This film is often considered a great departure from Martin Scorsese's previous offerings. Respond freely to what you thought about it, but please try to articulate the ways in which The Age of Innocence is similar to and/or different from the other Scorsese films and protagonists we've engaged with this semester.Also, if you can, please address the ways in which Scorsese aesthetically achieves, as he once said in an interview about this film, "that sense of memory and loss, déjà vu almost."
I look forward to reading what you write by no later than midnight next Monday, April 17. Have fun with it!
Tuesday’s viewing of Martin Scorsese’s “The Age of Innocence” had been my first time ever seeing the picture and I honestly wasn’t too sure how to feel about the film. I understand Scorsese necessity to bare the torch of Howard Hawks and act as a cinematic chameleon, but a costume piece? Of all the genres? I personally don’t have an affinity for costume dramas, I enjoy a select few, but they’re not a preference. So having always heard that Scorsese directed a film in the genre always left my head tilted and somewhat baffled.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the feature, which has been my reaction to nearly all of Scorsese’s filmography we’ve viewed to this point, is that Scorsese is one of the greatest students of world cinema living today. Initially, I was only taken by the film’s gorgeous aesthetics. From the costumes to the set design, to the special effects and all; I was in awe this whole film. I could only feel as if the film, despite being adapted from a novel, was a combination of both Orson Welles’ “The Magnificent Ambersons” and Luchino Visconti’s “Senso”; both of which Scorsese ironically screened to his crew during preproduction.
Both Scorsese’s and Welles’ films, which is one that Scorsese has said, “…is beautiful and moving, but I’m not a great devote of it,” both share numerous aesthetic qualities. The choice of narration to explain the dinning rituals and guide the audience throughout each room of the house is no doubt inspired by “Ambersons”. Returning to “Senso”, operatic scope of “The Age of Innocence”’, as well it’s incorporation of opera during the film’s opening sequence, have been well embraced by Scorsese.
In reflection, looking back after a few days, I must say that the film is rather emotionally violent as both fellow classmates and esteemed critics have noted. I think that Roger Ebert perhaps best encapsulated the film when he wrote, “The story told here is brutal and bloody, the story of a man's passion crushed, his heart defeated. Yet it is also much more, and the last scene of the film, which pulls everything together, is almost unbearably poignant.”
The final scene, of Daniel-Day Lewis’ deja-vu moment where he remembers that beautiful, sunny day where he waited for boat to sail past the lighthouse and for Michelle Pfeiffer to look back towards him. As he looks up, in the film’s final moments, to Pfeiffer’s window, we see a man whose entire life has been filled with repressed passion and emotion.
ReplyDelete"Voice over", Scorsese used lots of voice over in his film, either through actor's monologue(taxi driver), or letters to others(Silence) to show the inside world of the character. In Scorsese's movie, the most conflicts is protagonist's mind. That's why his film is interesting for me because the characters are interesting. The voice over or monologue helps me to understand the characters well in his previous movie. But the narration in The age of innocence is quite annoying for me. For instance, when Archer sits in the dining table and being isolated by others. I've read it through the picture, I've read it through the actor's acting, it is on his face. His unsettling is there. I got it, no need for the voice over. I felt the whole narration is unnecessary, without the narration, I still understand the film well, how they struggle and how much pain in their heart. Every time when I feel the character's feeling, the Voice over just wakes me up, it feels like someone sit next to me and tell me how I feel. If the Narration is so important for Scorsese, why cannot he use Archer's voice or Olenska's voice?
Other side, the New York city, the costumes, decoration is amazing, I wish there will be a 4k remastered version because the painting on the wall is so beautiful. Also there's few scene Scorsese just homage to the famous painting. Such as the scene Archer meet Olenska on the bench, it homage to A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. Now I could understand why Scorsese is an encyclopaedia director. I admired his enthusiasm. Compare to his other films, the characters in Age of innoncen are quite difference. The characters are high class, gentle and conservative. The usually character in Scorsese's film are crazy, mad and enthusiasm just like Martin. This is big challenge for Martin to deal with this kinda of dramma and subtlety emotion. The details of high class in the movie is precise. The emotion is there, still I don't like the voice over part.
