"THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" (1993) Review
Unlike the works of classical American authors like Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain and Henry James; Hollywood and other film/television industries had rarely adapted the works of Edith Wharton. One could say that a movie or television adaptation of a Wharton novel or novella proved to be a rare occasion. And one of those "rare occasions" happened to be Martin Scorsese's 1993 adaptation of "The Age of Innocence", Wharton's 1920 Pulitzer Prize winning novel.
"THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" told the story of a wealthy attorney Newland Archer in late 1870s New York City, who finds himself torn between two women - his conventional young fiancée May Welland and her older and unconventional cousin Countess Ellen Olenska. After Ellen returns to New York City following her disastrous marriage to an unfaithful Polish count, she is ostracized by New York's high society. Ellen had retaliated against her husband's adulterous behavior by having a brief affair with his secretary. Due to society's double standards, its members bash Ellen for her own adultery and ostracize her. Thanks to Newland's efforts, he helps her family restore Ellen's place within the city's social circle. But when Ellen decides to divorce her husband, the latter threatens to publicize her adultery. Both the Welland and Archer families, along with New York society, pressures Newland to convince Ellen to drop the divorce proceedings . . . which he does. By the time he has achieved this, Newland realizes he has fallen in love with Ellen.
When I first saw "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE", I had assumed that Newland and Ellen's relationship had failed due to outside pressure from New York society and May's own manipulative efforts. I never had any idea of the illusionary nature of their relationship . . . especially on Newland's part. It took at least two more viewings of Scorsese's movie to realize the truth behind Wharton's novel. Or what I believe might be the truth. What did I regard as the truth in this story? I believe after her experiences with her husband, Ellen had fled to New York City in order to seek peace and solace from her family and the society from which she came. I also believe she eventually focused on Newland as the focal point of her desire for solace, due to his tolerant and friendly attitude toward her. Did she fall in love with Newland? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I believe Ellen eventually realized that American (and especially New York) society might be a bit too rigid for her in the end, I also suspect that she eventually realized Newland's desire or attempt to express non-conformist attitudes may have been illusionary.
And what about Newland? I find it odd that Daniel Day-Lewis had never received a Golden Globe, BAFTA or Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of Newland Archer. I believe the character is one of the most complicated and contradictory fictional characters I have ever encountered. Newland has managed to produce a surprising mixture of admiration, sympathy and contempt within me. On one hand, I found his willingness to support Ellen from the subtle bias of New York society very admirable, along with his appreciation of her non-conformist nature. And I certainly sympathized over his occasional desire to escape from society's stifling conformity. This sympathy had increased tenfold when I saw how society, especially May, had manipulated him from pursuing a further relationship with Ellen. However, I also felt a great deal of contempt toward Newland. I found his attempts to convince Ellen to adhere to New York society's rules annoying. Another aspect of his personality that annoyed me was his self-pitying attitude. This was on display when he briefly blamed Ellen for dropping her divorce suit, before she reminded him that he had convinced her to do so. But . . . I found his unwillingness to break away from society, including his upcoming marriage to May Welland contemptuous, but also cowardly. In the end, I came to a realization that Newland had enjoyed projecting an image of non-conformity, but was unwilling to break away from that prison known as New York Society. And to the bitter end, Newland only satisfied himself with illusions about himself, his wife and especially Ellen. "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" was told solely from Newland Archer's viewpoint. Not only did this make Wharton's story so fascinating to me, but I cannot help but admire how Martin Scorsese and Jay Cocks had effectively conveyed this to the screen. Some movie fans and critics seemed dismissive toward the film's narrative and/or Newland's character. I simply do not share this dismissive attitude.
Do I have any complaints about "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE"? A few. One, I found the pacing rather slow. The movie has a 139 minute running time and yet, it felt as if was longer. I am relieved that the 1993 movie lacked a much shorter running time. But there were many moments when Scorsese's fascination with details regarding Old New York society that made the pacing seemed glacial - especially during the movie's second half. I had enjoyed those views of 19th century New York society, but not at the expense of the pacing. I also had a problem with the dialogue featured in the movie. I understand "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" was about the New York City upper-class in the late 19th century. And I will admit the movie also featured some memorable dialogue. But there were one too many moments when I found the dialogue stylized . . . almost unnatural. I have seen plenty of productions set in 19th century United States or Great Britain. And aside from a few movies, I cannot recall the dialogue sounding almost unnatural at times, thanks to the screenplay written by Scorsese and Cocks.
There are also other aspects of "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" that I admire, aside from Scorsese and Cock's translation of Wharton's novel to the screen.