Far From Heaven

Rating:
Summary: Smoke & Mirrors Come Oscar Time
Review: 4 Oscar nominations and the talented Julianne Moore made me think this was going to be a great drama. I went into this film knowing nothing about the story. Moore has had a few memorable performances on film recently ("The Hours", "Magnolia"), but for the most part her film credits over the past decade have been forgetable ("Evolution", "Hannibal", "The Big Lebowski", "The Shipping News", "The Lost World", etc). Dennis Quaid has had minimal success as a major motion picture star - most recently (2002) with "The Rookie", but before that it was hit and miss with flashes of only minor success ("Dragonheart", "Enemy Mine", "Great Balls Of Fire", "Innerspace", "Frequency", etc). "Far From Heaven" finds Moore and Quaid as the happy Whitaker couple in suburban 1950's Connecticut. He is the top sales exec, she is the happy house wife who cares for their disciplined children. They host parties and as far as the neighbors know - everything is peaches and cream at the Whitaker's house. The 50's decor is outstanding - from the houses and buildings, to the clothes of the era, to the cars they drove - you truly believe you are transported back to that time in America. The film is rich in color - from the autumn leaves on all the trees, to the nicely painted houses and interior rooms, to the sweaters the ladies worn to their tea parties. As for the film... it's a drama, and a slow moving drama at that. Two heavy issues are brought about in this film. One with Frank Whitaker's secret homosexual relationships at his work place and when he's on vacation. And two, the budding relationship between Moore and the family's black handyman Raymond Deagan, played by "24" president Dennis Haysbert. At the time, both issues were considered taboo. This film just did NOT grab me. It was slow from start to finish. I kept waiting for dramatic brilliance and never got it. Quaid's acting was stiff... I swear I saw the cue-card guys standing in the background in two scenes. Moore was OK, but she was always speaking in the same tone... whether entertaining guests, discovering her husbands dark secret, being slapped in the face, feeling uncomfortable in a black restaurant - she never got excited about anything. 4 Oscars nominations.... where? I will give credit to guys behind the camera, but that's it. A "compelling and passionate film" - gimme a break. Severely disappointed in most everything about this film. (...)

Rating:
Summary: lush homage to female-centered 50s melodramas
Review: Todd Haynes (Safe, Velvet Goldmine) directs a talented cast in his subversive homage to a genre of 1950s films (primarily those by Douglas Sirk) that featured mature women in socially painful situations.

Julianne Moore plays Cathy Whitaker, a homemaker with a seemingly perfect life -- successful businessman husband, 2 kids, great house, hired help, coterie of friends, etc. But all that begins to unravel as 1957 approaches and Cathy discovers that her husband (Dennis Quaid) has a secret that could destroy the life they've built together. When she turns to her black landscaper (Dennis Haysbert) for friendship and comfort, she finds her acquaintances and neighbors are not very enlightened about race relations. Like the films to which it pays tribute, Far From Heaven presents an idyllic setting populated by people making big choices at dramatic moments, living lives in stark contrast to their surroundings. The couple's children are invisible and easily disposed of -- "Watch the children, would you, Sybill?" -- in an era pined for by particular conservatives but remembered by many of us as a time of genteel sordidness and ugly hypocrisy, when race, gender, sexuality, legitimacy, income, career, kith, kin and company neatly boxed off your expected behavior, some were far more equal than others, and tolerance was not listed in anyone's book of virtues.

This is a quiet film about appearances, restraint and social pressure. On first viewing it, I enjoyed it but didn't think it was brilliant, though I loved the over-the-top look of the film, so to me it succeeded more as an homage than as a film in its own right. And committed tribute it is -- with the look, the sets, the shots, the plot, the music, that never veer from their inspiration. I did come to appreciate the film more on watching the accompanying features and listening to the director's commentary.

Sets and costumes are sumptuous and the lighting is quite dramatic, darker than West Wing with pools of emerald and cobalt lights saturating nearly every interior shot. It's jarring to watch the making-of feature and see that these scenes were filmed in normal light during the day. Most of the exteriors were shot in gorgeous New Jersey locations. NB: note the films being played at the local theatre at different points in the film.

DVD extras include a commentary track by Haynes, a Q&A with Haynes and Julianne Moore (who was pregnant during shooting), a trailer, brief production notes, cast & director info, an 11-1/2 minute making-of feature, and the Sundance Channel's Anatomy of a Scene which featured the Whitaker's party scene, a social climax marked by confrontational undercurrents. The film can be heard in English or French, and subtitles are available in English, French or Spanish.

This would be a lovely double feature with All that Heaven Allows or Magnificent Obsession.

