Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: How not is Chinese food Previous entry: Double the risk doesn’t mean double the return

Revolutionary Road: maybe a bit proto-feminist

BooksFeminismMovies

Warning: Massive fucking spoilage.

I haven’t seen the movie “Revolutionary Road” yet (I don’t think it’s even opened in Austin), but I have recently finished the book, figuring I’d want to see and probably review the movie when it came out.  So I was intrigued to read this piece at the Bitch blog about the differences between the movie and the book, which are numerous, and seem to be oriented mainly around making the Wheelers a slightly more tolerable pair of people than they were in the book.  This is, as the reviewer says, an especially problematic choice when it comes to Frank Wheeler, who is—-I think—-the villain of his own story, a petty, stupid man who throws his wife’s very life away in service of his own bullshit, even though it’s obviously an accident. As Tammy says, it’s a clear-cut critique of 1950s masculinity.  Frank is a joke, ranting about the suburban lifestyle he’s loathe to abandon, fancying himself as an emotional libertine and yet unable to take the basic step of realizing that his wife’s pregnancies aren’t a comment on his manhood, a cheater who is more concerned with being cool than the feelings of others, and prone to psychoanalyzing his wife to shut down her criticisms of him, an open display of masculine power.  It’s not just a little hinted at, either, that he’s one step shy of toying with the idea of institutionalizing a sane if sad April if that’s what it will take to force her not to have an abortion.  He sucks. 

But I was surprised to see Tammy’s assessment of Yates’ portrayal of April.

In the novel, April has a devastating childhood lacking any positive parental figures, a psychological dimension that enables Yates to paint her as a woman too neurotic and emotionally disabled to accept her role as wife and mother. If Yates seems to capture some of malaise Betty Friedan articulated in The Feminine Mystique, which was published two years after the novel, it was certainly not in the service of social criticism about women’s oppression. Instead, Yates is more concerned with depicting April’s disappointment that her self-deluded fantasies about adult life did not come true. She is by no means a feminist character, but she is a coherent one.


You know, the more I think about it, the more I have to disagree.  Obviously, I don’t know what Yates was thinking, but the emotional wallop the book packs leans heavily on April Wheeler’s bout of self-realization.  It’s clear to me that Yates is mocking cheap armchair psychoanalysis of women that was used, more often than not in the 50s, to force women’s compliance with patriarchal norms.  Frank is the one who keeps returning to this idea that April’s sad childhood somehow makes her an inadequate housewife with dreams too big to be filled.  I assumed the reader is supposed to take that along with all of Frank’s other bullshit as just that—-bullshit.  April is a pretentious twit, but her problems don’t stem from childhood trauma.  Her problems are more immediate, the first one being that she’s dedicated her entire life to a man that she finally realizes sucks donkey balls.  You start the book off thinking that April is pretty worthless and silly, but slowly over the course of it, Yates builds another picture of her. You start off thinking she’s hysterical because she pitches the most ridiculous fit ever, but then Yates switches gears. You have to go over it carefully after finishing the book, I think, but it’s all there.  April actually has a lot of integrity, considering her very restrained life choices.  Both Wheelers claim to be against the tedium of suburbia, but when April gets pregnant the first time, she’s the only one willing to live up to that ideal by obtaining an abortion (that Frank talks her out of).  She’s the one who realizes that they have to do something to save their marriage if that’s what they want, and her idea of moving to Paris and getting a job is kind of silly, but if you put yourself in her shoes, it makes a lot of sense.  After all, she’s working with the good faith belief that Frank really does hate his job and wants a change, and she’s very willing to do that.  (It’s also possible to read that April is saving herself by finding a way to get out of the house, a sense reinforced by Frank’s nightmares of being emasculated by a chic and professional-looking wife.)  We also discover over the course of the novel that while Frank thinks that housewifery is the easy life, in fact he’s the one who is pretty lazy and April actually works really hard both at keeping up a nice home, and when need be, putting it all together so that they can go to France without Frank lifting a finger. 

All of which means that when she realizes that loving Frank, or at least convincing herself that she loves him, was her biggest mistake, we believe her.  Yates doesn’t really hammer at it too much, but you are left to wonder if April would be a different person indeed if she hadn’t believed that she could find herself by marrying a man who was good at putting up an entertaining front.  And whether or not the histrionic April we meet at the beginning of the book should elicit more sympathy, knowing what we do about her.  It’s silly of her, we think as we first read the book, to blame Frank for her shitty and embarrassing performance in a community theater play.  He’s obviously not to blame for her failures, right?  But over the course of the book, that judgment is called into question.  It’s still obvious that lashing out at him for her poor performance is silly.  But you begin to see why April has so much pent-up rage that she can’t express in any way that’s even remotely constructive. 

