights the main problem here; it’s much ado about nothing new. And has Kate Winslet ever heard of having sex in a bed? Every film she’s doing it standing up, for some reason. What’s up with that? (I’m kidding, of course. A pointless tangent on my part, perhaps, but a weird thought that was going through my head nonetheless).

 

I was truly shocked at how bad this one was, after all the praise heaped on it (but bear in mind this comes from a pseudo-critic with a pitiful amount of life experience, so I’m not really the target audience for relationship dramas), and the climax, supposed to be reactionary and affecting, is simply insulting and deeply offensive. A terrible, terrible film. And where were the kids? The couple are supposed to have two kids, but we barely see them, certainly they’re never around at any of the more hostile moments (conveniently!). Maybe “Crash” and “Jindabyne” weren’t such bad relationship dramas/social commentaries after all.

 

Rating: D-