Blog 11. Melancholia and The Age of Innocence (US, 1993. Director: Martin Scorsese)
When it was released, most critics and viewers found The Age of Innocence (see the film info) to be a major diversion from what they expected from a Martin Scorsese film. This is what many thought a Scorsese movie looked like: Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver.
Or this scene from Goodfellas, which preceded Age of Innocence by three years. Scorsese's milieu was New York City, all right, but the New York of small time Italian-American gangsters and psychologically disturbed men like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. No one, at the time, thought Scorsese would make a period costume piece—without a trace of physical violence—about the socially well-to-do in New York in the 1870s based on an Edith Wharton novel. Not surprisingly, if just for that, The Age of Innocence was a commercial failure when it was released. The critical appraisal of the film has always been positive.
But first...Melancholia. Here is the review in The New York Times—please read it. Here's a review on National Public Radio—read it please. And finally one from Slate. Please read it. The movie received mixed reviews, and even the critics who liked it seemed to do so with some ambivalence.
So...
1. What was your reaction to the ending? And what does it mean? It probably comes closest to Take Shelter in terms of presenting a definitive end—does it say something similar about the end as that movie does? Does it echo anything else we've seen?
2. The Age of Innocence: how does it belong in this class? Does it belong in this class? Discuss.
Finally: just got a text from Clark. He's proposing an essay and maybe a couple of short discussion question. We will let you know more tomorrow.
200 words. See you tomorrow.
Or this scene from Goodfellas, which preceded Age of Innocence by three years. Scorsese's milieu was New York City, all right, but the New York of small time Italian-American gangsters and psychologically disturbed men like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. No one, at the time, thought Scorsese would make a period costume piece—without a trace of physical violence—about the socially well-to-do in New York in the 1870s based on an Edith Wharton novel. Not surprisingly, if just for that, The Age of Innocence was a commercial failure when it was released. The critical appraisal of the film has always been positive.
But first...Melancholia. Here is the review in The New York Times—please read it. Here's a review on National Public Radio—read it please. And finally one from Slate. Please read it. The movie received mixed reviews, and even the critics who liked it seemed to do so with some ambivalence.
So...
1. What was your reaction to the ending? And what does it mean? It probably comes closest to Take Shelter in terms of presenting a definitive end—does it say something similar about the end as that movie does? Does it echo anything else we've seen?
2. The Age of Innocence: how does it belong in this class? Does it belong in this class? Discuss.
Finally: just got a text from Clark. He's proposing an essay and maybe a couple of short discussion question. We will let you know more tomorrow.
200 words. See you tomorrow.
I waited three whole days to see the ending of the movie. After finally seeing it, I laughed. I'm not sure what's it was I expected from the film's ending but that certainly wasn't it. It was very sudden, which I knew would be being that two planets collide, yet I didn't think it was going to be that sudden. I'm not sure if the "magic cave" served a purpose other than to console the son, which it did so kudos to Justine for that. I don't really see much of a connection between the ending of Melancholia and Take Shelter. Take Shelter showed us the impending end, of which some people think to be metaphorical rather than physical. Melancholia shows us an immediate end. I'd say the end of Dr. Strange Love and Melancholia are more similar. Both ends were depicted as being beautiful with its music choice and camera angles.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, maybe because I missed the first half hour of the movie, I am utterly confused as to what is going on and what this movie is about. Throughout the movie people were laughing and exclaiming their "oh no's" but I wasn't really catching on that much. I don't understand why it's so awful for the man to be interested in two women. I believe he's engaged to one of them so that's not morally right but it's not like we haven't seen such a scenario countless times before in media. I also have trouble identifying the "end" in this movie. Maybe we haven't seen it yet but the only thing I could guess we'll see the end of is the man's previous engagement. I'm not good at history but maybe the end is an impending war during that time period? As of now and the little information I do know about the movie, I say it does not belong in this class. However being that we are watching it, I'm sure I'll be enlightened as to what the purpose of this movie is in the near future.