I felt, too, that we’re supposed to blame Frank for April dying.  He blames himself, in fact, realizing in an honest moment that if he hadn’t bullied her for weeks about wanting to abort her 3rd pregnancy, she would have performed it when it was safe and therefore would have lived.  Her note to him telling him not to blame himself is a morbid bit of irony that bookends her miserable saga.  At the beginning of the book, she is blaming him for something he didn’t actually do, and at the end, she’s telling him not to blame himself for something that he really did kind of do. 

Both characters are unlikeable, but in the end, I think we’re meant to believe that April has something in her that’s salvageable.  And thus you feel for her when she takes the steps to abort her pregnancy, even though she knows and you know that she’s running a strong risk of killing herself.  She has to do it anyway, because only by rejecting this pregnancy that her husband bullied her into will she begin to reclaim herself from living in Frank Wheeler’s world.  Saving yourself is so important, the book implies, that it’s worth risking your very life for it. 

I can see why the filmmakers decided to soften up Frank for modern audiences, though.  When Yates was writing the original book, he was working in a much more sexist environment, and so he really has to make Frank an over-the-top monster in order to drive home the message.  Nowadays, you can convey the same ideas about rigid masculinity without making the villainous man so unsympathetic.  Look at how they pull it off with Don Draper on “Mad Men”. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:32 PM • (20) Comments

Although it sounds like it’s going to be very depressing, I’m looking forward to the movie because Leonardo di Caprio is really good at playing immature assholes so charming that you almost don’t realize what immature assholes they are until it’s too late.  And, really, you can’t have one partner in a marriage be so horrible that you start to think the other one is an idiot for sticking around.  Frank needs to have some redeeming qualities so we don’t think badly of April for staying with him for so long.

The only thing I’m nervous about is that they’ll soften the ending, but hopefully the “baby killer dies herself!” aspect will let them slip it by.

Comment #1: Mnemosyne  on  01/06  at  11:01 PM

I think it would be nearly impossible to write the abortion in a way that is somehow punishing her for the abortion.  But what do I know? In the book, it’s clear that anti-abortion sentiment, being rooted in this controlling and mean-spirited attitude towards women, is wrong.  It’s as close to a “legalize it” sentiment as you’ll get.  April’s death really is in vain.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/06  at  11:37 PM

Haven’t read Revolutionary Road, but I intend to.  Chris Hitchens, (a monster in terms of politics, but relatively insightful when it comes to literature), has a piece on the Atlantic website where he argues just the opposite view: that the author’s venom is aimed not just at suburbia but also at pseudo-intellectuals who imagine themselves to be above it. 
To anyone who wants to read a book published and set about the same time as Revolutionary Road, but dealing with a VERY different milieu I recommend Last Exit to Brooklyn, by Hubert Selby Jr.  Like Yates, Selby wanted to tear back the veil of pretended innocence from fifties era America, but Selby wasn’t writing about upwardly mobile hypocrites.  Hence he is unlikely to be commemorated in The Atlantic.

Comment #3: MonkeyShines  on  01/06  at  11:53 PM

Substitute the Catholic church’s forced birth policy in that period, for the abortion—and your description of the above mirrors my parents’ horrific 1950s marriage. Which coincidentally, ended with my mother dead by her own hands.

Having lived it, I’m going to have to steel myself to see the movie or read the book.

Comment #4: judy brown  on  01/07  at  12:02 AM

Your disagreement with Tammy shows what’s so fantastic about Yates. His characters are complex and full of contradictions, just like real people. If you’re looking for another good read you should check out The Easter Parade, Yates’ final book. Its sparse, to-the-point writing style and emphasis on class aspiration, the social side-effects of WWII, female empowerment and abuse, alcoholism, madness, sexual exploration and dysfunction, Seven Sisters academia, and NYC makes it read like the ignored love-child of Hubert Selby and Mary McCarthy.

Comment #5: TD  on  01/07  at  12:23 AM

I’m saving this film for DVD, but I do hope that this time around Mendes focuses on suburbia as the symptom of the conformist mindset the characters want (or, more precisely, claim to want) to escape, rather than the cause.

The only thing I’m nervous about is that they’ll soften the ending, but hopefully the “baby killer dies herself!” aspect will let them slip it by.

I have a feeling that’s exactly what will happen. Given that a quality screenwriter and director are involved, It’s almost a “gimme” film industry Rorschach blot scenario of the sort discussed in the thread about “conservative” films. It’ll allow liberals and progressives to walk away with Yates’ real message about the larger implications of a lack of reproductive choice, while allowing the Xtian fantasists and other Know-Nothings to walk out tut-tutting about how April “deserved” to die, not only because she tried to “kill a baby” but because she was doing so to escape her “traditional marriage” and life in their ultimate Father Knows Best nirvana, 1950s suburbia.

Comment #6: Gracchus  on  01/07  at  12:23 AM

Monkey, I fail to see how that’s “opposite”.  That’s pretty much a standard, can’t-miss-it reading.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/07  at  01:16 AM

I liked it the first time, when it was called Meatballs II, starring Richard Mulligan. No, wait, I didn’t like that shit at all.

Comment #8: norbizness  on  01/07  at  01:36 AM

I’m sorry to hear about that Judy Brown.

Comment #9: Notorious P.A.T.  on  01/07  at  02:04 AM

Wow, it feels like it would be too sad for me, like Beloved or something like that all over again.  The post made me remember how horrified I felt about aspects of Lise Mitner and Emilie du Chatelet’s lives.  They didn’t have the worst of lives and they managed to accomplish *some* things, but they were so horribly stunted to what could have been.  That kind of mindfuckery that Frank Wheeler does is too fucking common in all of our lives.  It happened to my mom as well, except that she managed to get it together and divoice him.  It happened to so many people.  But it happens to intelligent, capable women the most because mindfuckery was *made* for thier control.

Comment #10: shah8  on  01/07  at  02:34 AM

“Monkey, I fail to see how that’s “opposite”.  That’s pretty much a standard, can’t-miss-it reading. “

Amanda, here is my suggestion.  First try reading over my remarks again a little more slowly.  After that log onto your own filckr photostream and have a perusal.  You might get a better inkling of what I was trying to say.

Comment #11: MonkeyShines  on  01/07  at  02:36 AM

Hrrrm. I didn’t get far with the bitch review before I had problems with it. In asking if April/the story is protofeminist, it conflates April with the story. Her POV got so much less page time than his: the message in the medium, right? I can see April, had she survived, as one of the testimonials in The Feminine Mystique.

I’m not sure if I’ll watch Revolutionary Road. I can’t see it working as a movie. I read it at about the same time I read I Am Legend, some years ago before either recent movie, and thought they made a pretty good novel-double feature. They were written around the same time and were driving toward similar conclusions. I was appalled by the awful bubble-reinforcing ending to Legend, and I’m suspicious that something similar may happen here.

Her death may be the climax, but the denouement is what made the book worth the anguish of reading it. The kind of tragic justice that Serling or Sophocles could serve. Read the book!

Comment #12: daphne  on  01/07  at  04:45 AM

Behold MonkeyShines, masterfully combining the arts of condescension, ignorance, and idiocy.

Comment #13: Alexander  on  01/07  at  11:29 AM

I’m kind of excited to see Richard Yates getting all of this attention.  A few years ago, a lot of my writer friends spoke of Yates as a “forgotten writer,” someone whose work was great and influential, but who had largely been forgotten by all but the writers he directly inspired (Andre Dubus, Richard Russo).  Frankly, I have my reservations about the movie (love Winslet, like Leo, don’t care for Mendes), but anything that helps people rediscover Yates is fine by me.

Comment #14: Bradley  on  01/07  at  11:39 AM

Oh, Monkey, it’s touching how you think reading your stuff does anything to people but make them stupider by osmosis.  I have to put on my moron filter glasses to protect myself from the radiation.  (Invented by Devo, wouldntchaknowit?)

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/07  at  01:00 PM

I’m not sure why it couldn’t work as a movie, daphne.  The book is very cinematic, with most of the characterization coming out in dialogue and behavior.  You get a lot of Frank’s thoughts, but they’re relatively shallow and add a bit of dark comedy to him, due to the gulf between his self-image and his reality.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/07  at  01:02 PM

MonkeyShines, you’re an idiot.  Christopher Hitchens wrote about Selby in the Atlantic about five years ago.  Try harder.

Comment #17: JupiterPluvius  on  01/07  at  02:05 PM

ranting about the suburban lifestyle he’s loathe to abandon,

OK, I haven’t finished reading this post yet, but this caught my eye and triggered my knee-jerk pet-peeve response.

“Loathe” is a verb. The adjective is “loath.”

</grammarnazi>

Comment #18: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  01/07  at  04:27 PM

I was pretty much persuaded by Ed Champion (and by Mendes’ earlier work) not to bother with the movie, but am looking forward to a Bamboo Report on it to compare.  For a similar experience (another 1960 novel in which the author transcends his era’s misogyny by showing how, thanks to individual men and intense societal pressures, the vitiated suburban women got that way), I urge a look at the forthcoming reissue of Philip Dick’s The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike.  Which I am quite certain Hitch will not review!

Comment #19: Josh, Knyaz of Okonomiyaki  on  01/07  at  07:49 PM

“MonkeyShines, you’re an idiot.  Christopher Hitchens wrote about Selby in the Atlantic about five years ago.  Try harder. “

No, he mentioned Selby in passing.  He didn’t devote an article or any real length of text to him.

Comment #20: MonkeyShines  on  01/11  at  01:58 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.