God, now I want to kill myself . ..

Kate Winslet is excellent, as usual, but this is misery from start to finsih, and I'm not sure what the point is. It seems to be saying, 'This is life for almost everyone. Now go and die.'

I'm sure Kate Winslet shouts wonderfully - after all, she's got the lungs for it.

Oh, God. I was going to go and see this this afternoon.

I wouldn't say don't go. Just don't expect to enjoy it! It's hard because it was very depressing, and I'm not sure what you're meant to take from it. I'd love to know if people think differently, though. Go!

Yes, I agree people should go and then write what they made of it. I think it seems odd because it lacks the Hollywood upbeat message about things coming out right, the good guys realising their dreams, etc.It reminded me most of Douglas Sirk's overblown middle-class melodramas of the 50s.

http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue10/reviews/sirk/text.htm

In a way it's a depressive's corrective to 'Mamma Mia! and works in proportion to how much you prefer realism to romance. I thought it was going to be more like Mendes' previous film ' American Beauty' but it wasn't so much about suburbia as about a couples' mismatched expectations and fate's way of intervening to bring out the worst in people.

I've been reading Richard Yates collection of short stories, 'Eleven Kinds of Loneliness', which gives me some clues as to the writer's mindset, although I've only read three so far. The title's very apt.

There's a lot to like about the film, - the deatiled recreation of the 1950s, songs and all - domestic interiors, hotel rooms and dance-places, contrasting Frank's matey work-place with April's domain in the sunny yet eery suburb. Leonardo DiCaprio's portrait of an ordinary Joe was excellent. Supporting actors, in particular Kathy Bates as a kind of neighbborhood gatekeeper and mentor, and the Clara Bow sad-eyed typist, were convincing.

It was well-directed.The scenes where Bates brings her husband and out-on-licence son to the Wheeler's house fairly crackle with tension as we wonder what bombshell 'apercu' he's going to come out with next. I guess he's there to represent the author's voice, particularly as he gets to underline the message, about emptiness and hopelessness. Di Caprio seems at his best in these scenes.

There was a lot for women to identify with, too, in April's situation, although it's more than a tad mysoginistic, which maybe makes sense of the casting of the slightly scary Kate Winslett as April. Frank's no Scott Fitzerald, as he makes clear in the party at the beginning and which she fatally and perhaps deliberately ignores. I don't know whether it was the director or the writing that suggests the final shot with the old man and the hearing aid. I missd getting the free book from Waitrose.

Sheila

I think it seems odd because it lacks the Hollywood upbeat message about things coming out right, the good guys realising their dreams, etc

I didn't think it was that that made it odd/depressing. I much prefer serious drama to Hollywood upbeat stuff. I just felt that it was presenting life as repressive as claustrophobic - particularly for women - and there was an overwhelming feeling that, actually, things haven't changed that much, and this is still the lot of many women. And it's shit and depressing, and that's life, and let's all kill ourselves.

There really wasn't much else to take from it, I thought. And I couldn't undersatdn why the children, who were the cause of so much of the oppression, were largely absent.

It was very, very claustrophobic. The only plot strand was the relationship between this couple, and I wanted to get away from them.

Decided not to go. Listened to the Doctor (Mark Kermode's podcast) and he said if you want to watch a slice of Fifties life then why not watch MadMen, where at least you get jokes. So I took his advice and watched 3 back-to-back episodes of MADMEN instead.

I quite want to see this but I have a feeling I will regret it if I do

I was reading November Vogue at the doctor's this week - there was an article on the novel which is meant to be remarkable - on one of the review programmes last night they said after David Lynch there is no horror behind the white picket fence - but also they'd quite like to see a film set in the fifties where people were having a good time

Decisions, decisions...

Sarah

Oh, having just finished reading Rev Road, I decided based on utter depression and slight nausea induced by the book (the ending) and this thread not to bother with the movie- I don't think I can quite bear it.

But wouldn't you have to avoid an awful lot of fiction, too, if you want to steer clear of sad stories? Authors who've been hospitalised for depression and/or committed suicide, are not that uncommon and it comes out in their writing. I read that Richard Yates had mental breakdowns.

Critics identify the fifties women-at-home movies as backlash from the forties and propaganda resulting from unemployment after WW2. You can see upbeat versions in Doris Day movies of the period and there's lots of feminist literature. The melodramas, depicting the gap between the popular images of happy marriage and reality took a less simplistic view.

I do think women have a harder time nowadays.

I'm OK with fiction, but I avoid watching TV news.

Sheila

Ooh, yes: 'Blue Velvet': a superb film, much better in every way than R&R.

But I think there is a huge difference between sad and moving, and downright bloody miserable. Sad and moving stories, as well as the obvious cathartic thing, can still shed light on the human condition, and can have something to say. I just wasn't sure that Rev Road achieved either of those things. It was just relentless misery.

I will have to go and see it now

I suppose you like to feel that 'sad and moving' takes you somewhere else in the end - and there is a point to it?

'The Beautiful and Damned' isn't cheerful but I love it - not least the 'realism' of the writers' lives depicted and the figurative car crashes. Though I am rather dreading the film...

But I hate Tess - see that as Hardy making me miserable for no good reason - the 'president of the immortals' should stop being a sadist and 'do something about it'? IMHO

Sarah

Well I'm watching Mad Men and have become an obsessive. It's so good I just don't know where to start. Go and get it from Amazon right now. Then you can watch it back to back in time for Season Two which starts next week. Actually, that film "Far From Heaven" was v. good about Fifties misery. That, and Blue Velvet and I'm done.

Catharsis is associated with Greek tragedy,though. I'm thinking despair and empty hoplessless about the human condition. It goes beyond sad and moving.

Besides, the final outcome was not intended by April. All the signs were she was a fond and responsible wife and mother, always busying herself, playing hostess to the neighbours and bolstering her husband's ego. She appeared well-groomed and ready to enjoy herself. She kept a tidy house and was looking forward to the future.

The author wasn't saying these were mean and nasty people; he seemed to say that it wasn't enough for them to settle for material well-being and domesticity. There was no indication, unfortunately, that the couple would have found a fulfilment in Paris, but fate intervened so they weren't allowed to find out.

Shakespeare thought tragedy resulted from fatal flaws in characters but this story seems to be nearer to the Hardyesque notion of people as the playthings of the gods. Maybe hubris was there, too.

I think he showed great insight into April's state of mind, and her feelings of confusion, almost shock when all her dreams seemed to be at an end and she realised her husband was really not the special person she imagined.

It was worth being reminded, too, of the risks a lot of women took when there were no alternatives available and they weren't really well-informed about what could go wrong.

Sheila