1) The ending of the movie was sickeningly beautiful. It is really well filmed on a perfectly manicured grassy hill under a nice blue sky with the huge, shining form of Melancholia somewhat elegantly moving closer and closer towards Earth. This, to me, shows humankind’s emotional detachment from such brutal events. I, for a moment, forgot that everyone was doing to die and was drawn to the pretty, blue planet overtaking the world. I only thought about the death and destruction that would occur upon impact when Melancholia actually collided with earth, when you could see the world being shredded apart. “Take Shelter” and “Melancholia” are very similar because they both explore both internal and external apocalypses. Justine and Curtis both have mental apocalypses as Justine suffers with acute depression and Curtis suffers with what I will call schizophrenia (to make things simpler), and they both come to welcome the end of the world, although for different reasons. Curtis wants to be proven right about the storm all along, and Justine wants her life to end because she is tired of living. The end of the world in “Melancholia” reflects the end of the world in “Dr. Strangelove.” The world literally explodes in both of them, one due to a bomb and the other caused by planetary collision. In both movies, we are not shown what happens to humankind post-apocalypse because we are led to believe that everyone is dead and that what is left of the world will continue to exist without humans.
ReplyDelete2) “The Age of Innocence” is hard to place as an apocalyptic movie. There is absolutely no violence, no death, and no physical destruction. The closest we've gotten to that is Countess Ellen Olenska and Newland Archer yelling- excuse me, raising their voices- at each other. I would say that this movie does surprisingly fit into this class. It is not a physical apocalypse, and not even a mental apocalypse, but more of a figurative one. Ellen’s and Newland’s worlds are shattering, and so is May’s, although she doesn't even realize it, while they try to work out how to deal with their newfound love for each other, etc. etc. This movie is almost painful to watch because I just want to play the role of matchmaker and decide each character's fate. Things shouldn't be so difficult! Ellen and Newland can just get married and May will just have to find someone else who actually loves her out of the 200 men that just follow her around at every ball and party to marry.
1 Melancholia: Both Melancholia and Take Shelter have definitive endings; both end with the certainty of world-wide apocalyptic destruction. Even more similarly, both movies have a prophetic character and other character(s) who are arguing against them. In Melancholia, Justine predicted the apocalypse, while John insisted that Melancholia (the planet) would simply pass Earth. In Take Shelter, Curtis declared that there would be a storm "unlike any storm anyone had seen before", while literally everyone else called him an insane psychotic for building the storm shelter. In the end, all the characters ended up dying (having predicted the apocalypse or not), because none of the characters from either movie had adequate protection (like it would have saved them anyway...). In Melancholia, the only "protection" Claire, Justine, and Leo had was the Magic Cave, which was just a teepee of sticks, and in Take Shelter, Curtis and his wife and daughter were all away from the storm shelter at Myrtle Beach (which pissed me off). The ending scenes in both movies show that you can't always prepare yourself for everything the future holds despite how desperately you try to prepare.
ReplyDelete2 The Age of Innocence: The Age of Innocence portrays a kind of internal emotional apocalypse. Relationships fall apart due to indecision and love, which can unite, but even more often, can tear people apart. This movie also depicts the destruction of a society in which freedom of speech, thought, and will have been obliterated. People are not controlled by their own will and desires, but by the opinions of others. This is a society where one's reputation is valued more than one's freedom, and there are some characters like Countess Ellen Olenska and Newland Archer who challenge that. These two characters are the parallels of the people who try to protect themselves against the apocalypse (Claire in Melancholia) while everyone else represents those who willingly and effortlessly accept death (Justine in Melancholia). I guess it forces us to venture beyond our easily conjured world of death and destruction to explore that of the internal struggle. Even still, I am not sure if this movie belongs in the Apocalypse Now class, but I suppose I will have to see end of the movie to determine that.
To me, the ending of Melancholia felt very climactic and anticlimactic at the same time. On one hand we see the shot of the family, with the world exploding and Melancholia looming on the horizon. Also, the music is extremely intense, almost too loud to bear, signifying the end of everything. Yet, as I said in class, I expected something more to happen, something futile done by the family to try to escape the incoming apocalypse. Instead, they have simply accepted their fate and chose to die in a small structure made of sticks that is most definitely not magic and definitely not a cave.
ReplyDeleteSeeing The Age of Innocence, I found myself confused, slightly bored, and overall not a big fan of pretty much every character and the lifestyle and culture they belong too. I hate the fanciness, the pompousness of every character and how there are so many unwritten rules when it comes to behavior and social standing. I hate how nobody says what the mean, and mean what they say. So how does it all fit into the class? Destruction is not incoming, the USSR doesn’t have nukes, the world is not going to be blown to bits by some wayward planet. Instead, this is an apocalypse of love. We see that love is being destroyed by all the social hierarchies and customs of the age. As is mentioned a few times throughout the movie, marriages serve a purpose as to join powerful families together. Romance in this day and age is not about love, it’s about power.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how I feel about the ending of melancholia. I loved the movie but the ending didn't feel like enough. I was left feeling like "is that it", but I think that was the point. I didn't think it was in Justin's character to help the little kid out like that but it wasn't really in her character to tell him either. So, I don't know. But, i wanted a wide shot of the planet and those painting like frames again. I disagree with this being closest to take shelter I find it more like dr strangelove. The world ends and are we supposed to care? We've just been shown the absurdity and pointlessness of humanity.