Rating:
Summary: Barriers that Imprison the Heart
Review: Much has been said about the plot of Far From Heaven - so much, in fact, that anyone casually reading the reviews would know more than they ever needed to know about the storyline. That said, I want to talk about the real "guts" of this film, which has to do with more than its breathtakingly lush production and the truly immortal performance by Julianne Moore.

Every great actress has a career-defining role. Joan Crawford had Mildred Pierce. Jessica Lange had Frances. Nicole Kidman had Moulin Rouge. And now Julianne Moore has her unforgettable performance - in Far From Heaven. Obviously, all these performances have something in common...the brilliant, lyrical mastery and poetic imagery they brought to their roles. Moore truly transcends her written character, making Cathy Whitaker very much a real, yet larger-than-life and somehow ideal, creature.

The film's main message is not a confrontation of '50s artifice with brutal emotional reality. Nor is it a tribute or satire of the "women's picture" or weeper. It simply uses the forgotten, yet essential, genre of melodrama to move an audience. Melodrama has rarely been better than it is here...because it is combined with a powerful message.

Not everyone has found the message. You have to dig for it. Love is our only happiness, and yet society has imposed barriers that separate us from the people we love. In the 1950s, one of the barriers was between interracial couples. Another was between people of the same sex. The great tragedy was these people could not realize their love for each other and be together in the society of the times (hence, the film's quote, "What imprisons desires of the heart?").

By contrasting these two barriers, the film not only exposes the barriers that kept us from love and happines in the past, but also shows how far our society still has to go. With gay rights and marriage on the horizon, few films were more relevant - and historically intelligent - than Far From Heaven. The film was the great, often misunderstood, masterpiece of 2002.

Rating:
Summary: All That Magnificent Imitation of Written on the Wind Allows
Review: In the 1950s, Universal International produced a series of highly successful, glossy, melodramatic films directed by German-born Douglas Sirk. Lushly produced, these films breathed new life into the careers of aging glamour queens and presented some pretty serious social issues to audiences, under the guise of "entertainment." "All That Heaven Allows" dealt with an older woman/younger man relationship and the malicious gossip it bred. "Written on the Wind" dealt with irresponsibility, alcoholism, impotence, sibling hatred, and their destructive effects, and "Imitation of Life" dealt with the "race" issue and troubled parent/child relationships. Subversive in retrospect, these films proved themselves to be more than just "glossy trash." They entertained you. In fact, they sometimes made you weep.
Having read the rave reviews of Todd Haynes' "Far From Heaven" and the obvious comparison to the Sirk melodramas, I was anxious to see the film. "Far From Heaven", in my opinion, isn't a "bad" film, but it's really not "great" either. In fact, I found it to be somewhat flat, uninvolving, and downright gutless. Director Haynes certainly did his homework on the overall "look" of Sirk's films, such as the lush Technicolor photography, handsome production design, costumes, and schmaltzy Elmer Bernstein score, but the film is essentially cold and bloodless. Set in ultra-WASPy Connecticut in the 1950s, "Perfect Wife" Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore, wearing a truly terrible wig), bringing some dinner to hubby Frank, played by Dennis Quaid (he's working late at the office), discovers him in a passionate embrace with another man. Her reaction? She turns on her heels and leaves, somewhat zombified, and proceeds through the film like Donna Reed on Miltowns (1950s tranquilizers). She talks to her black gardener Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert), and they become friends. Shocking stuff for 1950s Connecticut. The gossip circulates, Raymond's young daughter is harassed and assaulted by bratty white boys, Cathy and Frank eventually separate (no, he isn't "cured", and ends up with a MUCH younger man, excuse me, more like a boy), and Cathy and Raymond's friendship comes to an end, too. It seems that Raymond's friendship with Cathy has caused him to be shunned by the other black citizens, and he and his daughter relocate to Baltimore. End of film. Now this would sound like a dramatic and moving story, right? Under Haynes' direction, it becomes a plodding, lackluster cartoon. The performers are certainly competent, but given their inane dialogue (it's too flat and banal to be even slyly satirical) and seemingly nonexistent direction, they really don't elicit much from the viewer, except maybe a desire to kick them. Julianne Moore is a good actress, but in this film, she doesn't act merely "naive", she's downright goofy! I don't think that any woman, no matter how "sheltered", would be that passive and complacent, unless she were brain damaged. Dennis Quaid's chickenhawk soon-to-be-ex-husband doesn't really elicit too much sympathy, either. (Are we supposed to feel "big things" for these Ward and June Cleaver paper dolls?) I think the main problem with "Far From Heaven" lies in its too self-conscious "craftiness" to be emotionally involving, more concerned with appearances (which, I suppose, is true to the characters), but it doesn't really scratch beneath the shiny linoleum kitchen floor surface to reveal the dirt underneath. Haynes' direction timidly approaches these "taboo" subjects, then cautiously steps back again, creating barely a ruffle in its cinematic crinoline skirt. At least in Sirk's films there was SOME confrontation! Recreating the look of a 1950s "women's picture" is a fun exercise. Drawing an audience in and moving them (isn't that what "drama" is?) is a much more difficult task, and this film never quite hits the mark. Essentially, "Far From Heaven" is a pretty-looking, rather forgettable film that's all dressed up with no place to go.

