I didn’t read the book, and the film moved me to see Winona Ryder, so my opinion is based on the film adaptation and sympathy for the heroine of Winona.
The film delivers a huge aesthetic pleasure - rich interiors, luxurious ladies' toilets, beautiful sets and exquisite treats - immerse in the atmosphere of bohemian late 19th century. An artificial world, where everyone, as in the theater, plays their roles.
The main characters: a young bride - May, her fiancé and her cousin.
May is a young girl of her time, she obeys the rules of the upper world, where people smile in the face, but behind the back they wash the bones. At the same time, she is brave enough to speak directly enough about what she cares about and hits exactly the target. And smart enough, contrary to some opinions, to understand the difference between what she sees and what is actually happening, but she is trained to behave like a lady in any situation. Winona with his game perfectly conveys all these emotions of the heroine.
The main character - the groom who made a promise to the bride, falls in love with another. She, in his mind, is so unlike the others, because she is sincere and smarter than his bride. I didn’t like the character at all: an indecisive husband who, in times when the “word of a gentleman” is not an empty sound, allows himself quite a lot. At the same time, he does not leave the feeling that, at first, he is a rebel against the accepted rules, in the future he simply dances to the tune of the woman under whose influence he is. Moreover, he turns out to be the most hypocritical character, ready to break his word, and silence what does not suit him, instead of directly discussing, rushing and whining.
And finally, the undivorced Madame Broshkina, who fled from her husband to her family. This is just a shameless hunter, from the first meeting completely flirting and manipulating the calf-fiancé. She does not want to play by the rules of a hypocritical bohemian, but it is easy to rebel when you are given money, and when relatives stand up for your reputation, and you also use all the tricks to steal the groom from your cousin.
As in all romantic works of the time, there is a moral message here: the groom nevertheless realized that he was the main inept here, although late, and in the end made his own honest choice.
The film is good because the actors were able not to leave the viewer indifferent, although, readers write that in the book the characters of the groom and cousin cause more compassion and sympathy, so I can not judge how well revealed the characters Dalewis and Pfeiffer – my sympathy remained NOT on their side.
We have discovered America only to make it a copy of another country
First of all, this film is just an amazing adaptation. I saw film adaptations that perfectly reproduced the novel, but did not represent anything from the point of view of cinematic art. I saw film adaptations where any coincidences with the novel seemed random, but the films themselves were not bad. Scorsese managed to stay on a very thin line - to shoot a stunning film from the point of view of cinema, which is interesting and pleasant to watch, regardless of whether you read the novel or not, and at the same time fully satisfy the picky reader looking for the embodiment of his favorite episodes from the book on the screen.
The plot of the film, like the novel, is as old as the world: loves one, is married to another. Stories reduced to this topic are filled with literature and cinema. However, the brittleness of the plot does not make either Wharton's novel or Scorsese's film mediocre or worn-out. Quite the opposite: the skill of the director is manifested in the transformation of a not particularly exciting novel into an interesting film. And after all, Scorsese manages to masterfully transfer to the screen not only the plot, but also the unique atmosphere of New York in the 1870s, immerse the viewer in this world of tours, dinner parties, polonaises and cruel morals of secular society.
As a lover of classics, I can’t help but note the very careful transfer of the plot to the screen. Scorsese didn't cut anything! Moreover, some moments are accompanied by a voiceover reading lines from the work. But at the same time, unsurpassed camerawork and very high-quality editing make the film a real work of cinematic art. The creators manage to maintain a balance: use the achievements of modern technology in the film adaptation of a classic novel so that everything looks appropriate and goes only to the benefit of the picture.
Special attention should be paid to the means of creating the atmosphere of New York of the XIX century. All the scenery and costumes of the film are very luxurious and correspond to the era (which in our time you will not always see). The film won an Oscar for costumes! It is very cool that a significant part of screen time is devoted to the display of meals, dances, performances in the opera. Not forgotten and third-rate heroes of the book, which in principle are needed only to reflect the mores of the high society.
And finally, the actors. I’m not a big connoisseur of their work, so I can’t compare their performance in different projects, but in the Age of Innocence everything is definitely in its place. This is how I imagined Ellen, Newland and May when I read the book. The acting, too, deserves all the praise – which is just worth the heartbreaking scenes of Ellen and Newland. Daniel Day-Lewis perfectly conveys the inner torments of his character, that in his youth, that in middle age.
