It could have been for stage

Rating: 5/10 (20 December 2009)

If "Revolutionary Road" were a theater play it could have been written by some Eugene O'Neil, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Sam Shepard or Travis Litt.
Indeed, it fits perfectly well in the row of American family drama written for the last decade. "Revolutionary Road", in some aspects even seems like it is a mixture of plays from above mentioned playwrights. Certain moments are reminiscent of some "Death of a Salesmen" by Miller e.g. Frank Wheeler's job, working at the same place where his father has worked for twenty years. Some other moments remind of "Buried Child" by Sam Shepard, especially with the symbolism of nature, fertility and the rejection of the own child. Tenessee Williams' play "Stairs to the Roof", however, seems to be the most relevant play for this film. Wheeler working on the "15th floor" of some business building, his unsatisfied life with his desire to escape and his unfaithfulness to his wife are just a few similarities to mention. With all these resemblances, one could argue that this material was never intended to be produced as a film. But Richard Yates, the writer of the novel, obviously liked the idea and Sam Mendes, known director since "American Beauty", liked it as well.
And so, this Hollywood-product came to surface. "Revolutionary Road", in some constant tension between fantasy and reality, between naturalism and some surreal, absurd, does indeed, achieve some great moments of high tension but due some weak moments of acting, especially by the wrong-cast of Leaonardo Di-Caprio and the film's (the studios?) wish to stay "mainstream", "Revolutionary Road" fails to prevail this tension and simply falls apart into the simplicity of some exaggerated narcissism piece.
Mendes's decision, the use of several one-shot scenes, allowing it's actors to unfold their capabilities and the audience to be closer to the protagonists, could've been some courageous act but Mendes does not seem capable to fully stretch the scenes in its dramaturgy and push them towards a even longer and provocative tendency. Therefore even longer transitions still turn up as some hasty, impatient cuts. Maybe it was his in-confidence in acting, maybe it was simply the difficulty to wrap up initial moments of the novel and leave others out, and maybe it was just to fulfill the American audience desire for faster cuts. Whatever reason it was, it caused to lower the tension of the film, it's directness and it's power.