Not all that revolutionary in 2009

Rating: 5/10 (21 January 2010)

When this novel came out in 1961, with JFK in office and America at the zenith of empire, perhaps this story about the dark rumblings beneath the veneer of suburban normalcy was bold and original. But now? Almost 50 years later? It's been done to death, don't you think?
We get it, Mendes. The suburbs suck, and the American Dream isn't all it's cracked up to be. You already covered that territory once-- more deftly. Add to that: the 50s were a conformist prison. Congratulations, you've hit the cliché trifecta.
The timing on this one is especially bad given our current economic woes. The family lives in a beautiful neighborhood. Husband has a secure, not-too-difficult job and is about to be promoted. Children are healthy and happy. Looks pretty good from the edge of the abyss here in 2010. What's the problem?
The wife never became an artist!--not that she showed any evidence of possessing a speck of talent. Her neighbors are boring!--although they seem to be perfectly nice folks. Their trip to Paris where they were somehow to achieve self-actualization was scrubbed! Her husband turned out to be a rather ordinary fellow and not Cary Grant! Boo freaking hoo!
Take some of hubby's raise, hire a nanny, and then perfect your "art." Hell, Grace Metalious wrote Peyton Place under the same set of constraints without the raise and the nanny (during the exact same time period). No, not with this precious broad. It's Paris or nothing for her.
Is this movie trying to say that the wife's inability to grow up --i.e., deal with the responsibilities of life and diminished expectations-- was her tragic flaw? Or is it proposing that "society" and "the times" caused a non-conformist to destroy herself? It's hard to say, but given the emphasis on setting and period details, it seems to be the latter. Through the telescope of 50 years, it just looks naive and childish. A better theme would be: how do we find dignity and meaning in life once we realize we're not that "special?" But that's a little deeper than this shallow examination cared to delve. Much easier to blame the "phoniness" of "society."
The crazy son of the real estate agent was a clumsy contrivance to catalyze the conflict and hammer the audience over the head with the movie's theme.
The acting was good, given the material. The sets and cinematography were top-notch. It's a great movie to look at with the sound off. Beautiful really, which pushes the rating into respectable territory. Points, too, for at least addressing the most common of adult themes in a straightforward, un-ironic fashion. But in the end, it's rather "fake-deep" and superfluous with an unsatisfying ending.