The Substance Of Fire (1996)
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1996 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): *
(Reviewer's Note) I saw THE SUBSTANCE OF FIRE at the press screening. It opens nationwide on December 6. Locally in the San Jose area, I am not sure of where it will be opening, but my guess is that it will be either the AMC or the UA theater chain.
THE SUBSTANCE OF FIRE is a movie that tries hard to be unlikable and succeeds. The script by Jon Robin Baitz, based on his play, is populated with unlovable characters who hate each other. Besides being about as much fun to watch as witnessing your neighbor's squabbles, the movie is on the low end of the believability scale.
The film starts extremely well, and since this was an early screening, there were no press kits available and I had no idea what to expect. In the poignant opening scene a young boy views a group of Nazis burning books. This is the best and only completely satisfying part of the show, but it lasts a mere two minutes before the picture switches to the present.
In the lavishly appointed Manhattan offices of a book publisher, the people are arguing over what books to publish and how expensive to make the elaborate bindings. This is a family firm controlled by father Issac Geldheart (Ron Rifkin).
Issac's son Aaron (Tony Goldwyn) wants to publish the obvious to be best seller of his lover Val. With a death wish for his family's fortune, Issac rejects the novel with the put-down, "You think I'm going to publish some trashy novel by some slicko hipster?" Instead Issac wants to do yet another expensive book about the Holocaust. Their last Holocaust treatise sold just 17 of the 500 printed copies.
The father plans on publishing a four volume set by his friend Louie (Ronny Graham) that chronicles the medical experiments of the Nazis. He intends to have all of the books hand bound and to use extremely expensive paper even if it bankrupts the company. Since the company is currently broke, spending money you don't have will certainly force it into receivership.
The rest of the family consists a daughter Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker) and a son Martin (Timothy Hutton). The mother died a year and a half ago, and Issac tells his children how awful she was. The whole family is dysfunctional in various ways, and poor Martin is dying of a long term illness.
In an example of the trite and pompous sentiments typical of the script, landscape architect Martin asks his students about a field of grass, "What is the one thing that landscape architecture requires?" One of his pupils replies, "A social motif." He proudly tells her she is "right" and that what is missing in this meadow is a social motif.
Although daughter Sarah has grown up in a publishing family, she has no love for books and remarks to her brother Aaron, "Tell me the truth. Does anybody actually finish a book once they have formed an opinion of it?" Sarah makes her living acting in a cliched kid's TV show. She spends her off hours having an affair with the married producer of the show.
There is one classic Dilbert style line in the film. When a Social Services person comes by to examine Issac's competency, she explains that there is no individual responsibility in evaluating his case. "It's a process. No one person can come to a conclusion." It's not me, I'm just part of this bureaucracy. Kafka would have liked the scene.
The show is devoid of any characters you care about. Director Daniel Sullivan has his actors thumb their noses at the audience. If the script were more insightful, perhaps its cadence would be tolerable, but as written, it is merely banal and implausible. There is no way this family would have ever been capable of amassing a fortune much less keeping it for more than a month.
Much of the show is pure hokum. When the script is not insulting, it attempts overwrought sentimentality. The director does not deliver a single subtle moment. The music and the cinematography are sincere and somber, quite fitting for a much stronger film than this piece of nonsense.
THE SUBSTANCE OF FIRE runs 1:47. It is rated R for some uses of the F word. The show is a mild R and would be fine for any teenager and probably for those a bit younger. There is no reason to see this meaningless show so I do not recommend it. It gets a single * in my book.
**** = One of the top few films of this or any year. A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = One of the worst films of this or any year. Totally unbearable.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: October 8, 1996
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews