MovieChat Forums > The Age of Innocence (1993) Discussion > This would have been an absolute masterp...

This would have been an absolute masterpiece if..

posted 12 years ago by nerdy88
23 replies | jump to latest

it didnt have the romance between Ellen and Archer in it. Lewis and Pfeifer are among the best actors there are, but the romance just sucked and dragged the movie down. There was no chemistry at all between the two and the movie just couldnt explain why a man would get so obsessed with this woman as he did here. Imagining that Ellen was simply a sister or a niece of Archer and having the movie focus on Archers bloodless marriage and him trying to steer his family through 19th cent New York, would have made the movie much more interesting.

However, the way Scorsese brings 1870s NYC to live in all its details is magnificent and very exciting and shows that brilliant directing can lift an average story.

Anyone agree?

[–] kaskait 12 years ago

Then it wouldn't be Edith Wharton's story.

The novel the film is based on is all about Ellen and Archer. The story is about a man who feels true love for the first time and gets a glimpse of true intellectual freedom. And all with a woman who truly understands him. Then he loses her forever.

Maybe the problem you have is that you didn't feel Lewis and Pfeifer had chemistry. I think that is the case a few times in the film but the two actors make it work.

[–] deliaw1946 12 years ago

nerdy, you are missing the whole thing! The whole POINT is the romance between Ellen and Newland. That was the main story line in Edith Wharton's book. What would be the reason to make the movie at all without the love story?

[–] nerdy88 12 years ago

Im not talking about the book. In the movie the romance just didnt work at all. The movie itself would absolutely work without the love story. Scorsese is not a very romantic filmmaker and what makes the movie interesting is the way he brings 19th century upper class NYC to live, not the love story. The love story ends up dragging the movie down, turning it into a solid movie where it could have been a great one.

Dont get me wrong, Ilike the characters played by Lewis and Pfeifer, Im simply saying that the romance didnt work.

[–] deliaw1946 12 years ago

nerdy, you know what? I do agree somewhat that there wasn't much chemistry between Pfeiffer and Day-Lewis. However, when the movie was made, it did have to have that romance, as that was the main point of the book. As another person said here, without the love story, it wouldn't have been Wharton's book. Love and loss was the point. He lived an empty and unfulfilled life due to his "honor." Honor is good, of course, but not when it breaks a person who lives his life for others.

[–] CakesAndAle 8 years ago

I agree with you. I never bought into their chemistry either. I try, but I just don't see it. Perhaps I have a problem with Michelle Pfeiffer? Never cared for her. To me, she is exactly the same in evetry role. She was acclaimed so much for The Fabulous Baker Boys, but all I saw on the screen was the same fakey persona she had in Sweet Liberty.

[–] spasek 12 years ago

I must respectfully disagree. I think the romance and the chemistry were not only there, but on a level rarely seen in films.

A big reason for the obsession had to do with society's rules at the time. Here were two people in love, and due to societal rules, there was nothing they could do about it.

The Countess did not recognize these rules like Archer did. Archer was already very much entrenched within New York society. Remember what happens to Beaufort whose numerous indiscretions with other women cost him nearly everything.

However, back to the chemistry issue. I felt the chemistry and romance was as powerful as any I've ever seen. Those scenes, especially in the second half of the film where they both recognize how they feel about each other, is almost overflowing with romance and chemistry. The brilliance in the story and the actors is showing the pressure between them in each scene so that the viewer understands, and even feels, what these two characters are feeling.

Take the romance out of the story (no offense, but as other posters have stated, is ridiculous since this is what the entire story is all about), and you don't have a story.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

That´s like saying that Taxi Driver should only have featured Travis Bickle driving around in his taxi & left out his psychological issues and eventual killing spree.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

That´s like saying that Taxi Driver should only have featured Travis Bickle driving around in his taxi & left out his psychological issues and eventual killing spree.

😀👍

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

[–] kressie 12 years ago

I think Pfeiffer and Day-Lewis are white-hot together. I love the scene where Archer confesses his love, then ends up kissing Ellen's foot and laying his head in her lap while she strokes his hair, pitying him. I can't imagine a more powerful scene about doomed love.

