Criswell predicts

Why "Revolutionary Road" is going to be a big, practically zeitgeist-defining, hit

By October 5, 2008No Comments

Revolutionary Road
The thought occurred to me this after­noon, as My Lovely Wife and I were dig­ging in to the Blu-ray set of the first sea­son of “Mad Men.” And dig­ging it we were, and My Lovely Wife noted, “It’s inter­est­ing just how much this show has already seeped its way into the cul­ture. That new dress I bought to go to [Event X] is very much in the style of what a lot of the female char­ac­ters are wear­ing here—its neck­line, the cumer­bund effect at the waist…” 

Right. Absolutely. And Revolutionary Road, the Sam Mendes-directed film open­ing this winter, star­ring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio…is a 50s-set story about a dis­af­fected couple…living in a con­form­ist Connecticut suburb…and the hus­band’s a self-loathing low-level ad man…the wife’s an unful­filled mom grow­ing in neuroses…and so on.

It won’t even mat­ter wheth­er Mendes can nail the pre­cise note of des­pair that Richard Yates so ter­ri­fy­ingly rings through­out the massively great nov­el on which the film is based. Hell, 90 per­cent of the people who see Road won’t even be aware of the nov­el’s exist­ence. Hell, 90 per­cent of the people who see it will well believe that the film is deriv­at­ive of…“Mad Men.” But see it, and talk about it, the “Mad Men” con­tin­gent will. 

And that’s why the film will be a hit. Let’s check back in a couple months and see how right I was. 

No Comments

  • Dan says:

    I think you’re right, but rather that people will show up in droves; older view­ers because of all the Oscar wins and noms, plus the nov­el ped­i­gree, and nos­tal­gic Gen-Xers because wow, Kate and Leo in a movie again, play­ing anoth­er couple, only this time it’s not a block­buster but a Deep Serious Movie they can totally relate to because they’re in lousy mar­riages that are disintegrating.
    Personally, I’ve no plans to see it in theat­ers because it looks like yet anoth­er fuck­ing movie about an upper-middle-class couple hat­ing each oth­er in the sub­urbs. I just don’t find such stor­ies excit­ing or enga­ging any­more. Unless Fay Weldon is involved, then I’m first in line.

  • bill says:

    I have that Yates nov­el lined up for later this year. I don’t gen­er­ally get into lit­er­at­ure about the evils of the sub­urbs, as I gen­er­ally find it con­des­cend­ing and smug. But Yates is so admired, and he really go in on the ground floor of that genre, so I’ll have to give it a whirl.
    As for the movie, well, Kate Winslet, and everything, so I’ll see it even­tu­ally. Sooner rather than later, if I end up lov­ing the book.

  • Matt Miller says:

    But see it, and talk about it, the “Mad Men” con­tin­gent will. And that’s why the film will be a hit.”
    But, ratings-wise, “Mad Men” isn’t even a hit as a TV show. It aver­ages under 2 mil­lion view­ers an episode.

  • Filmbrain says:

    Agreed that the movie will be a hit, but at the same time I can com­fort­ably pre­dict that the essence of the nov­el – what it’s actu­ally about – will be absent from the film, and audi­ences (most of whom have not read Yates’ book) will be none the wiser. This is a damn shame.
    That Yates wrote the nov­el without the dis­tance from the peri­od it’s set in is remark­able. I can­not recom­mend this book strongly enough.

  • Owain Wilson says:

    I hon­estly can­not see this film being a suc­cess of any note at the box office.

  • tully says:

    This movie is going to com­pletely miss the point of the nov­el. I’m try­ing not to be so pro­tect­ive and bit­ter about all of it, but it’s hard not to be. Richard Yates stands for some­thing more hon­est and tra­gic and bru­tal and stomach-punching than a big-budget spec­tacle like this could ever dream of being. At the very-very least, I implore any­one who’s nev­er read RR to read it before they see the movie.

  • bill says:

    I said I was going to!

  • Herman Scobie says:

    Mad Men may have min­is­cule rat­ings com­pared to all the real­ity garbage, but the people who watch it on TV and DVD are likely to be read­ers and film­go­ers and hence may be inter­ested in RR.

  • Dan Coyle says:

    I agree with bill on that sort of take on the sub­urbs. Not because I’m from the sub­urbs, but so many of those takes go for the cheap, easy shock answers. I’m also one of the few who believes American Beauty is also one of the most over­rated films of all time. So I think I’ll pass.

  • bemo says:

    This will garner 11 Oscar nom­in­a­tions and win 7.
    We’ll see how right I was.
    About Mad Men. Ha ha ha ha.
    Sorry. It, and by it I mean RR, will deffo be mar­keted as Titanic meets Mad Men (or a por­tion of ‘the Hours’? Or ‘Far From Haven’? Or ‘Zombie Holocaust 3’?)