Rating:
Summary: Nuanced performances reflect a complex time
Review: I've never been disappointed by a Julianne Moore performance, but I have also never been as impressed as I was with her performance in "Far From Heaven." For this film, she turns in a remarkably restrained and subtle piece of acting, one that puts me in mind of Emma Thompson's excellent work in "The Remains of the Day."

Moore plays homemaker Cathy Whitaker, mother to 2 children and wife to Frank Whitaker (played by Dennis Quaid). The setting is the 1950's in Connecticut. Racial tensions are an undercurrent to the entire film, but the main subject is Cathy herself, and how she deals with growing difficulties both in her marriage and outside of it.

Prevalent in the film, almost a character in itself, is the sense of the 1950's. As the film begins, the Whitakers have an almost idyllic quality, like the Cleavers from "Leave it to Beaver." As the story goes on, though, the perfect facade begins to crumble, and we see some very real problems under the surface. It is done skillfully, and seems to be indicative of the '50's in general, this sense of a perfect mask, hiding any number of problems.

Another excellent performance is found in Dennis Haysbert, as Raymond Deagan, the Whitakers' African-American gardener. As Cathy struggles with the difficulties in her marriage and in her life, she develops a bond with Raymond, a bond which makes things tragically worse for her in the racially-restrictive atmosphere of the 1950's.

The way the story progresses makes it clear that Cathy is not a racist, but her circumstances force her into considering racial motivations for some of her decisions later in the film. The real tragedy in "Far From Heaven" is actually the tragedy of America in the 1950's -- there were many who realized that racial equality was important, but the society at large made it almost impossible for them to act on their beliefs.

Perhaps my only complaint of the film is that it tries to do a little bit too much. The story of Cathy and her internal conflicts would have been good enough, but late in the film other conflicts are introduced for Raymond and for Frank which do more to distract from Cathy's story than adding to it. It's not out of the realm of possibility for these conflicts to happen, but it's definitely a stretch, and it is at these points when the film loses a bit of focus.

Nevertheless, "Far From Heaven" is a film filled with wonderfully subtle performances, and expresses the feel of America in the 1950's very well. Fifties America was a lovely shell of peace and prosperity, but unfortunately that shell was fragile, and masked a multitude of sins and conflicts for those who lived through them. "Far From Heaven" portrays both the shell and the conflicts beneath it almost perfectly, and reveals a great deal about the time. It is a film, and a subject, worthy of attention.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent picture Close to Heaven
Review: Julianne Moore does a wonderful job, as doess Dennis Quaid. Quite possibly Dennis delivers his best performance. Filmed and executed entirely like a period film which is interesting. The plot is unusual, and things are hinted at, implied. It's a fresh film experience from today's bare all, show all films. Nice.

Rating:
Summary: The third star and the film's "look" work for me!
Review: After all this time, I finally saw the Oscar-nominated film. While stars Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid were good in their respective roles, I was more impressed by the quiet performance from the always-dependable Dennis Haysbert. While his restraint was a little too much to be believed, considering what he and his daughter went through, I can still say that his was the role that should have been rewarded with an Oscar nod. His character was truly the most sympathetic of the trio. The movie had great costuming and an attention to set detail that made one think that the 50's had returned. The locations and vintage automobiles, along with Elmer Bernstein's appropriate scoring, added to my enjoyment of the film.

Rating:
Summary: Tripe sundae!
Review: The superlative reviews of this film should have been my first clue that it wasn't any good. But, hoping for the best, I went to the theater and saw it anyway. I hated it. I have never been so anxious for a movie to end, as I felt like I was being coated by icky-sweet but fake chocolate the entire time. I tried viewing it again, and, I hated it even more the second time, and I hated myself for again exposing myself to this parade of costumes and authentic vintage set design. There is no artistry in this film, no empathy, just an abundance of concern for recreating the "look" of those famous fifties melodramas. This it accomplishes. Whoop-de-doo. What worked in the context of those times does not work now. If that is enough for you, you may enjoy this film. But, I found it phony...phony....PHONY. Maybe it would have worked as a skit on "Saturday Night Live", but, in attempting to be a film to be taken seriously, it is only insultingly patronizing. The dated, but bold for its time (1982) "Making Love" is a masterpiece of realism compared to this. There is more reality watching Susan Hayward in her fabulous dress stumble over a twig in "Backstreet", then in this entire film. In the words of the two little old ladies who were exiting the theater the same time as I was...."That sucked!" A totally missed opportunity to tell an interesting, tragic story which, all to often, actually occurred. Just another example of hype and style over substance. A stinkeroo......

Rating:
Summary: Like Watching an Overwatered Plant.
Review: Having read about the hype and closed my eyes to the plot spoilers I finally got a chance to sit in front of this glorified movie only to be left feeling cheated afterwards. Forget about the spoilers, the film does not have any or much of plot which can be explained in as few words as - repressed homosexual family man (Denis Quaid virtually playing a depressed Harrison Ford!) causes problems in the home which eventually lead to his wife (Julianne Moore) seeking an intimate relationship with her negro gardener in a very talkative and conservative 1950s.

What a bore it eventually turns out to be. Do not get me wrong, if you liked films like "Road to Perdition" which dish out sentimentality for starters, main course and dessert then this film will be the meal of your day. The only thing that saves this movie is the performances of the cast but aside from this it stinks to high heaven. Even the 50s credits and overall feel does not save it from being dull, uneventful and sometimes completely motionless. At its core this is a lifeless film with its few moments that work wonders, but these rare situations begin with a hit, hit, hit only to become of domino effect of miss, miss, miss and miss again.

There is so much wasted in this movie. For instance there is a wonderful scene where Quaid goes to visit a psychiatrist to help him with his problems, an unbelievably fascinating scene.... but that is the last you see of that again.

You will probably be suckered into this movie by hearing that it is a tribute to the 50s movie era. Wrong - if this film was made in the 50s it may have got some acclaim, standing behind the ranks of movies like "To Kill a Mockingbird", but its tribute values fly out the door when the film just seems to hang in parts like a painting that has just tilted to one side. There is very little here worth a damn except for the performances but even Moore, acting her brainless characters heart out, can not stop this viewer from smashing onto the ground face first from the couch. It could have been a contender but...(yawn)..... (zzzz)... and this is coming from someone who watches Tarkovsky.

Far from good.

Rating:
Summary: A Movie About Foliage
Review: I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. The reviews were ecstatic, the reviewers were all swooning about how wonderful it was, a tribute to Douglas Sirk, blah, blah. I'm a big fan of Julianne Moore, so I figured that if she was in it, she could redeem any flaws it might have.

WRONG!! I hated this movie. Everything about it was so, so wrong. First of all, the director was so enraptured with the autumnal coloring that he couldn't refrain from filming every single outdoor scene through a screen of autumn leaves. OK, it was pretty the first 20 times, but it just got *really* boring after awhile.

Cinematography does not a movie make, not if it has so many other flaws. If you want to see a tribute to Douglas Sirk, just watch a Douglas Sirk movie, or anything in color from the late 50s. Yes, the colors were yummy. But that's not sufficient reason in itself to attempt to resurrent an entire genre.

Then we have the whole "irony" issue. This movie is mocking the 1950s by giving it an underhanded "tribute". As some others have posted here, enough with the 50s-bashing. Yes, we know that there was a lot of corruption beneath the veneer of perfection, but not everyone was as entirely naive to buy completely and utterly into it all. People went about their lives and enjoyed what was good about the 1950s. The 1950s were not entirely evil, even if you were poor or black or poor and black. Some things were better back then: a less hectic lifestyle, more family-oriented, less crime. There was less consumerism, and a much less relentless onslaught by the media, despite the myth of a bland American consumer naively believing all the advertising hype. Contemporary people smugly believe themselves to be more discerning, but our cynicism doesn't stop us from being equally programmed to be consumers as were our parents or grandparents. At least *they* had the recent memories of hardship in the Depression and WWII to remind them that affluence is fleeting.

Julianne Moore plays her charater as nearly mentally retarded in her naiveté. It was over-the-top, and an insult to such an intelligent actress. The director and writer didn't allow her to portray a multilayered person who had something else beneath the vapid and clueless surface.

The relationship with the gardener was so implausible as to be comical. I won't even bother to reiterate all the details, and why they don't work, since it's been stated here mutliple times. Suffice it to say that writing the gardener's character as so improbable is more of a racist insult to blacks than all the actual racism portrayed in the movie.