Mr. & Mrs. Bridge

This is definitely a nitch film that will not appeal to a mass audience. It's a rather uneventful story of a mid-western upper class WASP family, and the cultural milieu of their times. Set in the time frame of pre-World War II America, it is a series of vignettes of various characters' lives. Everything about the production is first class; from the acting to the lush settings. This is a film for those who prefer subtlety over action. This ain't a popcorn film, it is a movie for a quiet time where you can sit back and watch a serious character study. Too, a knowledge of the history of the time would be nice -- but not essential. I'll give it a solid *8*.

I first saw this movie when released in 1990 and just watched it again, partly out of curiosity as to whether i would feel differently about it. I don't. I still see it as a movie with all the right things going for it but just missing the mark.

The acting, writing, cinematography, etc. are all exemplary. It is, i believe, the movie's episodic structure which ultimately makes it seem rather uneventful when, in reality, the story is made up of many quite important events. An episodic structure, can work just fine, of course, but, as with most successful stories, it still needs to have a certain "build" to it in order to really satisfy. If that "build" IS here in this movie, it is so muted as to be incoherent to most viewers. Not that Mr and Mrs Bridge is not worth viewing! In fact, its thematics are well worth discussing. In my eyes, the parents represent an older, more traditional way of life on the verge of irreversible change, as personified by their children (though one or two of them eventually settle back into the groove). The country club/tornado sequence seems especially significant in light of such a reading, that a "storm" is on its way and they had better take cover. That Mr Bridge should remain steadfast in its occurence speaks volumes about his character. There are myriads of wonderful little character traits, etc., in this movie worth pondering, by the way.

While Mr Bridge is a fascinating persona, it is Mrs Bridge who, for me, remains central to the film. In fact, it might be THE major statement of the movie that this suburban woman has begun to awaken to how sheltered (stifled?) she and others like her have been. Though she does yearn for more--in a sense she really does want to be fully awakened--she never becomes more than vaguely enlightened. She realizes--even accepts with a great deal of comfort--how "lucky" they are to have lived such a privileged life. Though there have been many victims of female discontentedness (e.g. her friend Grace), she and many like her have adapted quite well to their mode of survival and comfortable living. It simply means sacrificing all of those crazy dreams that artistic types pursue, not to mention sacrificing passion--real passion--for life.

There are many significant instances to underscore Mrs Bridge's circumstance as a woman dependent on her man, but none better, perhaps, than the at the end of the movie as a pampered victim in a car: "hello? hello? is there anybody there?"...indeed!

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, in addition to the storied couple (in real life) playing Mr. and Mrs. Bridge--I thought the story line excellent. I actually grew up in Kansas City not long after the time period in the film and my family lived much as these people. The film's "slowness" represents that time---Paul Newman's close and steady pace, his awareness and lack of awareness of the world around him are intriguing. Joanne Woodward and Blythe Danner represent to very different types of women (of the time) but gives the viewer the sense that they are both trapped, one willingly and the other not so willingly. I weep for the Mother (Joanne Woodward) who wants to be close to her grown children but is too limited in her own world to really know how. The children are at fault in many cases, but it's sad nonetheless. The "wedged" car in the garage door opening sums up the Mother's inability to control her surroundings and the very fact that the husband was angry when he arrived home only underlines this fact. Thank God he seems to have loved her!

Mr.&Mrs. Bridge is an interesting character study of a pair of a typical married couple during the years before our entry into World War II. The film does provide a good insight into the American mindset of a Republican oriented couple of the period, hardly the political orientation of its two stars.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward are the Bridges with two daughters and a son who are all reaching adulthood. Kyra Sedgwick is the rebellious Bohemian type who just wants to shake the dust of her conservative roots and fly. Maureen Collins wants to get married and she makes a disastrous choice of a husband. But that is partly to get away from her father's ideas. And son Robert Sean Leonard is an Eagle Scout and apparently a chip of dad's old block. But he thinks there is more to life than his father's ideas. He's looking to join the army.

The film netted Joanne Woodward an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and she is the most interesting character in the film. She longs to recapture her youth when Newman was apparently a far more passionate individual than the stuffed shirt lawyer. She tries to shake Newman out of his smug complacency, but ultimately fails.

The Bridges are an interesting pair, but ultimately not very satisfying. I have to applaud the characterizations which are first rate, but this story which seemed really not to have a point just left me cold.

However fans of Newman and Woodward will like Mr.&Mrs. Bridge.

This film is based on two utterly unique novels by Evan S. Connell called 'Mrs. Bridge' and a companion novel published some years later, 'Mr. Bridge'. In 'Mrs. Bridge' Connell presents events in the title character's life and marriage, always from her heartbreakingly naive perspective, yet managing to convey the true nature of the events at the same time. This brilliant technique results in a portrait that is as much comic as it is pathetic. In 'Mr. Bridge' the author presents the same marriage, this time from Mr. Bridge's perspective, a much less comic, though no less tormented character.

The film fails to find an equivalent technique to present the parallel perspectives of the novel, those of the two main characters as well as an omnicient, often ironic narrator.

Nevertheless, I think the film could have succeeded more than it does if it were not for the misconceived role of Mrs. Bridge. First of all Joanne Woodward is too old for the part by twenty years or more and appears more like the children's grandmother than their mother. Secondly, she, and the author and director, create a highly emotional, always-on-the-verge-of-tears character that totally misses the central theme of the novel which is that Mrs. Bridge is completely out of touch with her emotional self. Her unhappiness lies deep beneath the surface of her everyday life. She copes by either doing as she is told by her husband, or by resorting to platitudes or the values of her middle class upbringing. In one of the first scenes of the film, Mrs. Bridge bursts into tears in her husband's presence and expresses insights about their marriage that are completely beyond the capability of the character in the novel. This robs the film of any chance of catching the ironic tone of the novels.

Paul Newman is perfect as Mr. Bridge, but again without the interior perspective, much of the essence of the novel is lost. The other actors are all fine, especially Blythe Danner. The scene in which Danner tries to explain to Mrs. Bridge the depth of her unhappiness and Mrs. Bridge can only respond with bromides and offers of tea gives a hint of what the film could have been.

The film is certainly a noble failure and worth seeing. But if you want a completely brilliant reading experience, get the novels.