L'honneur de la famille

Top notch film? No. Boring as hell? NO. This film will not appeal to people who have no sense of history, family, or the ability to sit still for more than five minutes and analyze something.

The film was fascinating, not always clear as to its intent, but an interesting journey with characters worth watching.

You have a father, a Holocaust survivor, who even in his own madness still believes in the quality of THINGS. In this case it's his publishing house which has been an imprint of quality work. There are, unfortunately, few places for works such as this in our times. Few people have the patience or understanding of quality and workmanship. Thus the conflict with one of his sons. His son wants the imprint to continue but with a much broader audience, quantity above quality. I don't believe it is even about money. It's about moving away from the past. Neither the father or children are completely capable of doing this. The past, the family, has a hold on all of them no matter how they deny it or try to move away from each other.

If you have an understanding of what we have lost by having everything being bought and sold to the lowest common denominator; a family dealing with madness of a beloved relative, and THINGS being valued above the love and respect of others give the film a try. If you have an attention span of a knat try something with Arnold. Some things are worth muddling through just for the rare glimpse of ourselves.

This is a film that could have been an important film if it had not stooped to the use of repeated use of the 'f' word and other foul language. The people depicted in this film would not ordinarily use such language. I am acquainted with many Holocaust survivors and I have never heard such language pass their lips.

Although the Holocaust was used as the starting point of the film, and as a background for the most important character, there was no attempt to explain how that experience molded the character to make him what he is in the film.

Also it was never shown how the children of the Holocaust survivor were affected by their father's experience as it was with most children of Holocaust survivors.

It should have been a strong family drama, and it was to a point. But the foul language ruined it.

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.

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.

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.