L'honneur de la famille

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.

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.

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.

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.

Isaac runs his publishing and continues despite the death of his wife. His company specialises in heavy subject matter about the Nazi's etc. However these don't sell well and Issac's insistence on perfection risks ruining the company. His son Arron sees this and brings in his brother Martin and sister Sarah to force their father to listen. However Isaac is forced out and starts another company – however with time it is obvious that Isaac is not fully competent to look after himself. Despite his own ill health Martin helps him to avoid court and losing everything.

Some films just shout worthy at you – this is a character driven piece about families etc, it's another worthy Miramax drama that, like Isaac's books, is lovely to look at and looks very serious and worthy. Unfortunately the story just goes along with nowhere to go and no points to make. We don't learn anything about the characters beyond the surface and they often seem to be stereotypes – the Jewish businessman father, the money motivated son, the bubbly daughter, the calm at-one-with-nature son etc. When the film does end, you feel like it should have been moving or involving, but instead it was slightly dull and uninvolving.

The performances are mixed, although it's a strong cast. Rifkin is good as the father, Isaac. However his character is not explained and his feelings never explored – instead we get a plot about mental competency. Goldwin is good as Arron, and Parker is good as bubbly (what else) Sarah. Hutton is poor as Martin, lecturing pupils by getting them to stare at trees, making meaningful sacrifice etc. His character is too calm and empty. The same could be said of Gil Bellows, although his character is smaller. Eric Bogosian makes a small cameo.

The problem with the cast is the same as with the film – there are too many scenes where they sit around talking, exchanging glances, Hutton says something semi-profound in a calm voice, the score comes up and we're all suppose to think something magical has happened. However this does not make a film worthy – even if it thinks it is.

I had great hopes for this film. I watched it twice in case I was missing something in this masterpiece. However hard the film tries it appears to have nothing to say and nowhere interesting to go. Dull and uninspired.