The Substance of Fire

I thought that this was an interesting look at how one person's hardheadedness can affect a family so strongly. Ron Rifkin did a wonderful job portraying 'Isaac'. I think he's a very underrated actor and I even loved his annoying accent.!( He uses the same accent that he had on "I'm not Rappaport.") I read an interview where he compares the movie vs. the stage version and supposedly it ends differently. I would have liked to have seen the play.

The Main reason to see the film version of "The Substance Of Fire" is Ron Rifkin's splendid performance. He reprises the role he created on stage with great aplomb.It is however,one of the few reasons to see this film.The plot has been drastically altered from the original play,even adding major characters that did not exist in the original.The basic story remains, a Jewish Publisher and his slow decent into dementia brought on through his loss of control of the company to his son. But there it ends. The messages in this film are very clear,but the execution,direction and scripting destroy the impact of the original play.

"The Substance of Fire" is a slice of life film which tells of a small time New York Jewish holocaust-survivor book publishing purist and authoritarian patriarch to his adult children; two sons, one daughter. The slice has to do with the slow disintegration of his family owned publishing business and his mental health in the wake of his wife's death, financial woes over his inability to adapt to market demands, and his advancing age.

The film sports a solid cast and excellent performances, especially by Rifkin, and is artistically and technically good. However, when all is said and done, the viewer may wonder why they bothered watching as the story just begins and ends with no apparent reason being; no moral, no message, no lessons, not compelling or thought provoking and difficult with which to empathize. Likely to be of most interest to those who like "all in the family" relationship films.

I have to admit, I once began watching this and didn't get very far. But I tried again and found it very interesting - more interesting, at least, than the other poster. I thought Ronny Graham was hilarious as the elderly, cantankerous author. In fact, there was more humor in the movie than I imagined. Tony Goldwyn and Sarah Jessica Parker could easily pass as siblings, and the children of Ron Rifkin, but Tim Hutton didn't seem to belong to the same family. The most interesting thing to me, and perhaps a reason to watch it, was the brief scene of Goldwyn and Gil Bellows (as his boyfriend) dancing together.

I found this film quite flawed on the grounds of story and acting. The story is rather slow, without any definite direction and it ended abruptly before some of the main characters begin to develop. Apart from Ron Rifkin and a bit from Sarah Jeassica Parker, the overall acting is below the level one expects from such type of films.

The primary reason to like this film is that it's honest and it's original. One can see that the filmmakers are really passionate about the subject it's based upon, I don't know, maybe from personal experiences. Its structure and style are quite original and don't have any clichés. Even the ending, though abrupt, is heartfelt if the viewer cares to understand the film's statement.