UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

The Age of Innocence

The Age of Innocence (1993)

September. 17,1993
|
7.2
|
PG
| Drama Romance

In 19th century New York high society, a young lawyer falls in love with a woman separated from her husband, while he is engaged to the woman's cousin.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Laikals
1993/09/17

The greatest movie ever made..!

More
Lawbolisted
1993/09/18

Powerful

More
Moustroll
1993/09/19

Good movie but grossly overrated

More
Nayan Gough
1993/09/20

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

More
sharky_55
1993/09/21

The world of The Age of Innocence, Old New York in the 1870s, is one ruled by reputation and tradition. Scorsese outlines this first and foremost in his production design and costume, ornate as it is unnecessary. His camera floats through the heralded halls of these great institutions a step above the common man; glittery chandeliers, display cases groaning with jewels, walls adorned from head to toe in paintings and lavish dinners all year long. The narration, provided by Joanne Woodward, emphasises and approves of every swoop. Her tone is gentle, yet authoritative, as if she has been watching this family for generations and seldom has to step in. The members are part of a self-reinforcing cycle which sucks in any potentials like Newland Archer and polishes him into another shin statue. Their dinner tables are a breeding ground for gossip, and we understand that even a whisper could determine the fate of a fellow member. Their words are plain on the surface, disguised as pleasantries, but full of veiled threat. So naturally Scorsese is drawn to this story. He started with gangster flicks based on his childhood in Little Italy, and how the unspoken code shaped and morphed a character's actions. This is very much the same idea, but in a "exquisitely refined sense". It twists itself around a tale of forbidden love, where passion clashes with tradition. Initially he is overjoyed to have made it here, from what we can assume are lower standings. Then the treasonous actions of Ellen open his eyes, and he begins to fight. So curiously, Newland seems in control, but a more than cursory glance reveals that he is imprisoned like all the others, stifled by the ever demanding dance and song. He talks and obsesses constantly over escape, but in the only possible opportunity to actually do so, he relents. In the latter half of the film, he all but resigns to a constant glumness, and on the eve of his last stand, caught like a rat in the trap, once again helpless. It is an excruciating existence, although not nearly as noble as the film makes it out to be with its whispered revelations.Day-Lewis nevertheless makes the most out of it. The character and setting call for outer repression, far cry from the flash that he has become known for in his later career. From the neck down his suit is a prison, locking his stance into place, reinforcing his social prominence, so he must emote with his eyes, with his head, with his pursed and flattened lips. Each word is a battle - he must force himself to speak what is expected of him, not what is on his mind. Pfeiffer on the other hand, is disappointing. She is given the most provocative character, in an age where divorce is scandalous beyond reprieve, but the casting is already works against her. She is asked to be more than the blonde bombshell, to be the electrifying spark that ignites Newland's passion. Instead it is her mere rebellious existence that does this for her, her beauty for good measure, and her actions as an afterthought. Ellen is played against May, who naturally has no chance. Newland is attracted to the mystical quality of the imagined Ellen, who is the talk of the entire community, who resonates femininity and independence. But this Pfeiffer is not. It is all talk, it occurs offscreen, with Woodward filling us in. She is the vision of all he had missed, but simply a vision. May is actually the most interesting. Ryder plays her to perfection; petite, doe-eyed, simpering at every turn, almost too pleased with herself. But more is asked of her than any other of her companions. She breaks character only twice (perhaps not even that, as she cluelessly queries Newland in the carriage on what she is expected to notice as high born lady), giving Newland his first and only out by acknowledging the implication of an affair (and in doing so opens herself up to the same branding as Ellen's). Then Ryder slips back into her role, forever destined to be smiling and curtsying and pretending that her husband does not have eyes for another woman, never mind her cousin. But Scorsese condescends; she drones on about trifling matters, and the soundtrack drowns her out. Newland sees an escape, and then reading a letter once more confining him, the screen darkens but for a stripe of light across his eyes, as though he is the only victim here. So it culminates in a stuffy show of style, which has all the hallmarks of Scorsese gone wild. The camera sweeps across the overwrought mise en scene, taking in every drop of its intoxicating musk, and then again and again, until Scorsese's lavishness eventually becomes folded into the film itself, masturbatory and ostentatious instead of ironic. The narration concurs; it chases after every loose strand, every unexplained phenomena, and doubly underlines it for the audience. It becomes as blind as Newland is, declaring that May died purely, thinking the world a good and honest place. If only it had for her half the concern it has for Newland.

