A boy finds himself at a crossroads to fight the system that discriminates against him, in “Indignation”. Based on Philip Roth’s late novel of the same name, the story takes place in 1951, among the backdrop of the dreadful Korean War, as Marcus Messner (Logan Lerman), a brilliant working class Jewish boy from Newark, New Jersey, travels on scholarship to a small, conservative college in Ohio, thus exempting him from being drafted into the Korean War, for an objective that he doesn’t support. An air of excitement and nervousness is in the air for Marcus to start over in a new place, But once there, Marcus’s growing infatuation with his beautiful classmate Olivia Hutton (Sarah Gadon), and his clashes with the college’s imposing Dean, Hawes Caudwell (Tracy Letts), puts his and his family’s best laid plans to the ultimate test. “Indignation” is written and directed by James Schamus, and is rated R for sexual content and some adult language.
If there’s one problem that Phillip Roth’s novels have always endured, it’s that feeling of a story that is a little outdated. When I see a movie that takes place during another era, and issues that reflect another time, I try to relate it to the very same ideals in our current day. This sounds a little nitpicky, but it certainly matters when it comes to my general intrigue in a film. When I watch a movie on slavery, I grasp that slavery isn’t alive in 2016, but disgusting racial tensions still very much are. With “Indignation” I see a movie that explores many angles and positions, but the graphing and structure is so unbelievably inept with the meat of such an important issue that it never elevates the movie to the kind of level that it deserves. If Schamus does one thing well in only his first directing effort however, it’s in his attention to details with a wardrobe and backdrop that are absolutely elegant. Combine that with a cinematography rich in soft color tones, and you have a good movie that got lost somewhere underneath the unlimited barrage of the amateur mistakes that really took away from this movie.
The film explores really three central plots/subplots that take up the entirety of its 105 minute feature. The first is that of sexual repression during the 1950’s. This would be of great relevance today if the movie wasn’t distracted instead with some very questionable scenes that does very little for the serious tone of the feature. One scene that involves a woman giving oral sex to a male love interest is used as the centerpiece for much of the movie’s debate with how women were viewed during such an age. But once is appropriate, twice is concerning, and three times is unnecessary. There are two other sexual scenes in the movie involving hands, and they feel very inappropriate and almost childish by how late they appear in the movie. This in addition to some truly sketchy line reads, and I found myself laughing in a theater of people that felt like they already gave up. The second story arc deals with Lerman’s Jewish heritage, and how it plays against the Christianity tones of his new school. For me, this was truly the only compelling story arc of the movie, considering our current society going through a lot of politically correct conversations on who’s right and wrong with their respective religions. The best part of the movie for me involved Lerman getting into a heated debate with Letts, and it made for a deep investment personally for the twelve minute scene that showed divine execution visually. Schamus uses an over-the-shoulder technique to see each side of the argument both morally and physically, and its editing woke me up from the coma that the first half hour of the movie put me in. The problem with this arc is that the movie only goes to it twice, and the second time isn’t till the final ten minutes of the movie, more than an hour after it first popped up. The film could’ve used some more exposition on the difficulties for Atheists and Jewish students alike at a campus dominated by religion. The third arc is with the parents of Lerman’s character, and it just felt unnecessary that they were dominating precious story time for two characters who aren’t even central protagonists.
The performances are decent, but nothing that grabbed the ball of opportunity for the young duo. Logan Lerman is someone who I have supported after brilliant turns in “Fury” and “The Perks of Being A Wallflower”, but here he doesn’t exert enough personality into the character to make me ever want to spend this time with him. His emotional responses to different issues feels very unconvincing to me at times, and Lerman’s performance mostly phones in a lot of this screenplay that could’ve easily used an Oscar worthy performance from such a young voice. Gadot is someone I am still making my mind up about, but she gives probably my favorite performance of the movie here. For most of the first act, she feels the most human to someone watching this movie in 2016, and a lot of that charm and essence that I saw in “11/22/63” shines bright here. Alone she is a decent contributor to the movie, but together with Lerman, there just isn’t an ounce of romantic chemistry between them, and I felt their romance scenes more awkward than sensual. With a more believable duo, I maybe could’ve overlooked some of the aspects that really bothered me about this movie, but the lack of convincing from these two hinders any last chance that this movie had to steal my interest.
“Indignation” feels very subdued and careful in its presentation on slut-shaming conventionalism of the sock hop era of the 1950’s. Schamus garners some points for beautiful visuals and an attention to detail within styles and settings of such an age, but his lack of anything urgent or compelling in dramatic material dooms “Indignation” early on from ever deserving your attention. Heavy-handed, but hollow just below the surface.
5/10