bec012
Sydney
Revolutionary movie. — 47 weeks ago
I watched this film today and it was mentally exhausting, emotionally draining and very depressing. Imagine having to live a life of monotony with the confines and restrictions that have been forced upon you by 1950’s post-war society whilst expected to embody the qualities of the common archetype of a happily married suburban couple and if not, at least, feign a veneer of happiness.
April Wheeler, a suburban housewife, is discontent with her life and seeks a means of escape. She yearns for change, more specifically, a life in Paris. Frank Wheeler, a businessman working in corporate America, longs to discover his passions and truly live rather than exist but is comfortable in the security his present life offers.
First, I must confess that I found myself unable to fully empathise with either character as they were both to blame for their misery. I considered April to be particularly selfish, engaging in navel-gazing for most of the film. She had no sense of responsibility, and didn’t even appear to be interested in her children or appreciative of her husband’s efforts to support his family. Frank, her husband, did have some sense of responsibility which was evidently lacking in his wife. Be that as it may, he had his foolish moments where he would frequently and deliberately provoke his wife despite her already teetering on the brink of psychosis. I can understand April despising the vapidity of her seemingly hollow existence, however, I believe April’s greatest fault lied in her failure to grasp the simple truth that change comes from within. She disagreed with society’s conventions and yet, she never defied them. She could have easily acquired a job whilst remaining at her current place of residence. Furthermore, who’s to say that Parisians were not equally as absorbed as the Americans in the frivolities of life which she found to be meaningless and inconsequential?
I was frustrated with the couple and as I mentioned previously, I was unable to empathise with them but that did not stop me from sympathising with them; I felt for them dearly and I enjoyed playing spectator to their lives. It was devastating to see how unrealised dreams, ambitions and plans could cause a person to falter and fall so far. The ending was very plausible albeit tragic and unsettling and as the credits rolled, I walked out with that surreal feeling one has after having watched a powerful, gripping piece of cinema. In spite of its cliched theme, ‘Revolutionary Road’ emanated realism and Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio delivered spectacular performances in their respective roles. I loved how the film did not manipulate viewers into feeling acute sorrow by depicting the protagonists as heroes or victims or as likable characters with several redeeming qualities but simply as they were, in the rawest form; two immensely flawed human beings.
Comments
wereldmuis
Waltham
She could have easily acquired a job whilst remaining at her current place of residence.
I disagree. The setting is suburban Connecticut in the fifties. It would have been practically impossible for this woman to get a job, certainly not one that would support her husband, two kids, and that house. The way I understand it, back in the fifties women were practically banned from the workforce if they were married, or had children. And there was no way you’d keep a job while you were pregnant.
Further, the point, in her mind, was not for her to get a job, but for the two of them to live meaningful lives. She could see her husband was miserable in his job, and felt trapped, just as she was. She believed that moving out of suburbia would solve all that. She might have been right. Clearly finances were an issue – women did not earn nearly as much as men back then, and the big attraction in Paris was some kind of government job which would theoretically pay more.
Her big mistake was having unprotected sex with this guy in the very beginning, presumably before they got married. She should have passed him over and found someone more in tune with her aspirations. In my eyes, he dragged her down. At one point he even made an implicit threat that he would have her put away if she continued to act like a crazy person (because she wanted an abortion). What kind of loving husband does that?
bec012
Sydney
Thanks for clarifying. I need to brush up on my history.
Anyway, the movie is open to interpretation, of course. I don’t think there is any correct or incorrect interpretation. What I wrote above was my take on the film.
ceridwens_descent
Fort Bragg
i think that part of the context lost here is in the idea of women in the fifties.
i don’t think april was experiencing any kind of mental illness, but for a woman to not embrace her role as a mother and housewife at this time is something that was SEEN as being maladapted. Someone get her more smokes and a valium quick, dr.s orders!
i found her character to be quite true to what women were expected to be like at that time.
it think it is difficult for us as people who live in such a different atmosphere, to understand how rigid the standards were at this time, i’m not sure it’s as easy as her just being able to change herself and seek her own happiness. this is not something that was ever modeled and rarely attempted, throwing ‘responsiblity’ to the wind and taking a break to ‘find yourself’ is a thoroughly modern idea. consider how every other character reacted to the couple when they shared their plans to move to paris. unheard of!
april said herself, it didn’t have to be paris, it could be anywhere. her attempt was to break she and her husband (someone she had once seen as one with their eyes open and mind aware) out of the grind that was absorbing them.
i found dicaprio’s character to be the most tragic, he so easily acquiesced to the mundane state of mediocrity.