New York is a significant character in many Martin Scorsese pictures, but it is important to note that it takes on a different type of role in "The Age of Innocence". In this film, New York is depicted as grand and sophisticated with scenes where the camera takes the time to cover the lavish dinner parties that these people hold. On the other hand, comparing to such early Scorsese works like "Taxi Driver' or "Mean Streets" where Scorsese shows us an authentic, grittier side of the city when characters like Travis Bickle drive through poor neighborhoods talking about how he wants to wash all the scum off the earth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are a lot of similarities between Newland Archer and past Scorsese protagonists. For one, Newland does have a subtle cockiness about him...where he believes he gets to make the decisions and his way only is the best. Much like Jimmy Doyle in "New York, New York", where he gets angry when Francine directs the band. He feels like it's his job and feeds off of that control. Similar to also "Taxi Driver's" Travis Bickle, where Travis converses with his crush Betsy at a cafe where he lets her know that she should quit her job and that he doesn't think the other employees treat her well. Again, this is an example of a character making a decision for another character and being in full control. Although, Newland isn't as much as a control freak as those earlier protagonists, he does seem to be the decision-maker for his wife May. For example, there is a scene where Newland is letting May know that they should move their wedding date to an earlier time because he can't wait. He is telling her what she should do and he does this on many accounts. In fact, in various scenes when they keep meeting up in private...he keeps bombarding her with that subject. Additionally, he doesn't take into account what she is feeling...it is only what benefits him at that specific moment.
Scorsese definitely achieves that sense of "Memory Loss" by many aesthetic choices. One being his slow transitions into other scenes. These transitions not only fade on close-ups most of the time, but fade to red or another color as well. As a viewer, it is very intriguing, but it leaves us in a confused state of mind where you don't know if the next scene is a past memory or a scene in present time. As for the ending, I think it's very beautiful in the sense that Newland refuses to go up with his son after so long to see Ellen Olenska and it cuts to an image of her from the past. It is very bittersweet because I believe that is the way Newland wanted to remember her through that past image and seeing her now would change his hopeful feelings towards her.
Age of Innocence was an interesting experience for me. I've said for a long time now that victorian period pieces are hard for me. I'm not sure whether it's the drawn out dialog, overcomplicated and under explained familial relationships, or the love triangles. But I usually find these kinds of movies to be overlong and droll. While I did find Age of Innocence to be about 20 minutes too long and fairly boring, I enjoyed it far more than your average Victorian period piece, mostly because of the unique visual style that Martin Scorsese brings into all of his work. The juxtaposition of color was extremely noticeable in this movie, mostly because of the elaborate set and costume design. Scorsese use of symmetry is particularly striking in this film, the camera centers on these elaborate symbols of wealth, usually in dining sequences that hold a ritualistic quality about them. These shots only highlight the obvious material attachment of these families. The dinner scenes take he place of the church scene's in Mean Streets, an unholy union of devotion to ones faith and a craving for the profane. There is a undeniable tension to these scenes. Personally, I just don't find them as engaging as Scorsese's more mainstream films. Maybe I just need to get more comfortable in this genre, but I struggle to find aristocratic love triangles as interesting or as intense as the personal, criminal, religious stories Scorsese usually tells.
ReplyDeleteI had seen some parts of “The Age of Innocence” during my childhood, although I can’t recall what scenes they were now. After I watched “Room With a View” when I was about 11, I became obsessed with period dramas that involved repressed emotions and lots of looks filled with passionate longing. And I think one of the reasons I didn’t make it through “Age of Innocence” as a kid was because I found it almost too repressed. I was waiting for the bodice ripping and for desire and love to overcome logic and propriety.
