Table of Contents | Next Chapter

The Age of Innocence

Newland Archer .......... Daniel Day-Lewis

Ellen Olenska ........... Michelle Pfeiffer

May Welland ............. Winona Ryder

Mrs. Welland ............ Geraldine Chaplin

Regina Beaufort ......... Mary Beth Hurt

Mrs. Mingott ............ Miriam Margolyes

Larry Lefferts .......... Richard E. Grant

Sillerton Jackson ....... Alec McCowen

        Columbia presents a film directed by Martin Scorsese. Produced by Barbara De Fina. Written by Jay Cocks and Martin Scorsese. Based upon the novel by Edith Wharton. Photographed by Michael Ballhaus. Edited by Thelma Schoonmaker. Music by Elmer Bernstein. Running time: 132 minutes. Classified: PG.

            The critics are raving about this film, directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer, based on a novel of Edith Wharton. Production values are wonderful; you really get a good taste of the opulent society in 1870s New York. Its furnishings, foods, dances, parties are presented with authenticity and relish.

            The movie is a substantial change-of-pace for Scorsese, who is known for blood-and-guts realism on the mean streets. This movie is about genteel society, where nobody would dream of acting violently, and where quiet, polite talk is the only weapon. The critical consensus, however, is that this is a film about terrible, intense psychological violence, in which the genteel society viciously destroys people. One critic labeled it as Scorsese's most violent film.

            Well, it certainly depends on your presuppositions. What actually happens is that a man (Daniel Day-Lewis) engaged to a sweet young representative of social conformity (Wynona Ryder) is attracted to another woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who for unjust reasons is despised by the arbiters of convention. Naturally, the Pfeiffer character is presented as a much more interesting and nicer person than the Ryder character. But when the time comes for the illicit lovers to consummate their adulterous relationship, the wife's family and friends, while outwardly admitting no knowledge of the affair, scheme in various ways to prevent the adultery from happening. In time, both the Pfeiffer and the Day-Lewis characters go along with their families, even reconciling themselves to the situation.

            What are we to think about this? According to the consensus of critics, this picture is psychologically violent, because in it the horrid, hypocritical society destroys the prospect of true love for this would-be adulterous couple. With my Christian presuppositions, I look at it very differently. Here is a society where, despite its faults, moral standards are observed, and the families close ranks to keep their members from moral temptation and from the destruction of their families. This they do without any shouting or violence, with only the quietest looks of accusation. I am nouthetic enough to believe that more direct confrontation of a sinner is desirable. But this 1870s New York society is so much better than my own, I almost wish I could raise my children within it.

            Interestingly enough, in the last scene, the Day-Lewis character, maybe twenty-five years after the major events, his wife now dead, renounces the possibility of renewing his relationship the Pfeiffer character. Does Scorsese want me to think this is the renunciation of a broken man, pushed into society's mold? Or does it show moral growth on his part? Probably Scorsese intended the former; but his honesty as a director will not leave that conclusion unambiguous. The logic of the events themselves (in the light of Scripture) push me to a different conclusion.

            So the effect of the movie on me was, I suspect, very different from what Scorsese intended. I note that in the 1970s, the TV show "All in the Family" spoofed conservatism through the mouth of the supposed Neanderthal Archie Bunker. But although Bunker's speeches made conservatism look ridiculous, I think that in the final analysis (and contrary to producer-director Norman Lear's intent), Bunker was a more sympathetic character than the liberal potheads who made life miserable for him. Somewhat heretically, I believe that "All in the Family" contributed to Ronald Reagan's election. Now: is it possible that "The Age of Innocence" will contribute something toward a rekindling of "family values" in this country? Don't dismiss the idea until you have given it some thought.

            It sometimes happens that movies show truth in spite of themselves. Scorsese has created a world, has made it logical and compellingly real. But sometimes such a world becomes so real, takes on so much of a life of its own, that it escapes the attempts of its creators to press it into a preconceived interpretation. Further, reality is always God's reality, and logic is God's logic; so a film like this which conveys a good amount of reality and logic, will for that reason also reflect God's truth. In this film, I think, despite the best efforts of its humanist authors, a surprising strain of scriptural values comes through.