THE AGE OF INNOCENCE: Blu-ray (Columbia, 1993) Criterion Collection
Filmed twice
during the late silent era, Edith Wharton’s novel, The Age of Innocence - all about the manners and mores of
blue-blooded New York society at the turn of the last century, was already a
cultural touchstone by 1923; a sort of scandalous stripping away of the courtly
polish and hypocrisies of, then, contemporary life. On the surface, propriety demanded
a stringent set of criteria to harness, keep steadfast and purify the behaviors
of its gentry. However, as Wharton’s novel illustrates, there was a social
subclass of avarice and duplicity working against this exercise. Using the
time-honored convention of star-crossed lovers, Wharton’s telling exposed the
undercarriage of society at large and, its suppressed, though more than
salacious fascination with sexual intrigues. Hard to digest now, but The Age of Innocence was a real
bodice-ripper when it came out. Not that Wharton would have considered the
novel as such. In fact, Wharton had penned The
Age of Innocence as a minor apology for The House of Mirth, her fourth novel that had been far more
scathing and critical about such things.
The Age of Innocence is essentially a tale of one man -
gentleman lawyer and heir apparent, Newland Archer (Daniel Day Lewis) -
dominated by two women in his life; the first, his seemingly naïve ingénue of a
bride, May Welland (Wynona Ryder, who will prove more enterprising in her desires
to anchor Newland to the conventions of their caste) and her cousin, the more
free-spirited Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer), who brutalizes
Newland’s lust for her; first, by willingly offering it up to his infatuated
caprice, then by cruelly denying him more than a faint reminiscence of their
brief time together; thereby driving him to wild distractions. The women, each
aware of what the other is up to, spar on an intellectual plain, their battle
of temperaments causing occasional friction in Newland and May’s marriage and
all but wrecking any chance Newland might have had to remain happily ensconced as
a power-brokering bon vivant without the nagging thought he has probably
settled in his marriage at the expense of finding truer happiness – and eroticism
aplenty – elsewhere.
In adapting the
novel for the screen this third time around, director Martin Scorsese has
assumed a monumental task; The Age of
Innocence (1993) receiving an all-star and decidedly lavish treatment – alas,
less compelling as a plot, if mesmerizing in its beauty. The screenplay,
co-authored by Jay Cocks and Scorsese slavishly adheres to the novel; excising
whole passages with a voice over narration provided by Joanne Woodward (who does
not appear in the film) designed to expedite our various introductions to these
characters. Visually at least, Scorsese’s film is a masterpiece; Michael
Ballhaus’ luminous cinematography married to some opulent period recreations:
Dante Ferretti’s production design, Speed Hopkins art direction, and, Robert J.
Franco and Amy Marshall’s set decoration, perfectly complimented by Gabriella
Pescucci’s costuming. Point blank: The
Age of Innocence is a peerless, A-list super production of immense scope
and infinite style. That it somehow lacks impetus as an absorbing melodrama is
a tad perplexing, and most certainly something of a letdown; the actors
delivering their schematic dialogue with grace and polish, but strangely, an
antiseptic inability to breathe the necessary life into these words. As such, The Age of Innocence quickly devolves
into a clinical exercise rather than an astute regression from, and observation
of, the period.
In hindsight,
Scorsese was, perhaps, the wrong director for such an ambitiously high concept
demure melodrama. His approach to the folly of Newland’s lustful badinage with
Ellen is low key. There is a complete absence of the director's more infamous
verve for gripping action; Scorsese’s métier undeniably centered on
contemporary tales about organized crime.
Scorsese’s direction herein is quite unlike what we expect from him.
It’s fairly obvious he is heavily invested in making The Age of Innocence a resplendent period picture; showcasing all
of the intricacies of the gilded age. There is, in fact, a sublime joy to be
gleaned from Scorsese’s complete immersion in the realities of this bygone
culture; meticulously composed moving portraits; Scorsese’s resurrection of ‘the age’ fairly reeking of his
consummate professionalism as a film maker. Edith Wharton would be right at
home in the grand majesty of Scorsese’s turn of the century New York. And yet,
there exists more than a faint whiff of embalming fluid emanating from the
peripheries of the screen; a sort of veiled reminder what we see is, in fact, a
museum-inspired antiquity of animated waxworks rather than a suspension of
disbelief in the illusions spun by Wharton’s fictional characters.