To summarize, this is one of the most successful film adaptations I have seen in my life. And it is all the more surprising that its author is not a BBC company, but Scorsese, for whom this is not a typical genre. I definitely recommend the film to watch both fans of the book and just people who love costume films about past eras and melodramas.
10 out of 10
This melodrama fits the novels of Jane Austen, touches the elite society of the 19th century and builds a love story. Throughout the tone of the picture it seems that it is not Martin Scorsese shot. After thrillers, crime to give melodrama and a slow history of a large family in society, embellishing everything with magnificent costumes, interior, looks amazing. The screensaver in the form of a rose petal, as if saying: “Forbidden fruit is sweet”, plunges the viewer into small conversations, dinner parties, constant gossip.
Against the background of all this, confident aristocrat Daniel Day-Lewis proposes to Winona Ryder, whose cousin Michelle Pfeiffer constantly gets into scandals of his position in society. In the courtyard of New York, where people have their own ideas about leisure and entertaining conversations. Hikes to the theater, sports entertainment are constantly accompanied by lunches, conversations. It reminds me of Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon."
Behind all this monotony, and the director even focuses on dishes for the table, the inner struggle of the protagonist with himself develops. Female power of seduction, self-confidence and manipulation of men make Pfeiffer a dangerous person, so we beautifully weave the life of the engaged Day-Lewis into gambling feelings. You understand where everything is going, but the position of the main character is both alarming and attractive. For a greater torment of inner feelings and choices (?), Winona Ryder appears as a stupid, frivolous, close-minded girl to compare with her the complete opposite in the person of Michelle.
Coincidences in the film affect Daniel's relationship with Michelle. This change comes slowly, slowly. More frequent are meetings, more personal conversations, evaluation and attraction. The picture plunges the hero into a tough test of feelings and loyalty, constantly pushing Winona and bringing her closer to Michelle. What else seems to happen? But different circumstances force Daniel to spend time with Pfeiffer.
The film is accompanied by an aristocratic routine. Visits to Grandma Winona, who sees everything and notices everything, arrange external, profitable parties. Miriam Margulis before teaching herbal studies at Hogwarts was a very noble and honorary aristocrat who noticed all the smallest changes in the behavior of people around her. Innocence lies in the behavior of the protagonist, who is so close but so far away at the same time.
Day-Lewis' anguish reverberates everywhere. Even on the show, he sees an allegory for himself. You understand the hero, you see all the nuances in Winona and you feel the power of Pfeiffer’s seduction, but how not to lose face, how to be a man in such a situation? Here again, the viewer is rolled immediately through the decades ahead to stop a man from temptation at the most desperate peak. Between the engagement and the wedding must pass 2 years according to the traditions of the family? Shorten the time! Once again, the hero intends to distance himself, as Winon's wife moves with him. Another hitch in the relationship, an attempt to distract from the home environment, as Winona claims to replenish the family. And the key thing is that Michelle is always nearby - a woman plays by her own rules.
That’s the beauty of the movie, that’s its luxury. The last episodes, many years later, support the hero in his views. The character of Day-Lewis evokes admiration and belief in responsibility for their actions. The drama of his personal life is beautifully described by his son, who acts like an epilogue of the whole picture. Overall, it's a pretty cute movie about heartache and choice, but it's pretty stretched. Of course, it was important to convey all the stages of feeling, the many encounters between Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer, to show a society ready to cling to the throat of anyone who did not conform to moral norms, but ... but it could be shortened.
Maybe not for me such melodramas, although in the Age of Innocence there is a lot of beautiful. Slow actions and a calm tone hide a strong attraction, passion and desire for the impossible. This contrast of measured, secular life, the focus on many details – Scorsese conveyed not just the history of the family, but just the era of the 19th century. The director's cameo was funny.
Mind or feeling? Honor or shame? The choice of heart or mind? Martin Scorsese suggests finding out for yourself.
If someone took up the film adaptation of Gone with the Wind, throwing out of the novel half of the plot and the explanation of the mores of the time, it would be a rather banal love affair with unsympathetic characters. Oh, wait! .
A similar story happened with the Age of Innocence. The book, describing the culture of an entire generation, was mercilessly gnawed - left a dog wedding in chic scenery.
For all my love for Michelle Pfeiffer, her Olenskaya is the exact opposite of the image that I drew from the book. A zealous debauchery in red silks and ridiculous puddles with rude coquetry and outrageous seduces the fool Newland Archer. It leads him astray from the path of truth and forces him to betray his beautiful bride. In the book, both characters looked like victims of circumstances, in the film, these two scoundrels do not cause any sympathy. I want to call the bear to grunt from the bushes: “It’s not good!”