ReplyDeleteWhere you would expect Scorsese to give in and let Olenska and Newland go at it, Scorsese instead pulls us to their faces. He lets the camera sit there as Daniel Day-Lewis swallows his passion and looks at Michelle Pfeiffer with eyes full of love. He lets the audience see only little doses of that fire inside of Newland, just as Newland is only able to let those feelings rise above the surface every now and then.
I think Scorsese wanted the audience to feel as repressed and stifled as Newland did. No one got the happy ending they wanted, they got what probably skewed closest to reality. Olenska and Newland chose duty over passion, and I think that’s what makes the movie so special. The ending is both predictable and surprising.
Although it’s not my favorite film we’ve watched so far, I respect the risk Scorsese took by making this film. I think this is one of most aesthetically pleasing of all his films. The attention to detail is incredible.
For my first time viewing this I can't say this is my favorite Scorsese movie. Maybe it has to do with my uninterest of the time period it is set in. I've never been the one for the whole "Pride & Prejudice." I'm not interested in the Bourgeoise of any culture, I like the grittiness of his older movies and newer movies to come. When someone in class, my apologies that I can not remember who that was, called it one of Scorsese's more brutal movie. Obviously not the brutality like in Raging Bull were people are beating each other to a bloody pulp, but slight verbal insults that took me another screening to get. It was brutal in the sense of verbal attacks on peoples credibility or status within society. Like in most scenes where Ellen Olenska wasn't at a dinner party she'd be the main subject of the ripping into her as a person. I will say there was this presence of time shin the movie, I don't know how to put it into words exactly. But I felt like some of the house parties almost seemed to be the same party at times? Maybe it had to do with the roles the class in time had to impress their guest, so they plained most of their parties similar to each other. Where they all wanted to stay the same and continue this tradition of keeping the status quo. So I very much did enjoy the breaking in tradition while Newland and Ellen had their secret love from the rest of their closed in world. Overall I feel this is a movie that I would have to be in the mood to watch, not something I can pop in at will. But this defiantly seems to be one of the films that would launch Scorsese from art pieces to a combination of art and modernization in cinema, to the notorious status he would come to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI'll definitely have to watch it again because I don't think I picked up everything that was there and it seems like a movie that gets better with repeat viewings. Overall I thought it was a good film - is it something I would choose to watch? Definitely not my top pick but I am glad I watched it. Scorsese's attention to detail in every aspect from wardrobe and set, to shots and score, are simple impeccable. This is truly his "most mature" film. Scorsese, at this point in his career, doesn't seem to shy from guiding your perspective. We've talked a lot about the documentary and bigger picture style Scorsese usually likes to employ; where he doesn't guide you. But in this film I feel like he clearly points things out - whether it be a ring on a finger, a letter, a dish, a reaction. He expertly uses the camera to very clearly point towards things he wants you to notice. So in a way, it's his "most mature" film because, like how he describes in Scorsese on Scorsese, it's slow. But it's also his most mature film because he uses the expertise he's gathered from his other films to direct the viewer in an unobtrusive and extremely beneficial way.
ReplyDeleteAge of Innocence is rad. Its a violent, emotionally devastating film in which every whisper is a punch to the gut. It fits into Scorsese's later work in which he commits himself to such intricate detail his films are less psychological character pieces and more ethnographic pieces looking at unique societies that we are thrown into. Much like Goodfellas, Casino, and Wolf of Wallstreet, Age of Innocence features a voice over that shows us the ins and outs of our chosen world with quick edits and stylistic flourishes to draw us into the specifics of the world.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in our class discussion, this narration plays a distinctly different role than in previous Scorsese films where the VO came from the protagonist of the film. In this film the narration is from a non character, more traditional narrator, and this has a staggering effect on the proceedings by not having the characters tell us the story, but by aligning us directly with the protagonist by having us be dictated by a faceless voice concerned with societal decorum that dictates their lives and our viewing experiences.