The oddity is
neither Scorsese nor the actors can entirely be blamed for this fault. It isn’t
easy to pinpoint the lack of spark, perhaps because The Age of Innocence prodigiously excels in so many facets of its
production. The weakest performance of the lot is Wynona Ryder’s giddy green
girl; interminably, wrinkling her nose and letting out with a squeak to suggest
her joyful bemusement at allowing Newland his more amorous affection; a peck on
the lips in public, as example. Alas, it’s all just an act; Ryder’s May
Welland, a devious little peacock, incrementally tugging on the yolk about her
husband’s neck until he is resigned to surrender all hope of ever being his own
man; or, at least, Ellen’s illicit lover.
No, that void in the unhappy countess’ life will be filled by Julius
Beaufort (Stuart Wilson), the Teflon-coated, notorious womanizer.
The Age of Innocence is, in fact, a story of morally
corrupt, manifestly irresponsible and devilishly manipulative individuals,
putting on their priggish airs while playing a rather insidious game of
seduction. Apart from the aforementioned three principles, the picture is
extremely well cast: Geraldine Chaplin as May’s fussing mama; Richard E. Grant
as Larry Lefferts – the foremost proponent and social commentator on style and
form; Alec McGowan as elder statesman, Sillerton Jackson – a veritable magpie
of gossip; Miriam Margolyes as Mrs. Mingott - the invalided, though
enterprising dowager to half of New York’s ‘polite society’; Carolyn Farina, as
Newland’s younger sister, Janey Archer, and, Siân Phillips as their mother;
Norman Lloyd, Mr. Letterblair, an elder partner in Newland’s law firm and
finally, Jonathan Price as Rivière; the social secretary to Madam Olenska’s
estranged husband, the Count – and quite possibly, her ex-lover. Scorsese is
working with some heavy-hitting talent here. But the central focus on the love
triangle makes short shrift of virtually all these aforementioned players; mere
– if supremely elegant and accomplished – window dressing.
Immediately
following a stunning main title sequence designed by Elaine and Saul Bass
(calligraphy letters matted onto fine lace and a time lapse of various buds
ripening before our eyes; symbolic of the flurry of passion to unfurl), The Age of Innocence begins at the New
York Opera House, gathering place for the hoi poloi. Newland Archer is in his
box, along with Larry Lefferts and Sillerton Jackson; the wily old coot far
more intrigued by the presence of the Countess Ellen Olenska, seated across the
auditorium in a box with Mrs. Welland and May. It seems the Countess has fled from
a marriage to a monster; the Count, pure Euro-trash with fetishistic depravities
aplenty, leaving Ellen scarred, scared and quite alone. While Jackson and
Lefferts slyly debate the possible intrigues, Newland skulks off to May’s box;
formally introduced to the Countess by May. Ellen reminds Newland of their
playful youth together and he is amused by how unchanged she seems; her joy at
the opera his first real taste of the woman who will come to challenge his own sense
of morality before too long.
Regina Beaufort
(Mary Beth Hurt) departs the opera ahead of everyone else. As one of the
matrons of New York society she must make ready the elegant home she shares
with Julius for the annual ball. Newland attends, as does May and her mother.
Either from a sense of propriety, or perhaps mere concern she will be branded a
wanton, Ellen abstains; lying to May about her dress not being “smart
enough.” Julius arrives late to his own
party, the implication being he has been off somewhere consummating an
extramarital affair. Newland is quite
obtuse to this notion. Indeed, the following evening as he, his sister Janey
and their mother entertain Sillerton at dinner, the conversation inevitably
shifts to the Countess; Sillerton, only too jovial to pry and probe with
innuendoes of impropriety. Newland questions why any woman trapped in a bitter
marriage should be condemned for wanting to better her prospects elsewhere. His
cool resistance to Sillerton’s criticisms of Ellen translates into our first
faint glimmers of a more tangible eroticism brewing from within.
