Revolutionary Road

Cafe Society
1

What does Hollywood have against the suburbs?

Ok, I saw this today. The acting is good, especially by DiCaprio, the direction is turgid and the movie is relatively involving on some levels, but the whole thing is predicated on the Hollywood assumption that nothing could possibly be worse than living in the suburbs.

Leo and Kate meet when they’re young, both have self-perceptions of potential greatness. They marry and buy a house with the idea that their domestic conventionality is only temporary – that they’ll eventually assume their imagined destinies (Kate wants to be an actress, Leo’s self-described “extraordinary merit” is less specific. Leo takes the train to work in the city, Kate does the housewife thinng (this is all in the 50’s, by the way, and Leo’s character served in WWII). They think they’re special, that they’re knowingly superior to their neighbors, that they’re somewhat playing a role.

Time goes by, kids are born and they eventually just become suburbanites. There’s a scene in the film where Winslet Leo talks about having to realize that they aren’t really special. That’s somewhat of a truthful theme, if not a very interesting one. The film mostly gets bogged down in the supposed ennui of living a comfortable life in suburban America. Winslet’s character becomes increasingly angsty about it, and hatches an unrealistic plan to uproot the family and move to Paris (a city DiCaprio’s character fell in love with when he was there during the war), and Leo goes along with it for a while, but the plans are scrapped when Leo gets offered a large promotion at work (Leo hates his job but is good at it), and Winslet becomes pregnant.

I won’t spoil anymore, and as I said before, the movie is wtachable and the acting is top notch, but thematically, I think the assumption that the suburbs suck and anyone who lives a middle-class, suburban, conventional family life is a conforming loser, drowning in quiet desperation is false and elitist. There’sa scene where Winslet tells Leo (during one of their approximately 9000 fights in this movie) that she doesn’t love him anymore and now “loathes the sight of him.” I was unable to understand what on earth he ahd done to merit hatred. DiCaprio’s character is basically a good guy in this movie. He’s a good provider, he loves his kids, he tries to please his wife, he’s not abusive or cruel. He does have a couple of empty rolls in the hay with a secretary at work, but he does it after being sexually aienated by his wife and her hatred precedes the fling. She even tells that she doesn’t care about it, so that’s not the reason for her hostility, but he’s really done nothing else to merit her hatred. Not being in love anymore is one thing, that happens, but malicious hatred? I didn’t get it.

Maybe part of my problem was that I wasn’t sure whether Winslet’s character was supposed to be sympathetic or just mean and crazy. She feels sorry for herself a lot, but there’s never any good reason why other than that she lives in the suburbs and never gets to run off to Paris and be an actress. Although Leo’s character isn’t perfect, he’s far more sympathetic and I pretty much just ended up feeling sorry for him throughout the movie.

Ther’s another character in the movie who supposedly has been in a mental institution. He’s the son of their realtor and he visits their house in a couple of heavily scenes. The character is basically a jester – an ostensible “crazy” man who tells the truth. Michael Shannon got nominated for an Oscar for this movie – and his scenes do have a certain energy – but the character seemed so schematic to me – so theatre, so designed for a purpose – that it somewhat broke the realism for me. He was a little too heavy-handed and obvious, and I don’t even think he was needed. He’s there to explain to the audience all the undercurrents that are going on, but I think explaining it kind of ruins it.

Anyway, the end result for me is that it shows what it would be like to be married to a castrating and self-absorbed fishwife for ten years. DiCaprio is excellent, though.

2

Nah. Kate Winslet’s entire character is predicated upon that – as she helpfully disdains these people right in the first act. Leo is perfectly content until Kate starts rehashing the old dream about living in Paris. He even claims to hate his boring office job when in fact it’s just fine. He doesn’t love it, but it’s not like he has anything to complain about.

The movie doesn’t hate the suburbs; Kate’s character hates herself (probably cause she’s a tad nuts) and herself lives in the suburbs.

Then again, the movie is also directed by Sam Mendes, who did American Beauty, which was a helluva lot less depressing.

3

DtC: I haven’t seen the movie, don’t plan to, but does Winslet’s character ever take any steps to pursue her dream?

It sounds like Winslet’s character hates herself for giving up on her dream, for procrastinating on pursuing her dream, for perhaps never having the courage to try out at the local theater, etc.

4

She does try a local theater play with less than stellar results.

5

Diogenes, I think you summed up the movie pretty well. Although Leo’s character also felt that he was meant for better things and talked about the both of them going to live in Paris during their courtship. She offered to get a job for an international agency in Paris so he could spend time figuring out what he wanted to do with his life. Very nice offer. He was ready to move there with her. It’s hard to tell what we should make of the idea. Would she be happy once she got the job or would she just feal trapped there? Would he find himself?

6

The Michael Shannon character (who I think we’re supposed to assume always speaks the truth) says that Leo is afraid both of failing and succeeding. I think Leo is afraid of finding out that he doesn’t really have anything special at all, that he has no inner greatness to realize. At least at his job he is already successful and credited with personal merit, even if it’s not something he loves or feels is important (and I think friedo’s right that he likes his job more than he lets on).