I enjoyed Age of Innocence more than I thought I would. I'm not usually a "period piece" type of guy but Age of Innocence is an exception to that. I think I really enjoyed it because of how violent it is. We discussed this in class and I've had some time to think about it now and I agree with what was said during the discussion. Age of Innocence is very violent, not in a traditional way but in an emotional way. This movie is so emotionally driven that it's almost hard to watch. Watching Daniel Day Lewis' character struggle with having to give up what he really wants is violent in a sense because the audience is watching a man throw away the thing he wants for the greater good. It was also tough to watch as society was essentially throwing away Michelle Pfeiffer's character. The rich, sophisticated society of New York in this movie didn't want anything to do with her character and they ridiculed her and judged her and that, as a viewer, is tough to watch because to me she did nothing to deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI think the violence in this movie is similar to other Scorsese films. Not in a normal way like there are no murders or beatings, nobody gets brutally killed but Age of Innocence is still violent and that's what keeps it in the same vain as other Scorsese films.
Its pretty easy to tell what is different about “The Age of Innocence” when comparing it to the other works of Martin Scorsese. Tonally, the film is much more posh and upscale when compared to films which take place in gritty underbellies such as “Taxi Diver” and “Goodfellas”. “Age of Innocence” was also not violent at all in the physical sense. Not a single drop of blood was shed. It can be argued that the film was mentally violent in terms of the psychological torture of having to live up to the standards of a society when every fiber of your being wants you to do the opposite. This may also be where you can start to make connections from this film to Scorsese’s other works.
ReplyDeleteWhen you strip the film down and focus on the characters, Newland Archer is no different form Charlie, J.R., and even Jesus Christ. All of these characters are trapped by what is expected from them either by society or personal ideologies. When it comes to the setting of the film, as much as it is different, “Age of Innocence” is just as similar to any of the other historic explorations of the city in which Martin Scorsese grew up and loves. Scorsese strived for accuracy all the way down to the plate settings in part because of his obsessions, but also to give an accurate tribute to his city.
Scorsese has mentioned before that with “Age of Innocence” he was able to achieve a sense of memory and loss with a touch of deja vu. I think this is an accurate statement and that he was able to achieve this goal through the production design as well as the editing. In the production design every party was grand and extravagant, but even though there were some differences they all still looked very similar. As an audience member I found myself getting lost in the glamour and forgetting who’s house they were in or who was the host of the party. In the editing, he really was able to achieve a sense of nostalgia, particularly in his use of crossfades. From the reading, this may have been a happy accident. But the use of crossfades really felt similar to “Taxi Driver” in the sense that they made the parties feel dream-like. However, these dreams aren’t nightmares. They more closely represent the fondness Newland Archer has for the past and the way things were. By the time we get to the end, where time has passed, I started to realize that the prior portion of this story takes place not in a specific time, but in memory.
What sets the characters in this film apart (particularly that of Daniel Day Lewis) from those in other Scorsese films is that they are really all the kind of people that Henry Hill explains his loathing for early on in Goodfellas. "...to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day and worried about their bills were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls..." He doesn't work a shitty job, but I would say that Newland Archer is indeed very lacking in "balls."
ReplyDeleteThe potential here was huge. "Boy and girl love each other but can't be together because X" is a classic story type. It gave us (namely) Romeo and Juliet and The Great Gatsby. And those are fantastic (but not the remake of Gatsby starring Leo DiCaprio. That was shit).
What this movie is about is two people who have every opportunity to be happy but decide not to.
He could have easily said "Go ahead and get divorced. It won't be easy but I love you and will happily marry you. I'm loaded as fuck and we can leave all these squares in New York behind and go somewhere else." Then the countess could have said "Yes dear, that sounds lovely," and they could have lived happily ever after. Archer's bride to be, May, even offered him an escape route but he didn't take it.
