I would like to applaud the person who wrote the summary for Indignation since it peaked my curiosity and got me to watch the film. However, after the end credits rolled I went back and reread it only to feel somewhat shortchanged. Here it is:"In 1951, Marcus, a working-class Jewish student from New Jersey, attends a small Ohio college, where he struggles with sexual repression and cultural disaffection, amid the ongoing Korean War."Let's begin with the sexual repression angle. There is almost none. The greatest form of repression comes from within the main character, Marcus. He is sexually inexperienced and therefore doesn't know how to deal with the forward ways of a fellow classmate named Olivia. That's all it is. Nobody tells him he can't go on dates. Even his parents encourage him to do so, albeit in a smothering sort of way. He is later told that he can no longer see Olivia but not because of "you are jewish she isn't" or "not before you are married" arguments. The reason is laughable but we'll get back to that in a moment. The only possible manifestation of sexual repression that could occur but doesn't is regarding the theatrical roommate who is referred to as "queer" although this is never confirmed since he is after all only a secondary character and we need time for...Cultural disaffection? Where? The exchange with the college dean? It takes up a great big chunk of screen time only to go in circles, never land any lasting point of contention on Marcus's behalf and ends with what I considered to be a joke. How about the atheist amongst jews and christians aspect? Nope, that's never tackled either. In fact, Marcus even goes and joins the jewish fraternity, a lazy plot device to get him kicked out of college later.As for the Korean War, it might be the most important part of the narrative but in a roundabout sort of way the likes I have never seen before. Crudely summed up it goes something like this: Young men die in the war; Marcus's father is upset by this and at his son's departure for college; Marcus's father become erratic and temperamental (this is delivered to us secondhand so we don't even feel invested in this part of the story); Marcus's mother wants to divorce him; she agrees not to BUT, and this is where we enter soap opera territory, only if Marcus stops seeing Olivia because she cut her wrist; Olivia leaves suddenly; Marcus is in distress over this and drops the F bomb in front of the dean; Marcus doesn't attend a mandatory chapel session once and gets kicked out of college; he goes to war and dies. Still with me? If these events seem like they don't connect naturally to one another it's because they don't. The Korean war is used as a means to an end rather than as having any meaningful impact on the characters throughout the film.For the entire duration of my viewing I was waiting desperately for it to pick up a proper pace, to deal with something more than just the outré reaction of getting a bj on a first date in a car but, sadly, it it never delivered. I will give it this: the title is apt though not for the movie itself but rather for the lingering sensation one gets as the screen fades to black.

I've never read any Philip Roth, but if this film is any indicator, his work may be difficult to translate to the screen. The drama in this film is very introverted. It deals with a Jewish teenager (Logan Lerman) from New Jersey who attends a liberal arts college in Ohio, becomes infatuated with a fellow student (Sarah Gadon), and finds himself beset by the various social pressures that might affect someone in his position. Some scenes work very well (an argument between Lerman and his dean, played by playwright Tracy Letts, is proof that a verbal argument can be every bit as tense as a shootout), but on the whole, the film has a staid, overly formal quality to it.Some of that is the dialogue. I'm guessing much of it is taken intact from the novel, because it sounds too "written" when said aloud. I understand that these characters are smart, well-spoken people, but even so, there are some scenes where it feels as if we are listening to the screenwriter rather than the characters. The direction, too, has a very restrained quality, as first-time writer-director James Schamus shoots some of the dialogue in static medium shots that few contemporary directors would use. One one hand, I admire him for not falling prey to the quick-cutting style that so many modern films employ. At the same time, this film feels a little cold.The actors, for their part, do well. Logan Lerman, who was excellent in "Noah", proves yet again that he is capable of conveying just as much through facial expressions and reaction shots as through speech. Some of the supporting actors don't fare as well. Perhaps that could be the writing.I can't really give this film a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down. If you are a fan of Roth's or find the idea of Jewish-born sexually active atheist railing against a society that teaches him that he should repress his true feelings, then check this film out. It's sad, contemplative, and, in its own understated way, beautiful.

all good the ending complete garbage OK they want more its crap its so dark and it,.... this move is so bad so bad and so bad so i will keep on and on till i get to five lines there are some movies who doesn't deserve five lines i wonder nobody comments anymore or bothers i just look up the basics of movie wikipedia has better ..ok got my five lines

I had no idea what the actual premise for this film was, but I did think it would be a period melodrama that could also prove to be overly sentimental and a little sappy. However, it really surprised me in what it actually turned out to be. It's a coming-of-age take that is different from most that we get. It's very dialogue-driven and that dialogue is just a joy to listen to. The film takes a deep look into the characters' psychologies and doesn't resort to the usual dramatics that films of this type usually do. Logan Lerman is an incredibly talented actor and he once again shows his skill here. A mature and very detailed performance.