Winslet’s motive for wanting to go to Paris was less clear to me. I think she framed her argument to Leo for it as something that would be for his benefit, but the reality was that she wanted it for herself. She said she wanted to work for a US government agency in Paris, but that didn’t ring as very honest to me. I’m not sure that she really wanted to go there to be an actress either, though. My impression was that her ambition really wasn’t so much to be an actress, necessarily, so much as she wanted to be special. I didn’t really get how she thought she’d achieve that in Paris. It seemed like a plan born of deperation and wishful thinking as much as anything else. It didn’t seem particularly realistic to me/ She kept talking about how much secretaries got paid to work at US agencies overseas, which seemed dubious to me, and at one point even appeared to have convinced Leo that the cost of living was “dirt cheap” in Paris, which I KNOW is a laughable assertion, at least from my own experiences there. Maybe it was different in the 50’s, but I doubt it.

7

Winslet does not want to live a suburban life, but she can’t get out of it. To make things worst, she married someone who thinks suburban life with a house and two kids should be perfectly acceptable.

Leo doesn’t get why Winslet isn’t happy and thinks that there is something wrong with her because she isn’t. He thinks Winslet is mad at him, when he believes he has done everything right. He does go to work everyday, bought a house, and he gave Winslet two kids. So why is she mad at him?

But Winslet just doesn’t like suburban life. She wants something more. She comes up with Paris, which is just a hopeful fantasy.

The main problem is that these people can’t see their main problems.

Leo doesn’t like that Winslet isn’t happy with what he has done for her. When Winslet tells him about Paris, he convinces himself that his boring job is the problem. That is why Winslet is not treating him like a man. When he gets a promotion he then turns the problem around on Winslet. Something is wrong with her now. He becomes convinced that he has done nothing that Winslet should be upset about, so he gets mad at Winslet for not being happy with what he has given her.

Winslet just isn’t happy about being a suburban mom. Just as Leo fails to see why Winslet isn’t happy, Winslet fails to see what is upsetting Leo. She never does realize that her issues are not Leo’s fault, but she still blames everything on him. Winslet should have told Leo the reason she wants to go to Paris is because she hates being a stay at home mom. That she wants more. Instead she tells Leo she wants to go to Paris because of him and then that she never really loved him.

The 50’s backdrop keeps Leo from figuring out that Winslet can be unhappy with suburban life. It also keeps Winslet from telling Leo she is unhappy with it. So we end up with anger, frustration, and the movie’s ultimate conclusion.

8

I think living in post war Europe would have been cheap for an American back then. The economy was still rebuilding.

9

I haven’t seen the movie, but my understanding is that it is about a couple that is miserable because they want more than their run of the mill mediocre lives. Kind of like they are special enough to think they are special but not actually special enough to be special. I probably won’t see it. If I want to watch a couple where the man hates his job and the woman is disatisfied, there are plenty of people I can call.

The Suburbs have long been a representation of conformity, mediocrity, boredom and often generally failed expectation. The rows of identical homes ranging from modest Colonials and ranches to generically oastantatious McMansions. The class segregation. The dull, superficial middle class neighbors with their uninteresting jobs and nothing to do other than tend their yards, gossip and jockey for slightly higher middle class status. The facade of normalsy that hides deep rooted frustrations, sadness, boredom or even bizarre or unacceptable behavior including domestic violence.

In contrast, The City is where people go to find their dreams. They struggle in crappy waitress jobs or live in tiny appartments as they pursue exciting jobs as lawyers, bankers, actors, singers, writers, fashion moguls or what have you. Eventually they will make it big and can afford to move to a nicer place.

This meme has existing in Hollywood since at least 1975’s The Stepford Wives. Maybe even a little before. It has become more prominant since about the early 90s as the high cost of living and Gen-X disatisfaction with “jobs we hate for shit we don’t need” made suburban living not only less desirable, but often less obtainable (at least not yet).

To a certain extent, it’s mostly true. There are all sorts of reasons people settle out in the suburbs. But for the most part, a lot of it, like getting married and raising kids, is just somethng they are “supposed to do”.

10

I’m wondering how Sam Mendes sold his own wife on acting in this movie.

“Hey, Kate… I’ve got a great script, gonna make this movie, I want you to be in it! What, oh, it’s a movie about how being married with kids really fucking sucks! Hey, where are you going?”

Absent any real evidence, I don’t buy it. In my experience the reason people move into the suburbs is because they either dislike living in big cities or out in the sticks.

I’ve lived in both Toronto and its suburbs, and Toronto fucking sucks. It’s crowded, it smells, it’s filthy - its reputation for being a clean city is horseshit - the city services are appalling, the traffic is indescribably bad, and the housing is absurdly expensive. If we lived there we’d have a house half as nice in an area ten times worse and have nowhere to park our car. We have friends, a couple with a daughter like us, who live in Toronto and I wouldn’t trade places with them if you threw in a hundred thousand dollars. And Toronto is actually a very nice city as large metropolises (metropoli?) go; most are worse. There’s a lot of great things about it, lots of things to do and stuff, but you can get to that stuff from our suburb in 40 minutes, so why live there? I love NYC too, but I don’t want my children becoming that accustomed to the small of rotting garbage. Yes, it’s everywhere; you’re just used to it.