So far I think The main purpose of this film is to reinforce the concept that melancholia introduced. Essentially society, especially high society, has a bunch of dumb made up things that we set in very high regard. After seeing all of these worlds with those value stripped away to be shown something so byzantine and pointless was jarring. Are we supposed to care that this high society person likes this high society person and doesn't want to marry this high society person? I mean, we should, and the movie wants us to but it's hard to but it's hard after we've just been faced with so many people in the real problems
I'm not sure how I personally feel about the ending, but I do think that it fits the movie perfectly. This isn't the type of movie where the viewer should be left to wonder what happens afterwards, and the conflict that is presented has to be resolved in order to complete the movie. The ending to Melancholia is the closest to the ending of Take Shelter, but I still think that they are very different. We are given a definitive end in Melancholia, and we are shown that the world actually ends. Take Shelter presents a possible resolution, but the conflict is not actually resolved on screen, but instead left to the viewer to decide whether to interpret it literally or metaphorically.
ReplyDeleteThe Age of Innocence is not a standard apocalypse movie, but I do think that it belongs in the class. This film explores a personal apocalypse, similar to what we have seen in the other movies that we have watched. The entire world is not ending, but the world for one person is. This movie also portrays materialism, which is one of the most common themes in the apocalypse movies that we have watched. I think that The Age of Innocence fits very well as the last film that we watch. It would not have made sense to watch it earlier because many of the themes that are present in this movie (a personal apocalypse, materialism etc.) would have been overlook if we had not watched more apocalypse movies and discussed them. The Age of Innocence is not an apocalypse movie, but it does fit in with the class.
I thought the ending of Melancholia was predictable in an unpredictable sort of way. I know that the world is going to end and that the tree of them are going to die, but Justine is so relaxed that I think she knows something Claire doesn't. Also, I had noticed earlier in the movie that Leo kept asking Justine about the "magical caves" and it didn't seem to make sense until the end. I think the ending is really sweet because the last thing that Claire and Justine did together was something for Leo. On a separate note I think that the ending was very well filmed and showed a lot about each of the characters.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure yet how this movie is an apocalypse movie. Maybe because this new land man is in love with 2 woman, and it shows that there is a side of us that will do anything to look good in the public eye, eve marry a woman you don't love. If he marries Ellen, he will become an outcast because she is very different from the rest of the people in this small group of upper class folk in New York. I think the shows that love can be overpowered by a will for power or social ranking.
1. The ending really stresses the fact that you can't expect people to solve your problems. As we discussed in class, a lot of people thought that Melancholia would hit the Earth, but that that wouldn't be the end. I thought that Justine would have been able to do something, but this really shows how much we look to others for comfort and security. However, I feel that we should be able to do this. Claire should be able to ask her sister to have a glass of wine and sing on their patio. It's hard to lean on others without becoming too comfortable and not knowing how to care for yourself anymore. If you're afraid of not being able to care for yourself, then you may never try to love. In other movies, we've discussed if it's worth having hope or having love for others if it's so hard to live. We said in class today that Justine and Claire fought and disagreed, but they really cared about each other. Claire tried to agree with Justine, but she gave up after Justine didn't want to sit on the patio as the apocalypse occurred. Because Claire couldn't love her sister, she wasn't able to relax as the world ended. The other movies we have watched are similar, because they show what happens if we choose to love or if we don't choose to love. It might be easier to just care about yourself, but you don't have hope for the future of your loved ones. It is better to love people, as they are your reason to live.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that Age of Innocence is about a social apocalypse, and shows what happens when you don't question society and your beliefs. It belongs in this class, because the apocalypse occurs when people just live the easy way. It's so easy for the wealthy in this movie to survive, and they don't seem to feel guilty. This is similar to the other movies, when we discussed whether you should live with your morals, even if this is hard and painful, or if you should live an easy life. I would want to live in the rear of Snowpiercer, because I couldn't live with myself if I had the comfortable life in the front while people in the rear were starving. I wouldn't have taken the man's clothing on The Road, because that is completely horrifying and terrible to me. You can't disrespect people and not give them a fair chance. That is why I believe that a social apocalypse occurs in the film. The characters can choose if they want to question their lives, and if they want to even acknowledge how lucky they are. But, people sometimes don't do this, and this movie shows the effect of not accepting what you can really see is wrong.