Condensed within the framework of screen time, the characters rush back and forth, and the sweet meek May looks at it with a silent reproach. The questions asked by the characters in the book are smeared and lost, there remains a simple story: an affair between a married man and a married woman under the disapproval of friends and relatives.
The visual design, apart from the plot, is magnificent, but the ugly story does not draw in any way.
The acting is good: May performed by Winona Ryder is perfect, Archer Daniel-Day Lewis is a handsome and gentleman ... but Michelle Pfeifer, in my opinion, is frankly older than her heroine, which only strengthens the impression “a depraved aunt seduced a young fool.”
After watching the film adaptation and the attitude to the book I have changed, I ceased to sympathize with everyone there, and in the final felt more gloating than sadness.
Almost every film by Martin Scorsese consistently brought the director an Oscar nomination in the Best Director category. The film “The Age of Innocence” was an exception: neither the film nor the director himself was nominated for this award. Then the honorary list included only the people responsible for the technical side of the film, as well as J. Cox and Martin Scorsese for the adaptation of the novel by Edith Wharton, written in 1921.
The romantic story told in the film shows both sides of the high society of the late 80s of the 19th century. The film is set in New York City (where is Scorsese without the city?). Newland Archer is a successful lawyer who, deep down, wants to diversify his usual life, which at times begins to look like a bad theatrical production. Engagement to the sweet and well-bred May Welland promises him a complacent and peaceful life. He loves his future wife very much. At least he thinks so. One moment Cousin May returns to New York after a public row, Newland finds herself captivated by her openness and disregard for other people's opinions. A classic love triangle appears before the viewer: the hero is forced to make a choice between two worlds, each of which represents one of the heroines.
As much as I love the work of Martin Scorsese, I cannot but admit that the Age of Innocence is a rather empty and overly monotonous panorama of the life of the “higher world”. The canvas, impregnated with pretentiousness, hiding behind a beautiful visual row quite typical for its genre content. The life of this very elite appears before the viewer in the most banal way: endless feasts, receptions and celebrations are shown, where guests carefully eat exquisite miniature dishes with silver spoons and look at the paintings that hang all the living rooms of castles and palaces. The ostentatious innocence of these people hides either hypocrisy or emptiness. It is because of this that Newland Archer’s craving for his future bride’s cousin becomes quite reasonable and logical from the point of view of the scenario. Cousin May violates the moral foundations and cultural values familiar to this social stratum. She is sweet, kind, and in some ways naive, but she also has a bit of anarchy that she brings to the lives of the inhabitants of the palace. And the hero of Day-Lewis is tired of such a life, where a person is recognized as insensitive only because he did not wear gloves correctly at some evening masquerade.
The history of the main characters of the film, who belonged to the so-called “cream of society”, takes place against the background of the life of ordinary citizens. The director contrasts two social classes: the monotony and dimensionality of the life of the rich becomes opposed to the haste and bustle of the everyday worries of the poor. This director shows the detachment of the main characters from the outside world. Scorsese shows the other side of the excessive pursuit of traditional rules. An important role in the perception of the film is played by the excellent camera work of Michael Ballhaus: unusual plans and angles, coupled with a detailed study of the interiors (for the reconstruction of which most of the budget was put into place, which amounted to thirty million dollars), beautiful makeup and excellent costumes (suit artist Gabriella Pescucci received an Oscar for her works).
The main idea of the film - that you can not drive yourself into the box, blindly following the absurd rules and opinions of the crowd, otherwise you risk not being yourself - is the only thing that works at the proper level. Scorsese, in any case, would not take on the initially unideal project. The director was only too carried away by external attributes, forgetting about the development of the characters themselves. But those rare scenes that occur between interruptions of endless celebrations, which are really filled with genuine emotions and experiences, can to some extent dilute the rather boring narrative of the tape, making you empathize with the heroes who turned out to be locked in their own consciousness, unable to escape from their own “little world”, where they were forcibly planted by society.
7 out of 10
“In a world of tradition. In the age of innocence. They dared to break the rules. ?
The talented director Martin Scorsese in 1993 released his next, high-profile film called “The Age of Innocence”. The film is based on the novel of the same name Edith Wharton. This costume drama turned out to be a subtle and sensual story for all those who love and appreciate films of this genre.