Mrs. Mingott
offers to give a party in honor of the Countess. The crème de la crème of New
York is invited to this soiree – but decline en masse, citing ‘prior
commitments’. The insinuation, however, is painfully clear. Anyone who even
dares acknowledge the Countess Olenska will be shunned. Newland is outraged,
appealing his case to Henry van der Luyden (Michael Gough) and his wife, Louisa
(Alexis Smith). As leaders of polite society no one would question their
authority should they choose to accept the Countess into their genteel circle
of friends. The van der Luydens are
empathetic and agree to host a fashionable dinner engagement, expressly to
welcome the Countess. The occasion is a success. Newland is strangely drawn to
Ellen in a way he did not anticipate. She politely questions his fidelity to
May. Newland is steadfast to his bride-to-be, but increasingly becomes
distracted by impure thoughts about the Countess. He offers to act as a broker
to find Ellen a house. As she intends to remain in New York – and is May’s
cousin – surely no one will think anything of this philanthropic gesture.
Regrettably,
Newland grows distant, then jealous, when the Countess begins seeing Julius
Beaufort on the side. His sexual frustrations are manifested in a plea to May;
to expedite their long-term engagement. Mrs. Mingott approves. But Newland has
already begun to question his motives for marrying May, and increasingly discovers
his love has insincerely cooled since Ellen’s arrival. At the same instance,
the Countess makes plans to divorce her husband – absolutely unheard of, sending
shockwaves of scandal to overwhelm both households. Mr. Letterblair approaches
Newland with a request; to an indefinite postponement of the divorce. Newland
is appalled. But his own feelings for the Countess are now painfully
transparent.
Placed into an
impossible situation, Newland professes his love to Ellen. She reciprocates it,
but then becoming modestly unsettled by how it will impact May. The Countess
agrees to an awkward truce: to remain in America, though still married to the
Count. This sort of marital imprisonment is hateful to both Ellen and Newland.
But it also serves as a buffer. So long as Ellen abides, Newland should not
consider his consummating their love for one another a sin against May. In the
meantime, May sends a telegram agreeing to wed Newland well before their natural
period of courtship has run its course. From this moment forward, The Age of Innocence will prove a hell
in its heavenly trappings: not one, but two sham marriages. For Newland no
longer loves May, forever poisoned by his strong desire to possess Ellen.
Nevertheless, he and May are wed; their honeymoon, a grand tour of Europe where,
inadvertently May meets Rivière, the Count’s secretary. Rivière informs Newland
the Count has expressed an urgency for his wife’s return. Newland is disgusted
but impotent to suggest any alternative without making his true feelings known.
Upon their
return to America, Newland and May attend Mrs. Mingott at her summer home on
Rhode Island. In the late afterglow of a warm summer afternoon, Mrs. Mingott
sends Newland down to the docks to fetch Ellen. He obliges, but then hesitates
when Ellen is near, casually staring across the open waters. Newland makes
himself a promise: only if Ellen turns around will he gesture to her. She does
not, however, and Newland returns to Mrs. Mingott; lying he could not find
Ellen to bring her back. Time passes. But Newland’s carnal thirst for Ellen
only grows more parched in her absence. He fantasizes about a reunion, despises
himself for being ‘technically’ untrue to his own wife and cannot help be
short-tempered with May. Having reached
an impossible stalemate, the family cuts off Ellen’s allowance – presumably to hasten
her return to her husband. Instead, she departs for New York City to nurse her
ailing grandmother. Mrs. Mingott accepts Ellen’s need to be rid of her husband
and reinstates her allowance, thereby affording her financial independence to
do as she wishes. Newland is wildly distracted by this prospect. Perhaps now,
he and Ellen can find some clandestine way to be together.
