Conference bookie::movies

    re .0, well, to me this movie is about much more than manners and
    artificial social customs.  I loved it. 
    
    I thought it was about the conflict between duty and desire, and, in my
    experience, I'd say that's a rather basic conflict for many human
    beings.  In addition, there's also the question of what is "the right
    thing to do."  Which is really the right thing to do?  Is it the course
    of action that would be dictated by duty, or by desire?  Because what
    duty dictates we do may not always ultimately be the right thing to do.
    
    I read the book by Edith Wharton (first novel, by a woman,  ever to win 
    the Pulitzer Prize, in 1927), a few months ago, and loved it.  Edith
    Wharton wrote beautifully, and I was interested to see how a movie
    adapted from one of her books would fare.  Well, I think it's one of
    the best movie adapted from a novel, that I've seen.  Martin Scorsese
    did an excellent job of capturing the feeling of the book, as well as
    conveying the meaning.
    
    In addition, I think the acting by all three main characters (Daniel
    Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder) is excellent.
    
    Also, it is visually beautiful.  The clothes, jewelry and the paintings
    and furnishings in the mansions are absolutely gorgeous.  
    
    It's easily the best movie I've seen this year, and I'd recommend it to
    anyone who enjoyed Howards End, A Room With A View or Enchanted April.
    
    Lorna
    

Like the base note, I too was disappointed by the film - maybe because it
had such hype I was expecting more.  It was certainly visually interesting and
the performances were good but I found it kind of dull.  I guess from the 
trailers I was expecting it to have more bite - like Dangerous Liaisons.

    
    	Two hours of tension and subtlety.
    
    	they are going to LOVE this movie in Japan.  I predict
    	a wave of Victorian-itis sweeping their whole country.
    

    To say I was disappointed would be an understatement.  I found this
    film just down right boring.  So did my sister and my mother.  My
    mother and I beat her 2 against one to see this film, the trailers and
    hype made it seem like it would be a great romantic love story.
    I never felt a passion between the characters.  The only good thing
    about it was the furniture and those decadent meals!  I enjoyed
    Dangerous Liaisons, at least that had something to it.  
    We kept waiting for something exciting to happen and it never did...and 
    this took two hours!!
    

    re .4, I thought it *was* a great romantic love story!
    
    I totally cannot relate to the people who thought nothing happened. I
    loved it, but obviously it's not for everybody.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I think that one has to go to "The Age of Innocence" prepared to 
    observe subtleties of attitude, appearance, and behaviour. In this 
    film, what's not said is of greater weight than what is said - the 
    success of both the novel and the film is in bringing the reader/observer 
    to the point of realising that a world that appears superficial and 
    'innocent' - as personified by May Welland - is far more complex, 
    sophisticated, and dangerous than it first appears. 
    
    In her novel, Edith Wharton was responding to her friend Henry James' 
    theme of American naivete and innocence in the face of European
    sophistication. More than one of James' novels has a young, innocent, 
    American heroine who is confronted - and confounded - by the 
    complexities of European social behaviour. I suppose you could
    argue that Countess Ellen Olenska is Wharton's example of a Jamesian
    heroine 'harmed' by the sophistication of Europe.  But both the novel 
    and the film make it clear that Ellen was always different (read more 
    intelligent and clever) than her cousin May. Yet it is May who is far 
    more cunning, when all is said and done. 
    
    "The Age of Innocence" is, for me, a film that I'll come back to with
    interest and pleasure because of the levels of its richness. 
    
    [An aside: Wharton's unfinished novel "The Buccaneers" (recently 
    completed by a contemporary novelist) tells of young American women 
    in search of titled European husbands. I'm sure producers are already 
    lining up to option this tale of innocent young women abroad.] 
    
    gloria
     
    
     

    People who have read the book seem to like the movie more
    than those of us who have not.  (Generalization, but ...)
    My sister, for example, said it was the "best translation
    of a book to a movie" she had ever seen.  She liked both.
    
    I think the *book* "Prince of Tides" explored the territory
    of being held captive by your social background (a "Southerner")
    very well.  It's one of the best books I've read.  But the
    *movie* "Prince of Tides" didn't have nearly the same impact.
    
    Perhaps that's what's happening here?  As strictly a movie,
    this was not great entertainment.  (For me, it wasn't even
    good entertainment.)  While I thought Daniel Day-Lewis' work
    was outstanding (and Michele Pfeifer's vaguely terrible), and
    the rest of the cast was very good, it wasn't enough.
    
    			dick
    

    I loved it and didn't want it to end.  And I couldn't believe that was
    the ending!  Anyone else feel that way?
    