Before us the end of the 80s of the XIX century. We see a successful lawyer, gentleman Newland Archer, practicing law. He is engaged to a sweet and clean girl of noble blood, May Welland. A stable and quiet future awaits him, life is clear and clear. Deep down, the hero dreams of experiencing true love, experiencing these emotions. Fate acquaints him with a divorced woman, who simply lives off the secular society, because she was one of the first to go through a divorce.
We see a story of love, of passion, of prohibition in the age of innocence, where breaking the rules meant going against the whole of high society. The heroes faced intrigue and prim time. Before us is an exciting love story full of prohibitions and temptations.
Scorsese always makes his films large and beautiful. His work is pleasant to watch, although this film will be for a narrow category of viewers - for those who like costumed, gentle dramas. The film is really decent, and the spirit and atmosphere of that time are transmitted to the screen believably and clearly. When watching this story, it feels like you are really in the XIX century.
The trio of main characters are performed by such famous American Hollywood stars as Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder. As for Day-Lewis, he is a brilliant actor with a capital letter. Few of the actors of the world cinema can boast as many acting awards as he has. In this story, he revealed his character frankly and with a soul, conveying to the screen all his essence and character. I want to watch Pfeiffer all the time in this movie. She was born to play in paintings of past times.
The love story in this film is full of sadness and regret, but even sad love stories are beautiful, and the movie turned out much deeper than it seems at first glance. Again, not everyone will appreciate it.
On the one hand, it may seem strange that the legendary and cult Martin Scorsese unexpectedly chose for his new production a classic novel by American writer Edith Wharton, because Scorsese was more noticeable epic films about gangsters of Italian origin, but with such prose as “The Age of Innocence” he was not noticed. But it is worth looking at this fact from the other side: if at least a glimpse of Scorsese's film biography, then the naked eye will notice that the director loves his hometown - New York, and now try to guess where Edith Wharton came from?
At the forefront of the work of the writer are the relationship between lawyer Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis), Countess Ellen Olenskaya (Michelle Pfeiffer) and May Wellland (Wynonna Ryder). No, this is not a notorious love triangle, no, this is not a story of love and betrayal, yes, this is a story of tragic love, which was never destined to come true to the logical end. Martin Scorsese with his subtle flair caught what Edith Wharton wanted to convey in her novel, namely, how the rules of society, its foundations, moral principles break down souls who in their own way aspire to freedom. To be condemned by this society means to be an outcast, there are no invitations to social events where everyone is happy to discuss and condemn the personal life of an outcast. This is exactly what the main characters were afraid of, although their impulses were so noticeable that even without physical contact, they began to be mistaken for a lover and a coy from this look. Strange and cruel society.
The relationships of the main characters are developing rapidly with, of course, an eye on the society of Archer and the Countess. It is worth noting the wonderful performance of the actors, otherwise these discharges of electricity between them would not arise, because you can see how sparks flash in the eyes, and hearts are ready to jump out of the chest when Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer are in the same frame, in the same scene. With reference to clearly calibrated phrases, pauses in communication, you can see that they are about to say their main words in life. It’s hard to believe it’s an actor’s game and not a real feeling. But suddenly Winona Ryder did the impossible: she miraculously outplayed all this triumph of emotions of two experienced actors. Ryder expressed in her character all that epochal component of time, a real child of her time: she follows the decree of her aunt, falls in love with Archer, as she was told, tragically perceives the understanding that she did not become for the narrowed ideal of dreams, but she cannot change, she is too used to living according to the rules of society.
Martin Scorsese, as always, managed to achieve an accurate hit in all components of his film. He was awarded the Oscar for the best costumes and there is no doubt: unlike in recent years, the American Film Academy awarded the awards really deservedly, without regard to the total political correctness and skin color of the President. Costumes, hairstyles, make-up and scenery – all this together immerses in the world of New York (and you assumed that the basis is taken England, like Jane Austen? No, at the end of the 80s. Scorsese made another fundamental contribution to the picture, so much so that it is worth paying attention to many directors, such as Joe Wright, on how to stage social events: there is no blinding chic, no washing eyes, but there is a sense of realism of what is happening, where every step, a glass drunk, a whisper creates a unique atmosphere. The only caveat is that the picture is too stretched in the moments when they want to bring us the ideological existence of that society, since its foundations were clear in the format of communication between the main characters, but still stretched.
Lovers of dramas based on classical female prose will be truly rewarded with a wonderful production, because this is another story about a real, but tragic love, which lay and destroyed the moral principles of the time when this love broke out.