Unfortunately,
the lady is unwilling – even to be his mistress. Newland’s pursuit of Ellen is
rather insidious and predicated on fulfilling no one’s gratification except his
own; the Cocks/Scorsese screenplay illustrating a transgressive quality to his
lust. Ellen relents to Newman’s demands. But she then elects to return to
Europe with all speed. Incensed, Newland decides to tell May he is in love with
her cousin, intending to leave his wife at the earliest possible moment for
whatever may be waiting on the other side of the Atlantic. Instead, May
interrupts Newland before his declaration with an announcement of her own: she
is pregnant. May also reveals to Newland she deliberately told Ellen about the
baby two weeks earlier, even before she was certain of it. The insinuation is
May has known all along of Newland’s passion for Ellen but is determined to
anchor him to his duty toward her – whatever the cost.
Realizing
Ellen’s decision to return to her husband has been predicated on May’s
revelation does not soften this blow, as Newland cannot leave the woman who is
carrying his child without a scandal of epic proportions, certain to blacken
his family’s status in the social register for generations yet to follow. Years
pass: twenty-six all told. May dies of fever, thinking the world a fine place.
Newland is left to rear two children. Their adult son, Ted (Robert Sean
Leonard) encourages Newland to take a trip abroad to Paris, informing his
father he has tracked down the Countess Olenska. She has, in fact, agreed to
see them. However, as the men stroll toward her fashionable atelier, Newland
cannot but acknowledge how time has withered his memories of her. No doubt,
Ellen has changed as much.
At the last
possible moment, Newland declines the invitation, leaving Ted to go on alone.
As he had done on the pier many years earlier, Newland plays a game in his own
mind: if Ellen looks out her open window he will join Ted upstairs to reminisce
about old times. Alas, not long after Ted has left to go upstairs, the window
to Ellen’s apartment is closed shut by a maid’s hand; the sun’s reflection
blinding Newland a moment or two without Ellen ever appearing at the window.
Newland realizes too much time has passed. He is not the same man. Perhaps the
only place he and Ellen can ever truly coexist now is in the memories that
remain quietly locked away in his heart. Without remorse, Newland turns and
walks away, destined never to see Ellen again.
In these
penultimate moments of surrender, The
Age of Innocence attains a sort of tragic clarity about love, desire and
destiny; the triage in Newland’s pursuits disentangled for him so very long ago
by May’s steadying hand. Whatever decisions were made on his behalf in his
youth, he has maintained the façade and played the charade to perfection. No
longer dictated and haunted by his fickle passion he has escaped with his
respectability intact and without the nagging doubt he has sacrificed his
entire life for a dream remembered. There is something supremely satisfying in
this sense of finality; an exquisite decay lain waste to the people Newland and
Ellen once were; the myth to have perished in each other’s absence, denied its
unsaid farewells. Daniel Day Lewis’ glance is both world-weary and edifying; a
revelation of the queer tugging within an all too fragile and human heart.
Newland’s desire for Ellen, still colored despite the passage of the years, has
morphed into something finer, yet still as unattainable. Preserving Ellen’s
memory will have to sustain Newland now.
The Age of Innocence was hardly a smash hit. In fact,
it grossed only $2 million more in the U.S. than its $30 million budget. Why? Its
artistic merits are impeccable. Were audiences in general, and fans of Scorsese
in particular, anticipating an edgier affair? Indeed, The Age of Innocence is hardly taut or even tantalizing; its
narrative tension sustained by subtle glances across a crowded drawing room; no
violent fits or outburst, no wildly careening camera movements. Without Scorsese’s screen credit, The Age of Innocence might just as
easily have been a Merchant-Ivory production or a courtly English drawing room
comedy of errors – something from the Ealing Studios in their prime, albeit on
a far grander scale. We must also reconsider the aftereffects and fervor
created by the multi-Oscar-nominated production of E.M. Forrester’s Howards End (1992) and Merchant-Ivory’s
superb follow-up; The Remains of the Day
(released the same year as The Age of
Innocence) each, a veritable ‘how to’
make period costume dramas. In competition with these superior scripted dramas;
the former, having taken artistic liberties with Forster’s novel, Scorsese’s
unoriginal faithfulness to Wharton’s text exposes the chinks in any ‘literal’
literary adaptation for the movie screen.