More
Irishchatter
1993/09/22

I was shocked that this movie was absolutely boring and dull because well known actors such as Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder were involved in this. I honestly thought this was gonna be a unique movie from the very start but it just didn't give me that vibe to let me know that the movie would be enjoyable to watch!I just don't think this movie should've been awarded an Oscar and other nominations. It would be probably better to have added in more main characters since three really didn't seem to be enough for the movie..I definitely consider this not a good movie to watch, it would most likely waste your time!

More
Lee Eisenberg
1993/09/23

New York doyen Martin Scorsese directs another movie set in the city that never sleeps. However, "The Age of Innocence" is not about streets that are mean, bulls who rage, or fellas who are good. It focuses on the hypocrisy of 1870s high society. Daniel Day-Lewis's respected lawyer is engaged to Winona Ryder's heiress, but then falls for her cousin (Michelle Pfeiffer).The idea behind the story is that the main character is as trapped by his surroundings as is Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver". There's not an iota of bloodshed in this adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel, but the emotional violence that the characters here perpetrate on each other is analogous to the physical violence in Scorsese's most famous movies. The innocence of the title is as much of a facade as is the lifestyle in "The Graduate".Nonetheless, I couldn't watch the movie without throwing out a few "MST3K"-style comments. For one thing, I kept thinking to myself "This is directed by the man who gave us 'The Wolf of Wall Street'." Also, any look at high society tempts me to launch some barbs. I just find it hard to take such a focus seriously. To crown everything, Daniel Day-Lewis's other 1993 movie was "In the Name of the Father", which couldn't have been more different from "The Age of Innocence".In the end, I recommend the movie. To my knowledge, Martin Scorsese has never made a bad movie. The rest of the cast includes Geraldine Chaplin, Michael Gough, Mary Beth Hurt, Norman Lloyd, Miriam Margolyes, Jonathan Pryce and Joanne Woodward.

More
niluferplum
1993/09/24

I watched Scorsese's The Age of Innocence again, after many years.The quality of the actors may have escaped me before. I remember finding Day-Lewis' acting and character far too languid and exasperatingly soft-spoken for instance. Having examined the film closely this time, I have found that both Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer are in fact breathtaking. Day- Lewis' character is meek only on the outside; on his face, he lets you glimpse into the storm and the rebellion that are raging inside. Pfeiffer's Countess Olenska is vivid and charming, at times woeful. In those incredible eyes of hers - made of glass, tinged with blood sometimes - and under her smile, there is struggle, vulnerability and abnegation. When you watch this film, you cannot be knitting or snacking, you should not leave the actors out of your sight for a second or you will miss the "action". The film is like a bow that is being subtly stretched and stretched to its utter limit and never released.The story is wonderful from a writer's point of view, awful from a human perspective.Edith Wharton is the negative image of Jane Austen. She studies 19th century American high society with the same scrutiny and mercilessness as Austen observes the ridicules of the Regency landed gentry. But Austen is infinitely pleasing and funny, Wharton's characters are tormented, desperate, trapped, their lives wasted. Your heart breaks.I come to the point I really wanted to make. Scorsese's film is flawed. The incredible acting, Wharton's story, the costumes, the music and the director's unquestionable skills result in a film that is utterly compelling, but a disaster... of sorts.First of all, there is the awful narration. Yes, the words are beautifully written. Of course they are, they belong to Edith Wharton. But they are a nuisance in the context of the film, like a mosquito buzzing in your ear, or unwanted background music. Why does a director of this caliber resort to such a clumsy method to inform the audience?Secondly, Scorsese's virtuosity gets in the way of the story. He is too present as a director. What works wonderfully well in his other films often appears superfluous or downright monstrous here. Not a single frame is shot without the director's ostentatious signature on it. Everything is filmed flamboyantly, stylishly.The lavish camera work is trying to match point by point the sumptuous nature of the story, the magnificent costumes, the opera house, the forbidden and exacerbated feelings, the muted scandals. It becomes a character of its own, a distracting, overwhelming creature. In this story of restraint, the camera is too loud.The BBC makes better period adaptations, they seem to have worked out that the best make-up is the one you cannot see. With works by Austen and Wharton, you do not have to muster all your directorial sorcery, the stories are so exquisitely written that, once you have got your team of writers, actors, hairdressers etc, you just have to let the plots unfold. They take care of themselves.What a strange period drama Scorsese has given us. A riveting failure. A beautiful disaster. Like the lives of Newland Archer and Ellen Olenska.

More