8 out of 10
For fans of Martin Scorsese, a complete surprise was the director’s appeal to the love novel Edith Wharton, the events of which originate in 1870. Scorsese had no prior interest in romance novels (except for the musical retro "New York, New York"), nor in historical subjects (unless, of course, one takes into account "relatively historical" "The Last Temptation of Christ"). The Age of Innocence he shot in the gap between “Cape of Fear” and “Casino”, dedicated to the key for him – criminal and mafia themes.
This picture in all details depicts the story of the doomed love of the New York aristocrat Newland Archer and the Countess Ellen of Olens. The difficulties that caused lovers to meet incognito were both in the very dubious reputation of the countess who had not yet had time to divorce, and in the already announced engagement of Mr. Archer himself, who had previously offered the hand and heart of the charming young May Welland.
In one of the series of documentary research “Walking through American cinema with Martin Scorsese”, the director (and the host of the program) admitted that, having once seen Stanley Kubrick’s painting “Barry Lyndon” (1975), he was for a long time then impressed by her, being fascinated by the magic of other rhythms of life and very differently formed feelings. Apparently, this, deeply sunk in the soul discovery, and forced Scorsese to turn to uncharacteristic material.
It must be admitted that he managed to fill with life the story of tragic love in the highest light, thereby bringing it beyond the notorious “suit melodrama”. The slowness of the narrative allows us to speak not about the momentary feelings of the heroes, but on the contrary - about their seriousness and thoroughness. This once again emphasizes the aristocracy of manners, which are opposed to violent passions, "mixed all the cards." Although at some point it begins to seem that the decoration of the rooms, tables and assemblies on dresses interested Scorsese almost more love intrigue.
In the thoroughness of the restored interiors and the sophistication of the outfits, the picture may well compete with the best images in this field. But in part it is the rich "draping" that gives the story a detached and even colder sound. The essence of the director's task best conveys the frame-metaphor, stylized under the revived daguerreotype (with exquisite taste made by German cameraman Michael Bolhaus): on a busy New York street randomly move "aristocrats of the spirit", holding hats-pots, ready to break due to strong gusts of wind.
The passing scene, meanwhile, exhaustively illustrates the concept of design: the vagaries of the weather cannot force the employee to abandon the uniform corresponding to his position in favor of a free appearance. And this is quite consistent with the correct conduct of Mr. Archer, who never ventured beyond the conventions and norms of conduct prescribed by the Upper Light.
A beautiful aesthetic story about the morals of the secular society of New York in the past. Scorsese successfully shows against the backdrop of a developing city, the destruction of the typical archetypes of former aristocrats who eventually mixed with the crowd, becoming like everyone else. I mean, the real Americans.
It is impossible not to add that this is another film with which the American Film Academy rolled Martin Scorsese on all fronts, for the first time without nominating Michelle Pfeiffer and Daniel Day-Lewis, leaving without attention the magnificent camera work of Michael Balhouse, who skillfully recreated the atmosphere of the canvases of Jerome, Tissot, Bouguereau, and this without recalling the traditional lack of a directorial nomination. And then they gave only a consolation award for costumes. All for what? To give it to one of Martin Scorsese's worst films.
Martin Scorsese directs The Age of Innocence, a costume melodrama based on the novel by Edith Wharton, who won the Pulitzer Prize for him, becoming the first woman to win this prize.
It turned out a beautiful film in which the brilliance and luxury of the high society of the old.
New York is shown very skillfully. Scorsese stops the viewer’s attention on such details as the table setting, where close-ups take place: exquisite dishes on no less exquisite porcelain and silver, interior details, clothes ...
The plot of the film is not very intricate: a romantic melodrama in which the successful lawyer Newland Archer, engaged to the sweet and well-bred May Welland, falls in love with her outrageous cousin Countess Ellen of Olen. He is torn between love and the morality of his circle, making a rather predictable choice.
They say that the first impression is the right one. But sometimes life throws me such surprises that I begin to doubt the truthfulness of this folk wisdom. It becomes awkward to talk about omens when it comes to Martin Scorsese. I was brought together by Gangs of New York, a film of undeniably great value and scope, but... There's always that proverbial "but."
