Title: HEARTBURN
Date: 6/15/1995; Publication: Magill's
Survey of Cinema;
Magill's Survey of Cinema
06-15-1995
HEARTBURN
Abstract:
Meryl Streep stars as
Rachel in this seriocomic adaptation of Nora Ephron's
thinly disguised autobiographical novel about her marriage to Watergate
journalist Carl Bernstein. Jack Nicholson portrays the straying husband whose
infidelity leads to the breakup of the hoped-for happy marriage. Relying
primarily on Rachel's point of view, the film insightfully reveals the
differing expectations of marriage and family held by men and women in a modern
fragmented society.
Summary:
HEARTBURN presents the film fan and film critic with a number of problems.
These problems make the film inherently interesting, but whether it is
ultimately deemed successful depends on the viewer's reaction to the way the
problems are resolved. The first problem the film brings forward is that it is
based on Nora Ephron's best-selling novel of the same
name. Film adaptations of novels are notoriously problematic--fans of the book
inevitably picture the characters as somehow different from the film. A second
problem is that the novel is a roman a clef, a thinly disguised version of the
author's troubled marriage to Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein. The question
of truthfulness, or gossip, is invariably invoked, and much time is inevitably
spent wondering who the supporting characters ``really are.'' Yet a third
problem arises when superstars with well-known personalities--in this case, Meryl Steeep and Jack
Nicholson--are asked to protray fictional characters
based on real-life models. With all of this going on, it is no wonder that the
important issues the film raises, and the insights it brings to bear tend to
get lost in the confusion.
Meryl Steeep stars as
Rachel, Ephron's autobiographical stand-in, who sees
Mark (Jack Nicholson) at a friend's wedding and is immediately attracted to
him. Through her editor-friend Richard (Jeff Daniels), Rachel learns the
particulars about Mark: that he is a
To this end, the film is marvelously successful. Plot-oriented American
filmgoers may not be used to the sight of a film heroine learning to cook, to
care for her home, to rear her children, to relax with friends. Rachel herself
is constantly amazed at how happy she is, how content she is to do nothing more
than these (seemingly) little things. She must force herself to think about
returning to her writing career. Her bliss is short-lived, however, for she
soon learns of her husband's affair. This sends her packing, children in tow,
to her father's apartment in
The film is told basically from Rachel's point of view, and so very little is
learned about Mark. All the viewer sees of him is what Rachel sees, and perhaps
all that is really known of him is colored by Rachel's (or Ephron's)
viewpoint. Thus, one learns of Mark's affair only when Rachel does, and if one
may not be quite as shocked as she, one still feels her pain of betrayal.
Mark's explanation for his infidelity, if explanation there can be, is absent.
Yet Mark is not portrayed as a villain. A particularly delightful scene, for
example, shows Mark's genuine joy at learning that Rachel is pregnant. The two
of them sing every show tune they can think of with the word ``baby'' in it, and Mark's humorous rendition of the soliloquy from
CAROUSEL (``MY BOY BILL...'') is a genuinely touching segment. Yet if Mark's
treatment of Rachel seems harsh and his attitude inexplicable, his feelings may
not be so different than those of Rachel's father, Harry (Steven Hill): Harry
suggests that if Rachel wants revenge, she should leave the children with their
father. Harry, and possibly Mark, simply have no idea
how Rachel feels, how much her self-worth and identity are tied up with her
family, possibly with the idea of the family in general. She may have idealized
marriage and motherhood, but she also works at them; she could no sooner
abandon her family that her self. Perhaps the film is trying to say that,
whether culturally or biologically, in this respect women are different from
men. Such differences make marriage and family very difficult, and such a
realization makes the film very important.
By any objective standards, however, there are a number of weaknesses in
HEARTBURN. Early in the film, for example, there is a scene in which Rachel is
having second thoughts on her wedding day. As the guests gather and wait, Rachel
hides in her room, as one after another of the main characters try to calm her
down and reassure her. Director Mike Nichols crosscuts between Rachel and her
guests, who assume various poses of boredom and disarray to indicate the
passage of time. The problem with this scene is that it is clearly the kind of
thing that only happens in the movies (the sequence is not even in Ephron's novel)--in real life people simply do not hide in
their rooms on their wedding day while their guests interminable wait. While
realism is not necessarily a standard of value to apply to films, this
particular scene is so clearly phony, so clearly calculated to draw laughs,
that it detracts from the very real doubts of the characters and the insight of
the filmmakers. Another sequence of events which similarly smacks of filmdom
and not life revolves around the couple's efforts to renovate their high-priced
A somewhat more serious flaw lies precisely in the area of the film's themes.
