Revolutionary Road

Let’s face it.  Most of us are destined to a life of mediocrity, and no matter what we do to try to change that, we get sucked back into the void.  This is not exactly a pleasant thing to admit to oneself, and it’s something that most people will do anything to keep themselves from believing…even if it means self-delusion.  This is the theme at the core of Sam Mendes’s (American Beauty) latest examination of the empty, desperate, banality of suburban American life in “Revolutionary Road.”

I’m sure the suburban hopelessness has all been written about in the many reviews of this film that I have avoided reading, so I’ll spare anyone who may be reading this the regurgitation of the same thoughts.

Most of what I have to say is about the “nutjob” character John Givings, played by Oscar® nominee Michael Shannon.  I’ll also share my take on the central theme later.  However, first you must know about the central characters.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet portray a married couple (the Wheelers) whom surrounding characters perceive to be the perfect couple.  John Givings is a mathematician that was institutionalized due to emotional instability, and recently released.  A cliche?  Perhaps.

John is introduced to the lives of the “perfect” couple by his mother  and real estate agent to the Wheelers (Katy Bates) because she thinks it will be good for him to interact with  people that personify her perception of normalcy.  Without going into the spoiler details, the Wheelers are at a crossroads between remaining settled in their “cookie-cutter” suburban reality and pursuing the kind of romance and greatness they had aspired to when they first met.

What I understand about genius mathematical minds is that they are constantly searching for absolute and provable truth with numbers, equations and formulas.  Maybe that’s why so many of them seem to go mad.

Now I’m sure that the vast majority of people who are declared insane are exactly that, and need to be locked away and/or medically treated so that society at large is a safer place.  That is reality.  But this character John Givings dwells in the celluloid confines of this story as a theatrical device to show that the masses are the truly insane ones and those deemed insane, the rational ones.   I guess  I’m trying to say I believe this film is saying that when someone has the truth on their side, and it flies in the face of everything that is perceived as truth by society at large, or a prevailing social circle, then that person is made an outcast.

As for the film as a whole, it’s the marriage of two people flying apart at the seams when hopes, dreams, and aspirations fall victim to the reality with which they enslave themselves.

What are the questions I walked with?  Does the quintessential suburban life with 2.3 children really have the potential to be the soul crushing existence this film says it does?  Are you better off single, with no responsibilities to family so that you can pursue your own self discovery and absolute highest potential?

Not being married myself, there is one answer that I can only speculate is a potential truth for those in a committed relationship, and that is…even though greatness, romance, and an absolute connectedness to life might be out of reach, it is the things that you find special about each other that must bind you together and make life bearable…even if the world at large cannot see them.

That’s what I perceive to be the truth.  Today.  This of course could change tomorrow.

New York Times Review

~ by blloydblog on February 9, 2009.