'Indignation' is uneven but star Logan Lerman is a go-getter

'Indignation,' which is an adaptation of the Philip Roth novel of the same name, has an overly cautious tone, but Lerman's presence alone can make his scenes propulsive and Tracy Letts is marvelous.

Alison Cohen Rosa/Roadside Attractions
Sarah Gadon and Logan Lerman star in the film ‘Indignation.’

With the exception of Saul Bellow, Philip Roth is probably the major postwar American novelist least well served in the movies. In Bellow’s case, he’s hardly been served at all – a 1986 television adaptation of “Seize the Day” is just about it. 

In Roth’s case, there have been several middling efforts, beginning with “Goodbye, Columbus,” which is considerably dated, and others, such as “Portnoy’s Complaint,” which are better not mentioned. “The Human Stain,” starring Anthony Hopkins as a professor hiding his African-American origins, had its moments, and “The Humbling,” which is much funnier than the novel, had a bravura comic performance from Al Pacino. 

As is also true to an even greater extent with Bellow’s, Roth’s novels tend to be ruminative; much of the action takes place inside the characters’ heads. “Indignation,” the uneven debut directorial effort by James Schamus, who also wrote the screenplay, is based on a 2008 Roth novel that is more narrative driven than some of his others, making it potentially more adaptable for the screen. It actually has a plot.

Beginning in 1951, at a time when American boys were being drafted into the Korean War, the film is about Marcus Messner (Logan Lerman), who works in his overbearing father’s kosher butcher shop in Newark, N.J. A scholarship to a college in small-town Ohio allows Marcus to escape both the draft and his father. (The college is called Winesburg, a nod to Sherwood Anderson’s linked, melancholy short story collection “Winesburg, Ohio.”) As one of only a handful of Jews in the college, Marcus finds himself both liberated and alienated. He declines to join the school’s Jewish fraternity and professes his atheism. A blond WASP co-ed, Olivia Hutton (Sarah Gadon), is attracted to Marcus’s defiant intensity and proves to be far more sexually experienced than he. Olivia’s attentions are flattering, befuddling, and, ultimately, disturbing. She is both ardent and unbalanced, and their up-and-down infatuation is the core of the film’s woe.

Lerman is a go-getter actor playing a go-getter character. His presence alone can make his scenes propulsive. Marcus’s scenes with Olivia click because Gadon knows how to insinuate her way into Ler-man’s staccato rhythms. It’s an edgy yin-yang partnership. But the best scene in the movie is the extended confrontation between Marcus and the college’s righteous Dean Caudwell (a marvelous Tracy Letts), a smiling cobra who holds a grudging respect for Marcus’s insubordinations even as he aims to quell them. Marcus strongly disapproves of the college’s mandatory chapel attendance, and, in his meeting with Caudwell, attempts to defend atheism by citing the writings of Bertrand Russell. But Caudwell, no hayseed, knows Russell’s works. The back and forth in this jagged scene, which encompasses much more than religion, is like a Socratic dialogue retooled by David Mamet. 

Schamus, who has a long partnership with Ang Lee as Lee’s screenwriter on many films and also headed, for a time, the estimable Focus Features, has a rather workmanlike approach to directing. For a movie featuring so much emotional discord, “Indignation” has an overly cautious tone: It could have been made in 1951. I realize that this effect is largely intentional, but that doesn’t altogether excuse it. Schamus wants the heat to arise from the story, not the stylistics. Good thing he cast his film so well. Grade: B (Rated R for sexual content and some language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.