The film suffers from a certain schizophrenia, an inability to decide what it
is trying to say, or at least on what, or whom, to place the blame for the
failure of Rachel's marriage. Primarily, the film is torn between showing the
relationship between Rachel and Mark, revealing Rachel's desires, hopes, and
dreams, and delivering a satirical look at upwardly mobile Washington, D.C.
Toward this latter end, the film unfavorably compares Washington to Manhattan
and concludes that, despite the crime, Manhattan is a more honest, real
environment. Rachel's shuttling back and forth between the two cities becomes
something of a recurring motif in the film, with the implication, perhaps, that
Washington life is simply wrong, that no marriage could survive in that
fishbowl atmosphere, in the gossip-ridden parties and get-togethers that
distinguish Rachel's marriage. This is where Betty comes in. It is a running
gag that every time she appears on-screen, she has more juicy bits of gossip to
relate to Rachel and her fiends, more stories of who is doing what to whom. One
hears more from Betty than from Mark, who is a political columnist--as if the
film were trying to say that gossip has replaced reporting in Washington, which
may or may not be true, but which surely cannot be blamed for the breakup of
Rachel's marriage.
The blame for the breakup of Rachel's marriage lies in her own fantasies, her
own inner voices which seem to be at variance with the contemporary, unromantic,
me-oriented, selfish society of the 1980's. This is where the film is at its
strongest, where it, in fact, contains its greatest insights, for the viewer
learns of Rachel's feelings toward marriage, of her love for Mark and her
overwhelming happiness when the marriage produces children. Her attitude toward
being a mother, her romanticization of the role
combined with her genuine feelings of fulfillment,
prevent her initially from seeing the reality of her situation, which is that
Mark's commitment to the marriage is fading. When she finally does make the
break permanently, taking her children on the shuttle from
In perfectly capturing the milieu of its characters and its evenhanded treatment
of all concerned, HEARTBURN is very much in keeping with the best films of its
director, Mike Nichols. Nichols has demonstrated his sensitivity to the way men
and women interact in all of his films: his stunning debut film, WHO'S AFRAID
OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966), followed by THE GRADUATE
(1967), CARNAL KNOWLEDGE (1971), and the controversial SILKWOOD (1983). It was
SILKWOOD that originally brought Meryl Streep, Mike Nichols, and Nora Ephron
together. The same careful attention that lent authenticity to SILKWOOD, which
depicted rural, working-class life, is present in HEARTBURN, which paints a
convincing portrait of successful urbanites who unsuccessfully marry. Yet on
this score, there is perhaps a certain hesitation on the filmmaker's part, for
in making a film so obviously close to home, they tend to hold back a little,
denying the full impact of their insight into the characters' Jewish
background. The ethnicity is there, alluded to and implied, but never really
allowed to surface. Nevertheless, this is a minor point compared to the
unhesitatingly bold look at the way women and men sometimes simply see things
differently, with unhappy but still comic results.
Country of Origin: USA
Release Date: 1986
Production Line:
Mike Nichols and Robert Greenhut; released by
Paramount Pictures
Director: Mike Nichols
Cinematographer: Nestor Almendros
File Editor: Sam O'Steen
Additional Credits:
PRODUCTION DESIGN - Tony Walton
ART DIRECTION - John Kasarda
SET DECORATION - Susan Bode
COSTUME DESIGN - Ann Roth
SOUND - James Sabat
MUSIC - Carly Simon
MPAA Rating: R
Run Time: 108 minutes
Cast:
Rachel - Meryl Streep
Mark - Jack Nicholson
Richard - Jeff Daniels
Vera - Maureen Stapleton
Julie - Stockard Channing
Arthur - Richard Masur
Betty - Catherine O'Hara
Harry - Steven Hill
Dmitri - Milos Forman
Review Sources:
American Film. X, July, 1986, p.81
Commonweal. CXIII, August 15, 1986, p.436
Films in Review. XXXVII, October, 1986, p.481
Ms. XV, August, 1986, p.12
National Review. XXXVIII, August 29, 1986, p.46
The New Republic. CXCV, July 28, 1986, p.26
The New York Times. CXXXV, July 25, 1986, p. C16
Named persons in Production Credits:
Mike Nichols
Robert Greenhut
Studios named in Production Credits:
Screenplay (Author):
Nora Ephron
Color
Video Available.
Genre:
Comedy, Drama
Return to Main Articles Menu Page or Return to Home