reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (02/24/90)
STANLEY AND IRIS
A film review by Peter Reiher
Copyright 1990 Peter Reiher
What is a "good script"? Or, mirror image, what is a "bad script"?
Usually, when you hear someone say that a film has a bad script, what they
really mean is that the film is derivative, that the dialog is poor, that there
is no characterization, that it is predictable, that it fails to engage the
viewers. Well, none of those things are true of STANLEY AND IRIS, yet it has a
bad script, or at least a fatally flawed one, and that's what makes it a fair
film, rather than a good film.
STANLEY AND IRIS deals with the relationship of two middle-aged working
class people in a small Eastern city, certainly not a derivative situation.
The dialog is true to character, sounds realistic, and even has a bit of poetry
to it. The two principals are clearly defined, engaging characters, and some
of the supporting roles aren't too badly drawn. While the major thrust of the
story follows lines that many other films have followed, the path to the
resolution is interesting and filled with nice twists. And, to some extent, at
least, STANLEY AND IRIS does make us care about the lives of its major
characters.
Where the script fails is in dramatic construction. Writers Harriet
Frank, Jr., and Irving Ravetch have failed to provide a clear, relevant
sequence of events, each leading from one to the next, that tells a story. In
STANLEY AND IRIS, while succeeding scenes clearly have some dramatic connection
to those that preceded, causality seems to be lacking. For example, we
understand why, at one point, Stanley breaks off the relationship. And we see
him begin it again. But why? The film shows us nothing that makes this change
understandable. Perhaps we are meant to fill in the blanks by understanding
the destiny of the plot. But the importance of these two people coming
together is never great enough for the viewer to do that much of the work
himself. If this were the only lapse, the film might not have seemed so choppy
and arbitrary, but the whole movie is constructed that way.
Which is a pity, because STANLEY AND IRIS is not a bad film. Director
Martin Ritt stages each scene rather well. As is his way, he also provides a
sense of authenticity to the setting. As in SOUNDER and NORMA RAE, Ritt makes
us believe in the people and the life they lead by not allowing false heroics
or false tragedies, and by showing us generous slices of daily living that seem
familiar, comfortable, and correct.
The photography is also good. It comes from a school of cinematography
that prizes the beauty of realism, so there are no fancy camera moves, the
lighting is naturalistic, and the shot selection is rather conservative,
suiting the subject matter. But each shot is carefully considered and
attractively lit, making the New England city considerably more attractive than
it probably is in reality.
The main attraction of STANLEY AND IRIS was always the casting of Robert
De Niro and Jane Fonda in the title roles. Unfortunately, while each of them
does good work in isolation, and while there is no great clash between their
styles, they simply do not mesh on camera. Their love is told to us, but the
performers fail to show it. De Niro has never been especially good at
expressing a nice, comfortable form of love. Grand, destructive passion, yes,
but pleasant romantic love, no. Fonda can, but it takes two to do this tango.
That major failing aside, the performances are quite good. De Niro has made at
least one acting breakthrough here. Unlike his character in FALLING IN LOVE,
Stanley is a fairly normal person who is likable and not dull. Fonda manages
to submerge most of her glamour and charisma in a role that demands a certain
plainness of appearance and manner.
Other than these two, there are practically no important characters in the
film. Martha Plimpton repeats her sullen, pregnant teenager role from
PARENTHOOD, with less material. (Actually, I believe STANLEY AND IRIS was shot
first, so perhaps she repeated the role in PARENTHOOD, with more material.)
Swoozie Kurtz has a few angry moments as Fonda's sister, but disappears totally
from the latter half of the film. Feodor Chaliapan, memorable in MOONSTRUCK,
has some nice moments as De Niro's father.
STANLEY AND IRIS has received some major critical dumpings, which I think
weren't really justified. It doesn't work, but it's not a crime against
cinema, either. It's a fairly entertaining 100 minutes or so with some good,
professional work from all involved. Many critics seemed to have seized upon
small points as a basis of their dislike of STANLEY AND IRIS, such as stating
that Jane Fonda's body was too shapely for the part, or that Stanley's
background made his problems seem unlikely. But I think that these little
flaws are no more than symptoms of the overall failure of the script to
construct a logical, dramatic story. If the pieces had all fallen into place
one by one, as they do in a good dramatic film, no one would have objected to
the small stuff. As it is, STANLEY AND IRIS is a well-intentioned film that
can provide some pleasures, with only slight disappointment based on the
potentials of all the talents involved.
Peter Reiher
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher