Indignation

source: Indignation

James Shamas' adaption of Philip Roth's 'Indignation' is a disappointment. It is a sentimental treatment of Roth's novel, which isn't sentimental. 'Indignation' opens with a father's recitation of 'kadish', a prayer for the dead and it ends with another one. The voice over is unchanging in tone; it is a voice that comes from beyond the grave. Hollywood has found a lode of good fortune in returning to the early days of post-war America. In such films say as 'Trumbo' and 'Bridge of Spies', it has torn off the skin of race nationality confusion of what it to be an American. 'Indignation' falls square in that time, in the early years of the Korea War, and the basso continuo of what became the McCarthy era. We are in Newark, New Jersey at half-century in 20 century America. Newark is a Jewish enclave of hard working people, loyal Americans, but live in a self-contained ghetto of sorts, sheltered as it is from the American mainstream. We are far from the melting pot; the Jews like other ethnics live separately but add variety to life in America. Newark sends its sons to fight in Europe or the Pacific, and at the time of film to the 'forgotten war' in Korea. An excellent student Markie is going to college, and as such, he is exempt from the draft and almost certain death in faraway Korea. Newark may be the center of Markie's world, but in tone and in accept and in customs, they are far from the world of the native colonial stock of English whose manners and ways and power and religion that formed the United States. Newark is wrapped in a blanket of its weaving. And Markie is no more wiser to broader life because of that. He goes to Winesberg College that, too, embodies small town America, but with a difference. As an institution, it may be as provincial and small-minded as Newark, but it represents the Anglo-Saxon attitudes that set the narrow boundaries of what is permissible and what is not in religion, in thought, stifling any personal life of the mind or thought beyond the mores of the day. Markie is an innocent, and in his naivety is his downfall. The dean confronts him for his inability to embrace college life to the fullest. Massner is an atheist who chaffs at attending obligatory weekly chapel with its emphasis on strong, muscular Protestant values; these values are an inversion of his Jewish environment; they affront his staunch rationalism. He defends his value before the dean to whom he refers insistently as 'Sir', not 'Dean', which to this symbol of authority is an affront and an act of will that challenges 'society' as Winesberg defines it. In spirit, it mirrors the witch hunt of the times, on which Lillian Hellman pinned the tag of 'scoundrel', if not scurrilous. Markie is a young man of feelings. He is a virgin and falls for a young woman, unloved by her family and is emotionally and mentally unstable. And his very own inexperience and his own idealism lead to his expulsion from college and ultimately to his death in Korea. 'Indignation' is a dirge. It evokes an America that strangely reflects the passions and solipsism of today. There is little to fault from cinematic values. And yet, the not unsubtle tone of anti-Semitism is never far from the surface. It is the age of the Rosenbergs and what that means. It is an age of purifying the American mind of liberal thought and open mindedness in a Manichean world of them and us, of the Commies and we the Freedom loving people. It is no accident that the Korean War plays in the background. It is a war that the US didn't win, and has forgotten, even though it thought of itself as the arsenal of democracy of defenders of the Free World. Now in the 21century, 'Indignation' speaks to our condition of intolerance and muscular politics and war. It has cut its cloth to the same provincialism and anger and pride that has been hurt that Roth wrote about.

James Schamus adapted Philip Roth's novel INDIGNATION for the screen and directed it: the result is a slice out of the past with all the innuendos and social commentary and Americana of the 1950s intact. The film retains the flavor of Roth's writing who is said to have stated 'This will come as a great shock to young people, but in 1951 you could make it through college unscathed by oral sex.' That is but one island of realism that this film addresses and when coupled with all the myriad instances of living life in college in the time of the Korean war, the result is a firm reminder of the Edward R. Morrow television series 'You Are There'. Set in 1951, the story follows academically gifted Marcus Messner (a brilliant Logan Lerman), the idealistic son of a humble kosher butcher Max (Danny Burstein) from Newark, N.J. Marcus leaves for Ohio to study at Winesburg, a small, conservative college, where he finds himself at odds with the administration's Dean (Tracy Letts), grapples with anti-Semitism and sexual repression and pines after the beautiful but troubled girl Olivia Hutton (Sarah Gadon). Marcus separates from his assigned fellow Jewish roommates, declines an invitation to be in a Jewish fraternity, has a sensitive confrontation with the school Dean over Marcus' atheism and his loathing mandatory attendance in chapel. He finally has a date with Olivia who surprises the virgin Marcus with a car seat fellatio and that act sets into motion the cultural disaffection not only at college but also with his parents: his mother (Linda Emond) visits Markus in Ohio, meets Olivia, and shares with Markus that she loathes husband Max and is in the process of divorce. Markus' humanity shines through and he persuades his mother to not divorce, an agreement reached only if Markus will never see Olivia again. The actors assembled are all accomplished and find that core of Philip Roth's view of the world so sensitively that this is far above being just a period piece. The musical score by Jay Wadley adds flavor of the times. The ending of the film is gut wrenching on many levels and to say more would spoil the film. This is a fine adaptation of Philip Roth's style. It is immensely successful.

September heralds a return to more serious films, and this one, based on Philip Roth's 2008 novel, eases you back in. It's the directorial debut of James Schamus, who also wrote the script, and he does a fine job keeping the story moving. Young Marcus Messner is leaving his staunchly Jewish home in Newark, New Jersey, to attend the Winesburg (Ohio) College. "How will you keep kosher?" a friend's mother asks, astonished. In 1951, going to college was one way to keep out of the Korean War. His mother is sad her only child is leaving home, but it's his father who has the most trouble letting him go. He's losing both a son and his chief assistant and daily companion at the butcher shop. Marcus is a scholarship student at the conservative college and focuses on his studies and working in the library, when he meets and falls for the delectable and emotionally fragile Olivia Hutton, who introduces him to certain extracurricular activities. Her background and assumptions about life are so different from his, he doesn't know what to make of her. For various reasons, mostly mandatory chapel attendance, Marcus appears on a collision course with the dean of students. The dean gives him a grilling in what The Hollywood Reporter calls "a stunner of a centerpiece scene," adding, "It is characteristic of a film that is simultaneously erudite and emotional, literary and alive, that so much talk could be so enthralling." It's uncomfortable, too, as they talk past each other and stake out irreconcilable positions. Marcus defends his views with stubborn spirit, but you know where the power lies and wish he understood the virtues of diplomacy. "You have to go around these people," a fraternity brother explains. What makes the film so powerful are the three main actors—Logan Lerman as Marcus, Sarah Gadon as Olivia, and Tracy Letts as Dean Caudwell. Linda Emond and Dan Burstein play Marcus's hovering parents. The period details are nice, particularly the costumes and lighting. I saw the trailer for this movie several times, and the film unfolds somewhat differently than it suggests.

all good the ending complete garbage OK they want more its crap its so dark and it,.... this move is so bad so bad and so bad so i will keep on and on till i get to five lines there are some movies who doesn't deserve five lines i wonder nobody comments anymore or bothers i just look up the basics of movie wikipedia has better ..ok got my five lines

The film opens on a medicine dose about to be given an old woman in a home, then a soldier dying in the Korean war. The body of the narrative explains how the two characters got there. As the young man later muses, the apparently random sequence of events in his life determined the causality of their lives. That randomness diffuses the rational bases of our lives. In 1951 going to college was a bright young man's way to avoid the Korean War. Negotiating the double standard in sex was how a young American girl would survive and perhaps even succeed. The beautiful blonde shicksa Olivia and the brilliant earnest Jewish scholar Marcus end up far from their promised destinies. The particular cause proves a radical reflection upon current America, with a rampant hypocrisy, anti-intellectualism, and conformism as dangerous and stifling today as in 1951. When Marcus is expelled an ROTC unit parades on the campus in the background. That is, the college is no longer an alternative to war and the army but their representative. The borders between scholarship and war, humanity and violence, compassion and destruction have dissolved. This narrative is a tragedy. Bright Marcus is expelled from the small Ohio college and the equally sensitive but more fragile Olivia suffers another breakdown that consigns her to the asylum. To ensure her son's abandonment of his love, Marcus's mother returns to suffer her hateful marriage. His father finds his irrational dread about his son's fate fulfilled. Everybody loses. And why? Because of the essential values of the current Republicans. As we know, any period piece is about the time it's made as well as the time in which it is set. In his awareness of Marcus's Jewishness, his intolerance of intellectual difference, his puritanical fear of sex, and the anti-intellectualism reflected in his attack on Bertrand Russell, the college dean is the retrogressive American anti-liberal. Actor Tracy Letts even looks like Dick Cheney. The dean embodies the righteousness that destroyed the central characters' love and lives — and continues to undermine America. As we need to believe, love conquers all. Just before dying Marcus remembers his brief romance with Olivia and ardently wishes she could know that at least that once, by him, she was loved. In the heat of war he can finally stop rejecting her for having pleased him. Love is the emotion missing from both their parents' lives. As if by magic telepathy, when Olivia smiles at the bouquet on the institution's wallpaper she seems to be remembering him, their intimacies in the hospital, with the awareness he hoped for. But when the man is killed and the woman's memory is but a flicker in her dementia, that love hardly triumphs against the hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness that separated the young couple as they tentatively entered maturity. Novelist Phillip Roth's setting, Winesburg, Ohio, evokes the American pith in Sherwood Anderson's classic short story collection of that title. Again, small lives illuminate the major currents in the nation's psyche.

