The Substance of Fire

"The Substance of Fire" is a slice of life film which tells of a small time New York Jewish holocaust-survivor book publishing purist and authoritarian patriarch to his adult children; two sons, one daughter. The slice has to do with the slow disintegration of his family owned publishing business and his mental health in the wake of his wife's death, financial woes over his inability to adapt to market demands, and his advancing age.

The film sports a solid cast and excellent performances, especially by Rifkin, and is artistically and technically good. However, when all is said and done, the viewer may wonder why they bothered watching as the story just begins and ends with no apparent reason being; no moral, no message, no lessons, not compelling or thought provoking and difficult with which to empathize. Likely to be of most interest to those who like "all in the family" relationship films.

I saw this movie just recently and was certainly disappointed ... not that I was expecting a masterpiece either but it was sooooooo long and uninteresting I nearly fell asleep at the 2/3's point ...

A whole lot of pointless dialogues going round and round ... discussions about some old book that we don't care for anyway ... annoying characters on the screen (like the author of that Holocaust book that made me cringe 10 times at least during the movie wishing he would shut up and stop whining about everything from the coffee he was drinking to the editors he was meeting) ...

The stubborn old man in the lead was also quite boring (not too mention hard headed) and then last part of the movie where he finally goes off his rockers (big surprise, pretty clear from the get go this guy has serious "issues" !) for good is really bad ... lots of scenes that made me think "oh, come on" and wish I could slap the old dude back into reality at once... or maybe send him to an asylum ...

I couldn't wait for this "thing" to end ... 1.5/5

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.

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 have to admit, I once began watching this and didn't get very far. But I tried again and found it very interesting - more interesting, at least, than the other poster. I thought Ronny Graham was hilarious as the elderly, cantankerous author. In fact, there was more humor in the movie than I imagined. Tony Goldwyn and Sarah Jessica Parker could easily pass as siblings, and the children of Ron Rifkin, but Tim Hutton didn't seem to belong to the same family. The most interesting thing to me, and perhaps a reason to watch it, was the brief scene of Goldwyn and Gil Bellows (as his boyfriend) dancing together.