[–] Saltstorm2000 11 years ago

While the actors had excellent chemistry, I somewhat agree with the OP. I feel that this should have been more of a true ensemble, instead of following Day Lewis around. I feel Scorsese would have made a masterpiece if we had atleast several scenes without Day Lewis.

The romance should stay, no doubt, but with its ruminations on the society of the time, an opportunity was lost in not pursueing more scenes with characters outside Day Lewis.

[–] richardedward79 11 years ago

This film is a masterpiece & nothing should have been changed. It's about the choices we make in life and its impact. A good friend of mine told me that over the years, the meaning of this movie has evolved just as he has. That doesn't happen without the heart of this movie (Newland & The Countess) remaining intact. Who cares what everyone else was up to?? This film's beauty lies in its subtlety. Changing anything would truly diminish it & I think if you want something else, you should just find another story.

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 11 years ago

...this should have been more of a true ensemble, instead of following Day Lewis around. ...Scorsese would have made a masterpiece if we had several scenes without Day Lewis.

But this is an adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel. In Edith Wharton's novel, Day Lewis' character is in every scene, every page! The entire book is about him, as much as The House of Mirth is about Lily Bart.

Scostatevi profani! Melpomene son io...

[–] VeronicaNotHeather 11 years ago

Obviously, this person has some issues with Daniel day-lewis the actor.

I love his subtlety as Newland Archer. I think people miss the point about Newland and Ellen. Their chemistry is the result of their unspoken empathy for each other. Do they flirt or joke around that much? Not really and maybe a few more scenes in which they engage in a more relaxed way in controversations about art, politics, music etc would help show more what they had in common. But their empathy and mutual misery is what binds them almost from the get-go. Also I think DDL wisely chose to play Newland as a shy gentleman (with an undercurrent of subtle cynicism). Shyness is often the result of being caught between a rock and a hard place. In other words, Newland can't rock the boat too much because he has responsibilities to his dependent mother and sister, to his wife, to his job etc, but he also knows that many of the people around him are full of crap and that he'd rather live in Japan and see the world. So, he gets along with everyone without taking much pleasure in their petty interests. But DDL also gives Newland an underlying concern, sweetness, and compassion especially in regards to Ellen (but even occassionally in regards to May.) I think some people think he's a wimp, but I think he is a man living a life of quiet desperation (more becuase of a sense of sacrifice/selflessness than because he is concerned with his reputation--because really there are more than a few scenes when Newland considers throwing his reputation away but eiether Ellen or May convinces not to by appealing to his sense of decency and morality..Ellen saying she couldn't love him if he all of the sudden became cruel (towards May); May by telling him of her pregnancy.

Ironically, I think Ellen is at times more concerned with reputation than he is.

[–] Jelena555 9 years ago

As you already know, it's based on a novel. The thing is, I already knew that when I was watching the movie and I still was wondering why the hell is he attracted to Ellen? I will read the book later, but in the movie, I didn't see anything special in her apart from being more scandalous and open-minded than the rest. Was he attracted to the forbidden? To 'danger'? I didn't feel their chemistry much either, it appeared kind of artificial to me. She was a tease, and actually although on the surface it seemed like May is the innocent, Newland was carrying the greatest innocence and even naivety.

[–] moosefeathers 8 years ago

Well, that was the whole point of the story, now wasn't it?


Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] hockeyhrs 8 years ago

You have it all wrong.

This would have been an absolute masterpiece if, during the end credits, they had shown outtakes from the blooper reels . . . . Daniel Day-Lewis cracking up while trying to deliver a serious line reading . . . . Winona Ryder farting during one of the lavish dinner sequences . . . . B-roll of an un-aware Michelle Pfeiffer squatting on an 1870's-era toilet (straining to pinch out a loaf).

You know, the kind of thing you expect at the end of an Adam Sandler (or late-1970's / early-80's Burt Reynolds) movie.