Review of The Age of Innocence (1993) by Filipeneto — 24 Jun 2020

Making period films is a challenge for any director, as historical rigour is something truly important and difficult to achieve. So difficult that many films choose to relativize its importance and make films that more easily portray the way we, in the 21st century, see the past, than the past itself. However, Scorcese was able to give us a film that overcomes this difficulty.

The story of this film is so trivial that it can be disappointing: at the end of the 19th century, the New York elite lives closed in its own world, stuck to its social conventions, copied from the Old World, and when it happens something that goes against rules, ostracism is guaranteed. Its in this environment that lives Newland Archer, who is engaged to the young and pure May Welland. All seems to be perfect but the arrival of Countess Ellen Olenska, who returns from Europe in order to escape a bad marriage, promises to endanger this plans, as she was the Newland's youth love and seems to give little importance to social conventions.

I think I understand why this film is now forgotten. Its a warm film, as the script simply tells a banal story of a period love triangle, full of comings and goings, exchanges of letters and repressed emotions. And its presumptuous because it gives itself a lot of importance and an air of dramatic super-production without having a script that justifies it. The problem is not the emotional restraint of the characters. This is something to be expected in a film set in the 19th century elite, for whom emotions were things that should not exist in public. The problem is that, besides making a good portrait of the behavior and mentality of that period, it has nothing else to give to the public. There is no story, there is no plot and the film is not able to compensate for that.

The cast has some strong names, starting with Daniel Day-Lewis, a real chameleon. He perfectly embodied his character, a well-born and educated man who knows his place and what is expected of him. The actor was excellent in the task of showing the mental confusion of his character when his feelings tried to counter the well-directed course he wanted to take in his life. Winona Ryder is perfect in the role of a young naive woman, raised inside a crystal dome but with a generous heart and a noble soul, in sharp contrast to the almost disruptive character of Michelle Pfeiffer. She is the elegant seductive woman, with a dubious and controversial past, who breaks through the city and behaves freely, shocking the conservative and who ends up discovering that America is no longer free or open-minded that the European countries from which she had decided to leave.

Technically, the film is extraordinary. Scorcese's style is there but discreet, as subtle as the emotions shown by the characters. Slowly and leisurely, the film drags on, as it moves from the theater to the ballroom and the elegant garden. Joanne Woodward's slightly monochordic deep voice doesn't help and makes it even heavier. Visually, its an opulent, grandiose film, with meticulously made sets and detailed props, in addition to having the best 19th century costumes I have ever seen in a feature film. Everything breathes ostentation, and earned this film an well-deserved Oscar for Best Costume Design.

But it is undoubtedly a numbing film, able to put to sleep the audience that are less sensitive to historical rigour. Our current mentality didn't like to restraining emotions, but it was the 19th century way of thinking and the film does nothing more than show it and be good at it. It is a pity that the plot is not so good, by giving us a truly engaging or moving story. Without this, the film resembles a gift box, brilliantly wrapped and with a large, showy bow on top, but with only a cheap present inside.