He and the countess decided that money and playing by the rules and keeping everyone happy and what other people thought of them was more important than happiness, but at the same time I'm supposed to feel sorry for them. And I can't. What makes Romeo and Juliet tragic (other than a double suicide) is that they both decided to go all the way with it. In the end they don't get something they both want very badly. With "Age of Innocence" I never got the feeling they were ever really all that much in love with each other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAge of Innocence was an interesting watch for me. It was a film that broke the boundaries of films that I’m used to seeing Scorsese make. This film felt like a new experience in terms of subject matter and style. I can’t say that I really enjoyed the film, but I admire his urge to step out of his comfort zone and create a something that was equally successful in terms of intended message. He attempted to give us a glimpse into the hierarchy that existed in New York during the Gilded age. I felt immersed in this world, and I understood who these characters were by how he illustrated their strict customs and traditions. Age of innocence had character, substance, and it felt like an intelligent movie.
ReplyDeleteJust like other films that we have watched this semester, the protagonist was a man who started off in a good place, and we watched his self-destruction take place over the course of the movie until he finally finds peace. I think this film is different, because that destruction is the result of something which he longs for. His external and physical connection with Countess is what makes him unravel and it’s what deteriorates his marriage in a sense, but it also frees him in the end. It’s almost like Jake in Ragging Bull in how his relationship with his wife is toxic. However, I don’t know that I see that much commonality between Archer and other Scorsese protagonists.
I thought the theme was easy to follow, but the narrative was frustrating to watch. I disliked the voiceover that spoon fed me the story because I understood it and I didn’t feel like it was necessary. However, I understand how that factor helped emphasize the difficulty of consuming this tale and the rigidness of their lives. I thought the motif with the fire was something that we’ve seen in all his films and it was compelling. It’s a metaphor for his character’s lives. In the case of Archer’s life, when the fire burns brightly, life is good, but when things turn sour with Countess, the fire burns out.
The ending of the film gives you that dream like feeling in the way it jumps through his life so quickly. It’s almost as if Archer revisited the whole story and the ending is where the audience existed when the film started, but we go back to the start to understand the ending which is really Archer’s start. The narrator could simply be giving us the story and reliving the film with us. Even though this may not be the case, I thought this was interesting, as well how the scenes fade into one another with weird dissolves. I also enjoyed the paintings that turned into real scenes and frames, and I thought that aesthetic choice helped the film feel dreamier. As one of the video essays indicated, I feel like Scorsese does an excellent job of making the characters feel trapped both by their traditions and their secrets. The letters and the dinners both amplify that idea. The latter made me feel extremely bottled up.
This film was a nice change of pace, but I don’t know that I would really watch it again.
What can I say about Scorsese's poignantly told departure from his other films, the magnificent, "The Age of Innocence?" When viewing "The Age of Innocence", I found that although the main characters in the film were not in any way affiliated to the mafia, they still struggled with the same psychological and moral issues that his other essential film protagonists endured. However, "The Age of Innocence" is not set in contemporary America. The setting of this poignantly told story was set in the 1870s, in New York City; instead now, dealing with aristocratic, upper class members of high society. I feel that with this film, Scorsese wanted to tell a story that audiences were not expecting from him. He strayed away from telling stories on the ominous, shady streets of New York City. He also made the decision to stray away from making films that dealt with psychologically disturbed protagonists, and the underworld life of mafia members. This time out, Scorsese made the decision to tell a story that was out of the norm for him. I personally felt that he made this decision to show his versatility as a filmmaker. He did not want to be categorized or associated with one specific genre. Therefore, this film was a great change of pace for him, and just what he needed at this point in his career.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the two interesting parallels I can make between this film and Scorsese's other films would have to be the characters. The characters in "The Age of Innocence" and "Goodfellas", specifically, are strikingly similar. They may be set in different time periods, "Goodfellas" being set in the 70s and 80s New York City, and "Age of Innocence", in the 1870s in New York City; the similarities in the representations of the character archetypes are nearly identical of each other. There is no distinction. For example, the character of Newland Archer, played, to no surprise, with immense authenticity by Daniel Day-Lewis, and the Countess Ellen Olenska, in a brilliant, tour de force performance by Michelle Pfeiffer. Daniel Day-Lewis' character, Newland is characterized as an arrogant, chauvinistic, misogynistic womanizer, who sees women as sexual objects and nothing more. This type of archetype could easily be found in Ray Liotta's interpretation of Henry Hill in "Goodfellas", who was also an arrogant, misogynistic womanizer, who saw women as sexual objects. However, the only difference was that his character was a mobster.
