The Age of Innocence (1993)

This review was written after seeing The Age of Innocence during the spring semester of my sophomore year at college. My overall rating for the film was 3 stars out of a possible 4. On my scale, 3 stars qualifies as "good."

This is quite a strange and peculiar film. Not in the sense as Mirror (1975) where you have no idea “[c’est] quoi ce bordel” is happening. Also not in the sense of Brazil (1985), which should leave you questioning everything that the humorless Python and wannabe director. Strange in that this is one of the most boring and most intriguing films I have ever watched. It is relentlessly boring because of the 1870s New York lifestyle. It is unexpectedly intriguing because of the 1870s New York lifestyle. This film feels like it drags on and on and on… and yet, this film is also exciting to watch. In spite of its slow pace, The Age of Innocence is still entertaining and deserving of your attention for all of its 2 hours and 19 minutes.

But let's transition from the enigma of watching The Age of Innocence to what is great about the film. Winona Ryder absolutely stole the show; at just 22, she outperformed lead actor Daniel Day-Lewis, who is routinely acknowledged as one of the finest and most accomplished film actors of the past 40 years. Ryder is charming, sweet, powerful, sincere, and confident, and well-deserving of her Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. While Day-Lewis feels miscast here in a fairly uncharacteristic role for him, he takes it in stride and shows tremendous poise as Newland Archer, the lawyer torn between his love for May (Ryder) and his carnal desires for her cousin Ellen (Michelle Pfeiffer... we will get to her shortly). While his performance was impressive, I personally would have preferred seeing Jeremy Irons portray Newland Archer. I think Irons would have taken the role above and beyond Day-Lewis' efforts, but I digress.

Aside from Ryder and Day-Lewis, the only other noteworthy performance, and quite a noteworthy performance indeed mind you, is given by Miriam Margolyes as Mrs. Mingott, the gossip-centric chatterbox. Grandmother to May and Ellen, it is marvelously explained in the film's early narration that “Mrs. Mingott is related to almost everyone in New York, and those who she is not related to she knows by marriage or from reputation.” I also liked the aforementioned narration by Joanne Woodward, although it did take some getting used to.

Lastly, Elmer Bernstein’s score is one of the most majestic and elite scores that has ever accompanied a film. Unfortunately, it did lose its Oscar bid for Best Original Score to John Williams & Schindler's List, which is an impressive and powerful score in its own right. I certainly would have given it to Bernstein's work, but I understand the Academy's decision.

Now for the criticisms. Michelle Pfeiffer was not on top of her game for this film. Sure, I do have a problem with the Newland's supposedly "tough” decision between Ellen, a seductive countess who looks like part, and May, a member of sophistication who looks like a flawless goddess, when the latter is clearly the correct woman to choose. But personal quibbling aside, it seemed like Pfeiffer was phoning this one in; she was not as authentic as the rest of the cast, which looks even worse for her when well over three-quarters of the cast don't deserve any particular praise either.

I also had a serious problem with the film editing. It was abhorrent, badly timed, and straight up abysmal. This, to me, is the most shocking part of the whole film, that Martin Scorsese, a director with such an impressive oeuvre of films with solid film editing, could have a film so poorly edited that it is the prime culprit for The Age of Innocence's blemished star rating. Now, I realized Scorsese is not the one to blame here. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese’s longtime collaborator in film editing, a woman who has been nominated at the Oscars for outstanding film editing work 7 times and won 3 of those nominations, is the one to blame. I am just shocked that Scorsese would approve of the countless film editing mistakes in this film.

However, this is still a good film and I will end this review on a high note. This film is based on the novel of the same name by Edith Wharton. Let me first say that I would have despised reading this: it is just not my cup of tea nor a crumb that I would devour if I was starving. I have read one Wharton book before, Ethan Frome in 12th grade. God, did I hate that book. However, after watching The Age of Innocence, I have an unwavering trust in Martin Scorsese and adapting Wharton books, so I would, if it ever happens, go and see a film production of Ethan Frome as long as it is directed by Martin Scorsese. And if such a situation ever occurs, I sincerely hope that it features the film editing prowess Thelma Schoonmaker exhibited in Woodstock (1970), Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas (1990), The Departed (2006), and Hugo (2011).