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

This would have been an absolute masterpiece if..

posted 13 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?

[–] cineastFGD 9 years ago

I think I do see your point. Maybe one could say that the romance is overdone, as the viewer does not really understand Archer's infatuation with Ellen. The story as portrayed here transmit a very immature image of 'love and romance', and it is unlikely that a man in this position, age, and standing would actually act like this.

I agree that it would have been more interesting to tone down the romance a bit in favour of the societal mechanism at work to prevent it, which are only hinted at in the very end of the movie. I haven't read the novel, but I presume that was the main point of the book, to portrait a society's subtle instruments, tricks, and mechanisms to restore and preserve the 'old' order, to prohibit change, despite of the emptiness it creates in peoples' lifes. At least that's what I hope for, otherwise it would have the same depth as a Pilcher novel. ;)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheKeel (104) 7 years ago

I do agree with you, nerdy88, because I feel that the romance between Ellen & Newland was not presented the way it should have been. In the 1934 version with Irene Dunne, it was very clear that Ellen Olenska was a fascinating, independent, bohemian person who represented freedom and a more interesting way of life to Newland. This did not come across in Michelle Pfieiffer's performance nor in the way the character was presented or talked about in Scorsese's version - it was obfuscated by all the costumes and details and pageantry. Michele' Pfeiffer's Ellen seemed completely cowed by society, whereas in the earlier version you heard all the relatives talk about her as if she were a real rebel and iconoclast. Scorsese's narration also never mentioned her personality at all. In the 1934 version you really could see Newland's conflict between meeting the desires of his family and their social circle vs. his own aspirations and visions of a free life. Both Newlands were wimps, though.

[–] TheArgentinian (7071) 4 years ago

I said this elsewhere, the main romance is seriously undercooked on this movie.

[–] TheArgentinian (7071) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] space1999 (725) 3 years ago

I agree. It's like I blinked in the movie and BAM! Lewis and Pfeifer are now in love. I had to go back several times for the connection...it did seem forced and this part of the adaptation to the screen did not work.

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

Same here, watched it recently, first time since it came out when I saw it in the theater with a friend.

I couldn't see the connection either, it seemed to have come out of nowhere. There should have been a better indication of what was going on in DDL's mind.

I remember my friend and I, who expected this great epic romance movie, did not like it. We started complaining and even making fun of DDL's moments in the movie. Like his closing his eyes- that was the out of nowhere indication he had feelings for her, imagining her putting her arms around him, and later sniffing the umbrella handle. The whole preposterous thing about if she turns to look at him, he will go to her, sounds like a childish ultimatum he put upon himself. She had commented how they spent so much time and concentrated on the food, then suddenly at the end they whirled through a couple of decades.

I did not like this disjointed movie then and I guess I still don't like it. I have not read the book.