  • Mr. Hyppo says:

    God I dunno – take away the poetry of the book’s nuanced voice and you’re left with miser­able people in the miser­able sub­urbs. In the 50s. Yes, nice suits but hmmm…

  • recktal brown says:

    and take away the poetry of flauber­t’s nuanced voice and you’re left with a miser­able woman hav­ing an affar.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @Matt Miller: Point well taken. “Contingent” is prob­ably not the best word. That being the case…ratings are not neces­sar­ily the be-all and end-all of cul­tur­al barometers.
    @bill, et. al.: The nov­el is not really a con­dem­na­tion of the soul­less­ness of the sub­urbs as much as it is an exam­in­a­tion of the self-delusion of its char­ac­ters. And inas­much as it does con­demn the “soul­less­ness” of the sub­urbs, it’s not pro­gram­mat­ic about it—it’s not say­ing “this would­n’t have happened in a social­ist world!” It’s an entirely human and appalling tragedy that, as we under­stand from the 20th cen­tury lit­er­at­ure of Eastern Europe, could occur anywhere.

  • Dan says:

    Glenn, I just can­’t help feel­ing that the time to make this nov­el into a movie was before the Summer of Love. I’ll read the book at some point, since it came from the actu­al era. But the movie just does­n’t feel like it’s got any­thing to say to me that I haven’t heard before, you know?

  • Mark says:

    I agree with Owain, what was the last adult film to do well at the box office?

  • bill says:

    Glenn, Yates has been hov­er­ing in my to-be-read pile for a long time, so I’m more than will­ing to give the nov­el a fair shot. I can­’t this month, because obvi­ously I have to read only hor­ror fic­tion in October, but when that’s up, I’ll move on to Yates.

  • Marilyn says:

    Doesn’t this sound a tad like Far From Heaven?

  • Sorry, but I’m going into this feel­ing that “Mad Men” is already the suc­cess­ful adapt­a­tion of “Revolutionary Road” that this movie won’t be. The cre­at­ive team dooms it already: Mendes did this mater­i­al before (glibly) in “American Beauty,” Kate Winslet did it before (uncon­vin­cingly) in “Little Children,” and DiCaprio does­n’t have the depth.
    But, the Yates nov­el is the best thing I’ve read in five years or so … so I’m bound to be disappointed.

  • Bah, I still haven’t read the Yates nov­el (I swear I’m gonna get to it before the movie comes out), but I have a bad feel­ing about this. The whole 50s-conformity-in-the-suburbs thing is so very tired that it’s almost impossible to do in a fresh and inter­est­ing way. “Mad Men” (which I abso­lutely adore and revere) has per­haps the only con­vin­cing take on the sub­ject I’ve ever seen on film—although that’s not really accur­ate because “Mad Men” takes place, of course, in the early 1960s.
    The (artist­ic) suc­cess of the film might live or die with its screen­play. Mendes is a tre­mend­ously excit­ing dir­ect­or and his films have all been visu­ally inter­est­ing, but like many oth­er visually-oriented film­makers out there, he’s some­what at the mercy of his scripts. I hap­pen to think Alan Ball’s script for “American Beauty” was a piece of junk that both indulged in the worst cliches of sub­urb­an drama as well as launched a hor­rible new wave of suburbia-is-secretly-bad-beneath-the-veneer-of-normalcy crap in both TV and the movies. BUT, it was a beau­ti­fully dir­ec­ted film. So the “Revolutionary Road” screen­play — it isn’t by Alan Ball, thank god (he was busy play­ing with vam­pires on HBO), but will it rise above the facile banal­it­ies of so many rep­res­ent­a­tions of ’50s sub­ur­bia? (Wikipedia tells us that cred­ited screen­writer Justin Haythe wrote a Booker Prize-nominated nov­el, which may or may not bode well.) And if it does­n’t, will Mendes render it with enough of an artist­ic touch to make it a vital film any­way? Or will we all want to fol­low Don Draper’s advice to Peggy and pre­tend that “this nev­er happened. It will shock you how much it nev­er happened”?

  • sak says:

    Well see­ing how the film isn’t even show­ing in a 200 mile radi­us of my middle east­ern loc­a­tion, I highly doubt it will be very suc­cess­ful at the box office.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    You got me,sak! Well played!

  • partisan says:

    Well, still not a hit. How long did it take for “The Shawshank Redemption” to be One of the Great Moving Experiences of Our Time?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ Partisan: And here’s anoth­er thing I love about the Internet: One’s dumbest, most off-the-mark pre­dic­tions are access­ible in a few keystrokes!