Perhaps some people live in the suburbs because it’s just the thing to do. I’ve never met any of them, and if you have evidence it’s true, I’d be happy to see it, but my guess is that most people would just rather have a house twice as big, room to move around, and a nice park for their kids you can walk to without being hit by a car or walking past a few bums and a whore.

11

The hate for suburbs in Revolutionary Road isn’t just coming from Hollywood, but from the original novel published in 1961. The book is told through Frank’s perspective so readers get a much better idea of what’s going on in his head. I found myself sympathizing with April, if only because her husband has no idea what she wants. Frank comes across as being very shallow and selfish.

Maybe part of the reason I do sympathize with April is that I grew up in a city and I would never want to live in the suburbs, especially in April’s world where she has no life outside of her home. My mom, who i saw the movie with, couldn’t understand why April was unhappy – after all, she had a beautiful house and was married to Leo!

12

Wow there is something else about America that I didn’t know - people live in areas that support their philosophical picture of the world. Here in Australia you live where you can afford the repayments.

13

I think that’s what makes them “most people”.

Then again, not having these bitches tapping on the floor above my head every time they move around their appartment isn’t such a bad thing.

Really, there are all sorts of factors. Cost, space, standard of living. Most of evidence is, admittedly, anecdotal. Whenever I hear a young woman who just moved to the suburbs of Jersey, Connecticut or Long Island say how she is “adjusting” I think “if you don’t like it, why would you move there?”
From a Hollywood point of view, it’s not interesting. It’s ordinary. Unless you are telling a story about the trials and tribulations of ordinary life, there’s nothing to tell. Middle class suburbs are Hollywood shorthand for “these people are just like everyone else”. A billionare tycoon lives in a Long Island or Greenwich, CT mansion or a spacious Park Avenue penthouse. A struggling artist lives in a Soho loft. That spunky young girl starting her exciting job in the big city lives with a couple of her friends in an Upper West Side walkup. The working class kid looking to find his fortune comes from Brooklyn. Etc, etc.

14

This is one of those films that, at least from the trailers, seems to be a depressing jaunt into regret.

Although I will probably watch it when it comes on cable, it just seems to be like watching people drown in their self-made misery…not something I want to pay to see.

Am I way-off base in my assumptions about this film?
(Not that I only want to see happy-ends, but the trailers make this film seem like an endless journey into depression and despair.)

15

Close. The 1950s somewhat take the blame off the two main characters. So their misery is not completely self-made.

16

I haven’t seen the movie but I read the book. My take on Frank (Leo DiCaprio’s character) is that he wanted to think he was unconventional but he was actually quite happy being just like everyone else. I think at the beginning of the relationship with April, she was taken with him because she also felt he was unconventional like her. April had other plans but got pregnant earlier than she wanted and then got sucked into the whole mom thing. She just basically didn’t like her life and Frank did. April didn’t want to be a mother. At one point in the book she even says that she didn’t think she and Frank were meant to be parents. The point is not so much that she wanted to be an actress but that she never got the chance to try that or anything before having a family and then she felt stuck. When April got pregnant the third time, Frank was thrilled (because it got him out of going to Paris or even talking about it anymore) but clearly April was not because she knew it meant that many more years stuck at home.

Also, I don’t think Frank was ever really going to go to Paris. He was too afraid to sit at home and try to find himself - probably because he knew that what he would find is that he wasn’t up to doing anything extraordinary and just wanted to live a quiet, comfortable life with his wife and kids.

I think the theme of the story is people lying to themselves (and ultimately to each other) about what they want out of life.

17

Huh. I didn’t know it was a book. I’m glad to hear that, because it kind of sounds like someone took Must Read After My Death* and made it fictional. Talk about depressing movies about suburban “special snowflakes” who make their marriage a living hell! Must be a theme this year.

I really really want to see Revolutionary Road just to see two of my favorite actors work together again. I just hope I can see it on its own merits, and not think of it as some sort of alternative universe Titanic II: Jack and Rose on the Road to Hell.

*Full disclosure: The director is a close relative of mine. Yes, you should see the movie anyway.

18

Good point.

I didn’t notice that April felt trap by having the kid. Her actions at the end of the film make more sense now.

19

Fabulous novel, and quite true to the author’s experience (he got a divorce instead of a dead wife , but Richard Yates was a deadly accurate depicter of his life and times. He was also the subject of Blake Bailey’s NBA-winning biography a few years ago. Yates wrote probably the two most poignant, Salingeresque short story collections, Eleven Kinds of Loneliness and Liars in Love that I recommend highly, and a number of outstanding novels, of which RR was the first.

20

Dumb question, because I haven’t read the book or seen the film, but is it kind of a 1950s suburban Madame Bovary?