The Substance of Fire

The Main reason to see the film version of "The Substance Of Fire" is Ron Rifkin's splendid performance. He reprises the role he created on stage with great aplomb.It is however,one of the few reasons to see this film.The plot has been drastically altered from the original play,even adding major characters that did not exist in the original.The basic story remains, a Jewish Publisher and his slow decent into dementia brought on through his loss of control of the company to his son. But there it ends. The messages in this film are very clear,but the execution,direction and scripting destroy the impact of the original play.

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.

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.

This film is an excellent substitute. I cannot believe someone would post that the "öld guy should be put in an asylum"....obviously they have never had a family member with a serious illness; Ron Rifkin is very good as Isaac, the publisher being driven out of business by mass market mega-bookstores; He primarily publishes Holocaust and historical books of value; not paperback trash. Other films have addressed this issue, but not in detail, and with sensitivity.

Timothy Hutton, Sarah Jessica Parker and Tony Goldwyn play the children, who are each affected differently by the father's illness; Timothy Hutton is excellent as the younger son, whose father doesn't approve of his teaching profession. Sarah Jessica Parker, while not my favorite, is believable as the young daughter who has a flighty career as a children's show host. Tony Goldwyn is very good as the oldest; the son with a head for business, who is constantly at odds with his father (Rifkin).

I will not divulge the story, but suffice it to say that the dialogue is well-written, the story is not sugar-coated, and there is an excellent score by Joseph Vitarelli, which makes the audience feel touched by the story.

I wish films like this were more highly publicized than trash for cash Bruce Willis or Schwarzenegger movies.This film gives the audience credit for intelligence; and it makes me believe that there actually are talented filmmakers not just after the bottom dollar.