So much darkness and despair. A young man from a Jewish family goes to college, but he himself is an atheist but attends a conservative college where chapel is mandatory. Boy meets sexually adventurous girl. Boy is unsure what to think of said girl, but continues receiving hand and mouth favors from said girl. Girl jumps down the mental rabbit hole, again boy is unsure what to think or do. By the end of the film I was just glad it was over. Not since Ordinary People have I seen such a large amount of the plot revolve around sexual gratification. Skip It.

What can I say? This movie started out like a seemingly carefree experience about college life in the repressed early 1950s. Somewhere along the line, it does a complete about face and becomes an extremely serious take on pre-material sex, interfaith romance,the belief or lack of in God, the misfortunes of war and destiny. The performances were all outstanding and captured the morals and the social structure of the early 1950s. At times, some scenes were a bit long and slightly dull, but this reflects on the concept of this film....life can be dull and boring until one opens up their being to new experiences. Wuthout giving the ending away, it is a surprise and extremely depressing. I like happy endings and unfortunately, this film ending ranks as one of the most depressing in film history. Still, if you love great acting, see this film. 10 out of 10.

Indignation simply means anger provoked by something perceived as unfair treatment and that's what happens to the main lead Marcus in this Phillip Roth beautiful adaptation. I would say there are three main reasons to watch this amazing movie. 1. Thought Provoking themes and survival in a society where there exists no individuality - Stating it simply this film proves even its set in 1950s society don't follow good with change. Marcus played by Lerman considers himself to be an atheist and wants to stay that way. There are many things which he finds difficult to chose from like joining jew fraternity club, love life ,sexual awakening, relationship with his father , conversation with Dean of college.Unable to conform to these changes his life deteriorates and it's something that anyone who doesn't go all the way with beliefs of society and very well understand.All this is represented very beautiful manner. I don't want to say much about the themes as you should watch it yourself to draw meaning from them .I was wondering that the way in which the film started it must be going somewhere , it went and delivered more than I expected. The themes it tackles especially of individual freedom and independence is something even many people struggle in today's society. The was society wants you to make them their carbon copy only makes it harder. Apart from that the film also takes a genuine take on Human Character like Marcus Father worrying about him or How the slit wrist mark on Marcus love interest was not seen by him as he has no intention of that type but was quickly seen by his mother which at that moment hated her stating it's her weakness that will drown Marcus which I strongly object to. There are far more things and if you are an atheist it's of your interest. 2. The Great Dialogues and Quotes - This film is filled with so much engaging and deeper meaning dialogues. Although I haven't read any work of Roth , I find these dialogues and quotes a rare offering from the Cinema. With all its deeper meanings and delights it hits you right and the heart and the brain. There is Great 10-15 minutes long conversation between Marcus and Dean and I really like it as I too doesn't have belief in God. The whole conversation was like a debate where everything had a counter answer and although for me Marcus won , whatever he said is embedded in my mind for its logic and clarity. For example when Marcus told Dean he is atheist ,Dean told Millions believe in god why?. Marcus said - Millions once believe Earth was flat. That's something and the film is filled with more of this. 3. Performance In my opinion cast did a good job but especially this was best career performance by Logan Lerman of Percy Jackson fame . This surpasses his incredible performance of Perks of being a wallflower. This movie is a rare offering by Cinema directly reflecting on life and individuality even though set in 1950s , it highly corresponds to today's time too.

I was on the road researching a book on Texas barbecue when I read Philip Roth's novel, Indignation. I had managed to shelve it away in my brain until I saw a movie of the same title playing at a second-run movie house near me. Could it be? Yes, it was the same story. Better than it, the sleek yet powerful prose made its way onto the screen with its integrity intact. And you know what? A crowd of about 30 of us sat rapt for 110 minutes. Nobody talked until the credits rolled, but everybody laughed at the appropriate moments and there were even a few well-placed gasps of surprise. A good story, an intelligent script and a fine cast will work that magic. Give yourself an evening to find out. The cast is so perfect that I have to single out one performer as an example of the great work provided by all. Danny Burstein plays a father so proud of his own son and so worried by his son's future in an uncertain world marked by war that he seems to be descending into madness. The actor is harrowing to watch because you can feel all the love that burns inside of him and that he just can't bring himself to express properly. Maybe it would not be manly or maybe he doesn't know the right words or maybe he just doesn't think he needs to say anything directly. Yet we can feel his every fear, his mixture of hope and despair, his pride, his love, his frustration. Wow.