Apparently, in order to understand the real Scorsese, Maestro Scorsese, Scorsese genius, you need to see his “Age of Innocence”. To see how he understood the novel, how the novel was understood by Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder. The tape itself, it would seem, is held by three - Newland, Helen and May. A little trivial - two women, one man. But looking closely, you can see that there are really three, but not the trio that is claimed in the caste. Yes, Newland. Yes, Helen. But there's another actor. It acts behind the scenes, and its name is Martin Scorsese. This name seems to be in the air when the frames alternate. Style, manner, handwriting... What word to choose to describe how the Maestro makes his film? It is independent of evaluation - it is not overvalued and does not require recognition. It simply exists, and its existence behind the scenes gives cinema another trump card.
How masterfully someone on the other side of the screen manages everything, so brilliantly on screen one couple makes their story. And there's no need for Winona Ryder here - her May seems so limited and petty in all her innocent doing nothing that her mere presence makes the scene sugary. She's in the way. Stops Daniel and Michelle spreading their wings, stands behind them as he kneels down and kisses Helen's shoe, kisses her wrist, looks at her as if he's seeing her for the first and last time. Passionate, charming, they seem to be destined for each other. And I want to be puzzled to exclaim: “Why can’t such a smart man be with such a smart woman?” And immediately one thinks that the mind always accompanies dignity and nobility. So the key to their bliss is sent back in an unopened envelope.
A whole life with a taste of bitterness from the feeling of guilt for wanting to be happier than everyone imagines you, manifests itself on film. And she deserves so much more than a nomination for Best Costume.
This picture is more like a comedy of feast and costumes than a tragedy of feelings and conventions. In fact, the notorious era - with its ceremonial absurdity, demonstrative grace, class and gender stereotypes - is perfectly conveyed. The film shows the zeitgeist as easily and unobtrusively as the very phrase “age of innocence” hints at it.
Day-Lewis perfectly embodies on screen the sacrifice of society to which he is forced to belong. It - high society - is not far from decay, and schematic characters like the wife of the main character or an authoritative aunt quite amusingly emphasize this.
What was embarrassing was the scenes of Newland's tenderness with Ellen. But these are, in fact, the key moments that particularly impressionable viewers should haul out for quotes and nanoseconds of touch. I thought they were nothing. Yes, their feelings are doomed to abandon each other and hopelessness, but a nervous fall into the girl’s knees or Pfeiffer’s excited eyes extended to the limit is not the most successful way out. Here's the glove-removal episode, perfect, it has so much beauty and sensuality and it really fits the situation.
It was interesting to watch this story of bombast and the rebellious despair that confronted it. But the main thing I probably never saw.
For those who see Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson as ideals of female beauty, look at Michelle Pfeiffer in The Age of Innocence and be ashamed of your preferences. Can caricature faces with silicone lips a la Playboy compare with the pure, clear, refined beauty of Michelle, spirituality, radiance of her face?
Of course not, but this opinion is subjective, and I do not dare to insist on it. I can only say that Pfeiffer fit perfectly into the entourage of costume melodrama, and the hairstyles, dresses and mannerisms of the century before last suit her as if she was born and lived in those distant years.
Edith Wharton, like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, has a special style of writing, largely dictated by the slow rhythm of life of that time, and therefore modern readers, and at the same time viewers, should not expect any dynamics, events and unexpected turns from a book or film. To the unprepared viewer, the film by Martin Scorsese may seem immensely tedious, painful and uninteresting.
One might even think that Scorsese’s vaunted meticulousness in re-creating the era played against the maestro this time, and he overstepped with specifics (interiors, dishes, family trees of famous families, empty secular chatter), but how, excuse me, could he ignore these details if Wharton’s novel is 90% of them? The style of Oscar Wilde, only without the irony and liveliness of the latter.
However, in all this you can find a kind of charm, if you immerse yourself in the atmosphere and dissolve in it, without whims and pretentious requirements. Daniel Day-Lewis, who is completely different from Bill Kating from his next project with Scorsese, Gangs of New York, I like less, because neither the appearance disposes nor the behavior of his character – he is too indecisive, restless (if he is engaged, then sit and do not prowl, and if you decide, then act).
But Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder seem to have left the books. Noni plays a dummy, and Michelle is a heartthrob, and both look great. Ryder in 19th-century outfits resembles Mina Harker, only without the imprint of intelligence on her face, and this omission breeds a desire to revise Coppola's romantic horror.
Bottom line: a very high-quality costume movie with good actors, the claims are small and purely personal: Scorsese could choose a more dramatic, sharper novel as the fruit of his efforts, and Day-Lewis could be replaced by, say, Sean Pan or Oldman, since the black-browed Daniel, the double of Jeremy Irons, in my opinion, is unpleasant.
9 out of 10