    Linda

    re .8, when I read the book the ending drove me crazy!!!  I couldn't
    stand that it ended the way it did.  But, when I saw the movie I felt
    that the ending was the proper one.  Something about the way Daniel
    Day-Lewis portrays his character helped me to understand the ending
    better.  
    
    Lorna
    

    The novel by Edith Wharton has long been a favorite of mine ever since
    I read it junior year in high school.  And I was so anxious to see it
    having heard the rave reviews
    
    BOY WAS I DISAPPOINTED!
    
    Lushly photographed, but still goofy slow-motion, fade outs and other
    "trick" shots.  
    
    Michelle Pfeiffer is just not a great actress.  I kept imagining Ingrid
    Bergman (or even her daughter Isabella Rossellini) as Ellen Olenska. 
    And Winona Ryder as May..?  I kept having to remind myself the
    character just *looked* 14 yrs old...  Also, I think it was a big
    mistake to switch the colorings of the two women (i.e. in the book
    Ellen is dark and May blond)  It makes a difference in the symbolism!
    
    There was nothing mysteriouis about Ellen/Michelle!  She merely seemed
    llike a woman "modern" before her time.  That is only a part of this
    character's real fascination and depth.
    
    Daniel D. Lewis was good, but even he didn't even really show the
    battle of Archer between being callow and being a reasoning, 
    compassionate human being.
    
    For a movie on manners, see "A Room with a View" or "Howard's End".
    
    Tricia
    
    P.S.  Where I saw this the previews were the most exciting part for
    me...the movie that is the story of C.S. Lewis romance with an American
    woman, and "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins and Emma
    Thompson--the next Merchant-Ivory!!!!!
    

    re .10, I'm amazed that you consider Isabella Rossilini (sp?) to be a
    better actress than Michelle Pfieffer.  I've always found Rossilini
    very boring.
    
    Also, I thought Daniel Day-Lewis did an excellent job of showing the
    conflicts going on inside his character.
    
    Lorna
    

  We saw this movie over the weekend and really liked it a lot. Patty had read
the book and what she said seemed to agree with other's, basically that it was
a fine job of translating a book into a movie, a very hard thing to do at best.

  True the story was slow, but I agree with those who say it was subtle rather
than boring. In fact, that entire era in American history was typified by both
romance and social interaction that was far more subtle than what we are use to
today. 

  The romance between the two main characters was really moving. I think it
probably had special meaning to anyone who has fallen hard in love for the 1st
time then lost the person they loved for any reason. Beyond that it was a
fascinating look into the Victorian age which is now long gone. 

  Daniel Day-Lewis was outstanding. Not only would he be a great vampire, I
think he is a vampire. Michelle Pfieffer was great and is still my number one
Hollywood heart throb. I've loved everything she's done since the Witches of
Eastwick, especially Sussy Dimond in the Fabulous Baker Boys. She was perfect
in this part. 

  As someone said earlier, it is one of the most beautifully filmed movies ever
done which would suggest that you should probably try to see it on the big
screen. 

  **** out of *****,
  George

SPOILER (comment about the ending)


  I'm surprised that people are making so much out of the ending. In fact,
I don't believe that the ending was the ending.

  Through out the part of their relationship when she was in the United States,
he would frequently walk of or decide not to see her only to drop in a little
later. A good example was the point where he said he would not see her if she
didn't turn around before the sail boat went past the lighthouse. As with the
ending he walked away only to drop in on her in Boston a short time later. 

  I figured that the odds that they would get together before he left Paris
were about 90% if she wanted to see him, about 60% if she didn't. In the
former case, she would have sent some meaningful item back to him through
his son or she would have sent him a yellow rose. He would have been over
there within the hour.

  In the latter case (i.e. if she had someone new) he would have held back a
bit then he probably would have met her a few days later.

  Old love dies hard,
  George

    (I just rented the movie)
    
    I agree with the majority... 
     
     cinematorgaphy: excellent
     casting/acting: good->excellent
     plot: slow, uneventful, shallow
    
    I will say that I found myself laughing a great deal.  I found the 
    customs and manners of the characters to be so superficial and 
    pretentious that it was actually comical.  In retrospect, I think 
    the thing should be redone by Woody Allen, starring himself in the 
    lead role.  Picture him confronted with society's response to his
    romantic advances.  Having modern day values, he'd be frustrated at 
    every turn, not realizing that removing Michelle's glove was near 
    the ultimate of what he should expect. And when he simply walks away at
    the end, it would have been to pursue some sexy young thing strolling
    down the sidewalk.
    
    Call it "Age of Guilt"
    
    Now THAT would turn this 'C' rate drama into a 'A' rate comedy!