The Age of Innocence would have been better had
Scorsese afforded himself the luxury to experiment; to be passionate about the
art of film-making and depart from the authoress’ prose; if only to illustrate
how he might have ‘improved’ upon an
already iconic masterwork. Instead, we get 2 hrs. and 19 min. of Wharton
incarnate; deftly executed, but minus Scorsese’s ability to enthrall and
captivate an audience as only he distinctly can when inspired to dabble and
mesmerize us with his ballsy creativity.
Yet, it’s difficult to condemn the movie outright as a failure.
Artistically, it remains on very highborn ground; its technical merits
unsurpassed, its meticulous attention to setting and place virtually
unparalleled. This is, in fact, a ravishing exaltation of the period in which
Wharton lived; a breathtaking movie to behold if foundering and failing to
ignite or excite an audience. It wholly lacks the intrinsic spark of dramatic
tragedy. Like its visuals, The Age of Innocence’s score by Elmer
Bernstein is ravishing, yet perhaps, ever so slightly blundering into an orchestral
grandiloquence - too gilded even for the gilded age without ever foreshadowing
the more ominous overtones of promiscuity behind closed doors. If it had been
made in the fifties – even the sixties – the implication of closeted sexual mores
might have been enough to crackle and amuse. It’s not enough, however, to
propel the story forward. In the end, we are left with some superb waxworks of
mostly impotent ne'er do wells who think naughtier than they do – or perhaps, even
are.
Criterion’s new
to Blu release – at least, in North America is a virtual carbon-copy of Sony’s
Germany Blu-ray from 2007 (then, region free). Back in Blu-ray’s infancy I
commented on the perplexing nature of Sony’s own marketing; releasing oodles of
deep catalog in Europe while simultaneously denying North American audiences
the same luxury – lest they feel like paying exorbitant fees to import these
discs via Amazon.de/u.k. or some other foreign derivative through a third-party
seller. It’s only taken Criterion 11 years to license this one from Sony and
frankly, while it’s advertised as a ‘new
4K transfer’ there is virtually NO difference in image quality between
these two discs. Criterion’s has a superior bit rate, but this does not bear
itself out in the visuals which, for those wondering – looked superb in 2007
and continue to look just fine in 2018.
Herein, we
should give very high marks for VP in Charge of Catalog, Grover Crisp’s deep-rooted
commitment to ensuring Sony’s catalog came to hi-def looking this immaculate,
especially when – at that time – his competition was merely contented to
release tired and careworn SD transfers bumped to a 1080p signal. The Age of Innocence is nothing less
than impressive in hi-def. This 1080p image is stunning; razor-sharp without
untoward edge effects, richly saturated colors and superior amounts of fine
detail that pop, exquisite contrast and film grain looking indigenous to its
source. Flesh tones are accurately
rendered and greens, reds and blacks look spectacularly rich and appealing. One
minor quibble: as Newland Archer arrives at the Beufort’s ball, Scorsese’s
impressive long tracking shot through these antechambers is momentarily marred
by some age-related artifacts; an oddity indeed, since the rest herein is
virtually blemish-free.
The audio is DTS
5.1 and as impressive; yielding an unanticipated richness in its bass. Again,
this appears to be the same mastering effort as on the 2007 disc. Criterion
predictably fattens the calf with a barrage of extras. The Sony disc had none.
Criterion offers 4 new interviews (recorded last year); with Scorsese, Jay
Cocks, Dante Ferretti and Gabriella Pescucci. Cumulatively, these total just a
little over an hour. We also get, Innocence
and Experience; a half hour doc made in 1993 to promote the movie with
snippets and sound bites from cast and crew. Finally, a trailer and liner notes
from critic, Geoffrey O'Brien. Bottom line: for fans – very highly recommended!
For those who shelled out for Sony’s bare bones release from a few years ago –
think carefully about spending the extra coin this time around. You are doing
it for the extras only – not a remastered Blu-ray viewing experience…just saying!
FILM RATING (out of 5 – 5 being the best)
3.5
VIDEO/AUDIO
4.5
EXTRAS
4
Comments