I’ve never had a problem with period pieces. In fact, I really enjoy watching them. At first, I was surprised by Scorsese’s decision to make a film like this because, really? A romantic period piece? But the Age of Innocence is anything but romantic. We see the castrating social structure of New York in the 1800s ruining the potential happiness of the characters, Newland and Ellen. While watching the film, I was extremely annoyed because I wanted them to rebel against it. Would it really be that bad to defy everyone? I guess that would be one of the many frustrations of a modern viewer.
ReplyDeleteDespite the ugliness of the world in the film, the film is beautifully shot. Scorsese pays great attention to detail with his use of closeups of expressions and his way of capturing a movement or gesture. The camera floats around the space in a sweeping motion. It has the same rhythm as the characters at times. The video essay touched on this as well, using the scene where Newland decides to send flowers to Ellen as an example. Each movement fades into another and. The cinematography reminded me of Visconti’s film Senso (1954) and I know Scorsese must have taken some inspiration from it. I took an Italian cinema history course last semester and he was interviewed for the DVD commentary. I remember him being very enthusiastic about Visconti’s cinematography.
Scorsese’s characters always have an internal battle of some sort, so I think Newland is similar to some several other protagonists in that regard. Like Charlie in Mean Streets, he has to decide whether or not he should go on the path that is expected of him or defy his uncle. In the end, Newland chooses to stay with May. Even when he and Ellen have a chance to meet again, he doesn’t go up to her apartment to see her. Scorsese leaves the film open ended in a way. He doesn’t give us that “and they lived happily ever after” ending. It’s up to the viewer to figure out why Newland made that decision and what is next for him.
Age of Innocence- 8/10.
ReplyDeleteThis film by Scorcese is one of his most profound partly because it conveys the inner turmoil of a young man that is forced to live a life he doesn't want. The film is quite disturbing mostly because of the situation he and the two women that he's involved with are put in. Daniel Day Lewis stars in the leading role. He plays a man that is in love with a Countess that is going through a messy divorce. At the same time he's engaged to her cousin- a woman that is the picture of innocence. Lewis' character chooses the cousin because the Countess makes him but they end up having an affair anyway. The film reaches it catharsis when the cousin (whom is now his wife) gets pregnant and makes it so that the Countess has to leave the country. The main themes of this film deals with desire, mental and social prisons, family, tradition and taboo relationships. The Age of Innocence teaches us that while the moment is there and while we're young, we should always go for what we want or else we run the risk of being old and constantly wondering what our future would've been like if the opposite had happened.
I didn’t know much about the film before watching it, but I do tend to enjoy period pieces, so I was excited to see what Scorsese would do with a story like The Age of Innocence. I was incredibly impressed with how well the entirety of the film displayed the mores of that society. We’re engulfed in these images of these lavish spaces, all adorned with every trapping of wealth, and we get the sense that this is a culture governed by its materialistic need to hide behind ones possessions. Every frame is like a painting, and yet, you can still eel the hollowness of it all.
ReplyDeleteThe format of the film itself even reflects the repression of the times, how the narration speaks the words that the main characters are rendered, by societal conventions, not to say. Unlike in previous films he’s made, like Goodfellas, the narrator isn’t one of the characters, but a completely separate individual, which further creates this sense of secrecy and subjugation. Though this is a world ruled by propriety, it’s also incredibly unforgiving and brutal, much like the system of rules the mafia is controlled by. However, unlike his previous protagonists, Archer is unable to truly find a release for his troubling emotions, and instead, is forced to forever ignore them.
For me, the use of fade outs into each separate scene created the sense of memory, as this event blended together without any real attention to time or how we got from one place to another. Like a memory, we only pick up on the most important things and the rest sort of “fades” away.