Mr. and Mrs. Bridge

Films produced under the Merchant/Ivory banner are, as a general rule, respectable, literate, and often more than a little bit dull. But here's an exception (to the last rule, at least): an intimate, snapshot diary of an ordinary, middle-class, mid-American couple, played by the off-screen couple of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. Ruth Jhabvala's sensitive adaptation of the twin novels by Evan Connell is highlighted by her customary wit and attention to detail, with Newman and Woodward improving on the title roles by adding in their performances subtle shades of character which can't be written into any script. The episodic, slice-of-life structure doesn't allow for any dramatic momentum, and there isn't much of a message beyond the observation that native mid-westerners are emotionally repressed, but under James Ivory's typically graceful direction (and with the help of a first-rate supporting cast) it's an uncommonly rich film, full of privileged moments.

"Mr. and Mrs. Bridge," directed by James Ivory, from 1990, is the story of one American family that represents many of that era, showing them in the period of 1937 until just after the war.

The Bridge family is upper middle class. Walter and India (Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward) have three children: the aspiring actress Ruth (Kyra Sedgwick, so young you can't believe it); Carolyn (Margaret Welsh), and Douglas (Robert Sean Leonard, another baby face). Walter Bridge is a conservative man, one who can't and doesn't show his feelings, an excellent businessman, by the book, and seen today, very old-fashioned, almost Victorian in his attitudes. He loves and respects his wife. India is a sweet, naive woman who doesn't know much of the world, but is exposed to it through her high-strung, independent-thinking friend (Blythe Danner) and her art classes. India takes her husband's opinions and does what he wants. The few times she puts forth other ideas, she is shot down and accepts what he says.

When it comes to their children, both of them are out of it. Walter is a fair man, and when Ruth wants to go to New York, he allows it under certain conditions; when Carolyn wants to marry someone beneath their class, he hears the young man out and gives his blessing; and when Douglas wants to join the Air Force, he counsels his son to stick with his education until he's drafted.

This doesn't mean that Walter and India know anything about their children's' private lives or the sex they're having. Walter is far too rigid to consider such a thing, and India is too naive.

This is certainly a picture of a different time, where the older generation didn't give their emotions much play, when women went to lunch, took art classes, and everything they did revolved around their husbands, and when the man's word was law. Yet we can see the beginnings of change around the edges in their children's' lives of what's coming.

The acting is marvelous, particularly from Paul Newman, who at 65 was still gloriously handsome; and from Blythe Danner, who belonged, perhaps, in a bigger city than Kansas City and among a more liberal crowd. I see where Joanne Woodward's performance has been criticized here; some of it, I gather, was because of her age and also because the character says some things considered out of character as compared to the books on which the film is based. Still, she has the sweetness, the caring, and displays the narrow thought of the character.

If the film is slow, it's because of the time period in which the film is set. You sat in the living room in the evening and listened to Nelson Eddy on the radio; you went to see A Star is Born with Janet Gaynor and Frederic March; it was a more leisurely life and a quieter one. Interestingly, it was a time period in which great self-analysis and deep thought could have emerged, but it wouldn't be until after the war that psychiatry (compared to astrology by Walter), women in the workplace, and changes in morality came into vogue.

Today we live so differently - it wasn't all it was cracked up to be back then, and life today sure isn't all it's cracked up to be now. A film like this does make one long for just a few of the old ways in terms of lifestyle perhaps - the simplicity, the sense of family, but in its repression and views of women, no way.

"Mr. & Mrs. Bridge" is a film that really frustrated me. It featured some terrific acting and the Newmans were terrific. Mrs. Newman (Joanne Woodward) was so good that she was nominated for an Oscar. But the story...well, it left me very flat and featured one of the worst endings I can recall in a movie.

The story begins shortly before WWII, probably sometime in early 1939 or so. The Bridges are a very successful family. Mr. Bridge is a top attorney, they are members of the country club, and they have plenty of money. However, through the course of the story there is a certain whistfulness...as if to say 'is that all there is to life?'.

I couldn't believe the way the movie ending...it actually made me feel kind of mad. Instead of providing some sort of ending, the story just ends and then a few sentences appear on the screen talking about what happened to the Bridge children! Imagine...spending this much time watching yet no real finale. It literally looked as if they ran out of money and just stopped filming. Very frustrating...especially when the acting was so good!

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.

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!