While I certainly don't want to celebrate the prevalent death at the end of the movie, I understand its precedence within the context of the film. I admire the director for having the audacity to produce a movie that ends in complete obliteration of life; of all the movies we have watched, this is one of the few that solidifies the concept that humans are impotent in the face of nature and it's trivial to try and prove otherwise. And while this may be uncomfortable to the average viewer, as who wants to watch a film where humanity meets its demise, this uneasiness is needed. In many ways, this film acts a reality check by breaking down the very walls society has built to protect ourselves. Melancholia makes clear that nothing, not even wealth and connections with the ‘right people, can save one from decimation. As I mentioned in my blog post yesterday, parallels can be drawn between Take Shelter and Melancholia. But in my opinion, Curtis and John channel many of the same issues rather than Curtis and Justine.
ReplyDeleteThe Age of Innocence is a social commentary on the tenets of American society and the effects they have on us all. Similar to my blog post on Take Shelter, the producers of Age of Innocence seem to address the toxicity of life and the stigma society places on those who don't conform to what's expected of them. In many ways, this fim impersonates an apocalypse insulated by wealth. There is such gravity behind this impersonation as most of society fails to address the shortcomings of a life filled with wealth. So yes, this movie does belong in this class--it's a subtle commentary on the ramifications of wealth that we as a society need to address.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. As I said yesterday, the final scene of "Melancholia" is purification through destruction, a natural extension of Justine's conclusion that humanity is evil and possibly not worth saving. von Trier, in a spirit of epic romanticism, glorifies the apocalypse throughout the entire film from a beautifully-sequenced introduction to its soaring classical overtures and its grand finale. Melancholia the planet is the hero of this film, ending a wretched earthly existence. Justine, through her depression, is the most pragmatic; she stares head on at her doom in heroic fashion, arguably saving Leo and Claire from a miserable death -- inverting the majority of the film's depiction of her depression as crippling. The ending is "Melancholia's" final complication: that in the horror of our world, depression might just be what lets us see truth. Truth is what unites "Melancholia" and "Take Shelter," both films aim to force the audience to realize the utter barbarity of modernity; "Take Shelter" illuminates the fragility of of modern life by revealing economical and cultural threats and "Melancholia" reveals the depravity of humanity through Justine's depression. In this way, the two endings, where Curtis and his family all see the storm and where Justine and Claire both recognize imminent death are recognitions of truth. Not only the characters but the viewers, too, see that Justine's and Curtis' conclusions about the state of the world are irrefutable.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not completely sure -- I'd like to see the end of the film before I make a quick judgement. I have a feeling there are a couple of layers of the film that we haven't penetrated yet. That being said, I think that "The Age of Innocence" shows the destruction of a society, a mental apocalypse if you will. Archer says that one small whisper can demolish the whole structure and ultimately it seems that he is right; his affection for the Countess will most likely end in humiliation for him and his family, not to mention the Countess and May's family.
I thought that the ending was very fitting. It maintained its own quiet sort of panic, tragedy and satisfaction - I’d been worried that it would suddenly veer off into sentimentality or outright violence, and I’m glad it didn’t. Justine remained quietly bitter, Claire remained subduedly panicked, and in the end both of them came together to be with Claire’s son, giving him a sense of security rather than hurriedly trying to convince him of their respective opinion. I liked how the NY Times article put it: “The world, Justine declares in her darkest moment of clarity deserves its awful fate. The perverse achievement of “Melancholia” is how difficult it is to argue with her conclusion.” Being who I am, I desperately want to be able to defend the Earth and humanity’s right to exist, but there is very little in this movie to support that view and I find myself grasping at straws. Take Shelter showed a similar decline in social interaction and interpersonal relationships, having people ostracize or attack one another when things start getting difficult. It seems that these respective Earths were already dying even before the more spectacular visuals began.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, The Age of Innocence fits right in. Despite the lack of living dead or nuclear wastelands, this world seems sick and dying. Society is so caught up in social drama and relationships (“Having nothing more important to focus on”) that it is actively attacking itself. Secrets are lurking just beneath the surface, drama and intrigue seem to be forms of currency, everyday communication is defined by cryptic implications, and every one of these people seem immensely eager to either celebrate someone’s destruction or to destroy themselves. It feels like everything is teetering on the edge of a cliff - I’m just waiting for it all to topple.
1) The ending shot, though they had to ignore science to make it happen, was pretty powerful. I can ignore the logical fallacies for now. I think this ending is really supposed to make us question what we would do in this situation. Would we remain calm? Or would we let go of our loved ones hands and panic at our impending doom. Justine’s sister letting go of their hands was the most important part of that last shot. If I were in her situation, I'd want to look strong for my son for my son, similar to Justine at the end. Outside of that, how would you rather die? Calm or panicking? That was the importance of them all freezing. Her body froze and her pain was frozen on her face forever. I think that's a powerful question on how we want to leave this Earth. And I don't think this movie is the same as Take Shelter. Even though we see the huge storm in that movie, we aren't entirely sure what will happen to the family in the end, and we don't actually see them die. Melancholia’s ending is really commenting on how we'd be in our absolute last moments. Take Shelter’s ending was purposefully left unfinished so we focused on what was important: Curtis was right. All that matters is that there's a storm that fits his descriptions exactly, and that his family has a chance to survive because he was right.
ReplyDelete2) The characters in this movie are all wealthy and well-off. You could make the argument that they have absolutely nothing to worry about, in regards to the safety of their lives at least. This is a stark contrast to the rest of our line-up. The characters in the other movies are fighting for their lives – or facing the end of them. These characters do t even have to think about or consider their lives being at stake. Just look at the main conflict of the movie: romance. Their biggest problem in life is who they want to have sex with or what they want serve in the dinner their hosting. So I think this movie is different enough from every other movie that's that is supposed to be its purpose. We’re supposed to compare a movie where apocalypse isn't even in the range of possibilities to all the clean cut apocalyptic movies we've seen all term. I think comparing this movie with the others helps us compare our own lives to the apocalyptic lives the characters in the movies were leading, which we've also been trying to do all term. Our lives are substantially closer to those in The Age of Innocence, so it could serve as a good reference point for comparison.
I was sad that the world ended, but also satisfied. The end of the world wasn't really what made me sad; I felt very little attachment to most of the people and moments in this film. The part that actually made me sad was the end of life itself. The only people who I really cared for were the three at the end, but I felt pity for claire more than empathy. I don't think that claire ever really learned that everything established in her life didn't really matter. I was fascinated with the concept stated in slate that this was almost a therapeutic film for the director who had just had depression. I could clearly see the parts of society that were the most hopeless and I could see Justine potentially being a semi autobiographical character for someone who is distraught with elitist culture. I think that Tale Shelter and this film both show the stress of different classes, but Take Shelter is about constantly living in the edge economically, andMelancholia is about having nothing to live for at all because the characters were not fulfilled by their upperclass lifestyle. The age of innocence definitely shows a reckoning that is symbolic of the apocalypse. I think that Daniel day-Lewis's character always had his cynicisms about this society, but Pfiefer's character is a force that draws these criticisms to his conscious. His choosing between the two girls represents him choosing wether or not to reject society. I don't think most would call this an apocalyptic film, but it definitely shares similar themes of the genre and I can understand why it's in this class.
ReplyDeleteIf von Trier had decided to let Melancholia miss the Earth to avoid the end of the world, I would have been disappointed beyond words. What made the ending so intense and excruciating was that we knew what was going to happen and there was absolutely nothing that could be done. Claire and John felt so powerless, and we could channel that feeling. The final scene in which the planet grew larger and larger on the horizon gave me chills, and I haven't been able to get the image out of my head since I watched it. Watching a planet come hurdling toward Earth and not knowing when it will make impact would be the scariest thing to experience. I don't know if I would squeeze the hands of my family harder, like Justine, or let go in complete fear, like Claire. All in all, I found the ending beautiful, and almost perfect.
ReplyDeleteI'm doing this blog late, so I have seen the entire movie. I'm excited to see where our discussion goes tomorrow because I'm still a little lost... but here is what I think- This perfect, wealthy world is so fraudulent and shallow that no character seems like they are truly happy. Archer, especially, decides to live a life that he knows will yield pain and regret. He makes no true decisions for himself and the person he truly loves. However, he is just one man in a society of people that are just like him. I agree with Erin: everything feels like it is constantly on the brink of falling apart. It parallels the apocalypse of the emotional wellbeing of each character and the relationships and love between characters.