Rating: 
Summary: A journey of self-discovery and fulfillment
Review: Though HENRY AND JUNE is primarily thought of as an erotic tale, I view it as the journey of self-discovery, and quest for fulfillment, of the four main characters: Anais Nin and her husband Hugo Guiler; Henry Miller and his wife June. Since the setting of this journey is 1930s Paris it is only logical that it would occur within an erotic context, but I advise the viewer to look beyond the steamy scenes and to search out the underlying themes. After a few viewings of this movie, and readings of Anais Nin's diaries upon which this movie is based, what comes clear to me is that the characters are two halves of a whole person: 1) Anais Nin, the bored housewife who dreams of erotic adventure but feels trapped by, and is financially dependent upon, her husband; June Miller, the worldly woman who shifts between New York and Paris, has affairs with women, and occasionally works as a prostitute to support her husband. 2) Hugo Guiler (husband of Anais Nin), the workaholic banker who eventually comes to be financially responsible for all four protagonists; Henry Miller, the unemployed writer who has abdicated all conventional responsibilities and who is dependent upon the charity of his friends in order to survive. It's a highly unconventional story to say the least, but that's exactly what makes it so interesting. Watch it with an open mind and you will see that there is more to the story than just sex. You will see four people on a quest for fulfillment and self-discovery, doing so in the context of sexually liberated 1930s Paris.
Rating: 
Summary: Henry in Love w/ June, Anais, Paris, Henry.....
Review: Well the problem with this film is the source material and subject matter, Henry Miller is more a self celebrating clown than a great writer. Anais was perhaps the better writer and is still known for her literate blend of psychological nuance & erotica but the Henry/Anais/June love triangle has been a bit over celebrated, also you just can't help comparing this effort with Kaufmanns finer previous one. In his last movie Philip Kaufman chose a Milan Kundera novel, Kundera's a much better writer and Unbearable Lightness of Being is full of weightier themes. Henry and June, and Anais seem like trifling bohemes next to that magnificent trio of Franz, Sabina and Tereza. Still Kaufman proves he is adept at recreating interesting historical context whether it be 1960's Prague or 1930's Paris. Both films are favorites of mine but they are in such different categories. Unbearable Lightness of Being is in the classic category, and Henry and June is not. Maybe what is a little confusing about Henry and June is that we are asked to accept that this love triangle is important because it was the psychological substratum that shaped Henry the writer, but its only important if you accept the assumption(apparently held by Kaufman) that Henry's writing is important. A lot of people like Henry, I've read half a dozen of his books and enjoyed them but he's kind of the writing equivalent of a snake oil salesman. He's a bit of a con artist. And what he's selling is Henry Miller, each book is a new version of himself, no one has ever written so many words about themself, only Anais comes close in her diaries. If they had both become great writers or even significant ones the movie would make more sense. As it is the film excuses a lot of selfish action and self-centeredness and all in the cause of mediocre art. Still the film is fun as a celebration of bohemian Paris and all the festive and furtive rites and rituals that made up an atmosphere in which artistic values were cultivated. Kaufman may have done better to choose a greater artist.
Rating:
Summary: Henry in Love w/ June, Anais, Paris, Henry.....
Review: Well the problem with this film is the source material and subject matter, Henry Miller is more a self celebrating clown than a great writer. Anais was perhaps the better writer and is still known for her literate blend of psychological nuance & erotica but the Henry/Anais/June love triangle has been a bit over celebrated, also you just can't help comparing this effort with Kaufmanns finer previous one. In his last movie Philip Kaufman chose a Milan Kundera novel, Kundera's a much better writer and Unbearable Lightness of Being is full of weightier themes. Henry and June, and Anais seem like trifling bohemes next to that magnificent trio of Franz, Sabina and Tereza. Still Kaufman proves he is adept at recreating interesting historical context whether it be 1960's Prague or 1930's Paris. Both films are favorites of mine but they are in such different categories. Unbearable Lightness of Being is in the classic category, and Henry and June is not. Maybe what is a little confusing about Henry and June is that we are asked to accept that this love triangle is important because it was the psychological substratum that shaped Henry the writer, but its only important if you accept the assumption(apparently held by Kaufman) that Henry's writing is important. A lot of people like Henry, I've read half a dozen of his books and enjoyed them but he's kind of the writing equivalent of a snake oil salesman. He's a bit of a con artist. And what he's selling is Henry Miller, each book is a new version of himself, no one has ever written so many words about themself, only Anais comes close in her diaries. If they had both become great writers or even significant ones the movie would make more sense. As it is the film excuses a lot of selfish action and self-centeredness and all in the cause of mediocre art. Still the film is fun as a celebration of bohemian Paris and all the festive and furtive rites and rituals that made up an atmosphere in which artistic values were cultivated. Kaufman may have done better to choose a greater artist.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful erotic film..
Review: When I was in my mid-thirties, I read every book Anais Nin and Collette wrote and enjoyed them immensely. They were sophisticated women who led lives decidedly different and more daring than my careful existence, and writers who told the world about their affairs. Today, their writing may seem tame, (Colette wrote "Gigi") but it was shocking a few years ago. Nin's diaries are still pretty steamy. The film, based on Nin's diaries, recalls the period when Anais (Anna eess') and her husband lived in Paris and became acquainted with Henry Miller and his wife June. Henry Miller may seem retro today, but there was a time when his steamy "Tropic of Cancer" was 'Banned in Boston' (according to my mother who had a copy hidden where my father wouldn't look). Miler was writing "The Tropic of Cancer" when he knew Nin. I saw "Henry and June" in the theater several years ago and bought the DVD. This is a very well done film--and very beautiful--Paris in 1931. (I keep it stashed with "Sex, Lies, and Videotapes" which is tame by comparison.) I also wanted the film because Kevin Spacey is in it. Maria de Mederios plays Nin to perfection. Richard Grant plays her husband who seems willing to go along with anything that will improve her writing. Fred Ward and Uma Thurman play Henry and June. Thurman's acting is better in this movie than in "Pulp Fiction." Spacey plays a writer who is part of the writer's network, and has some funny scenes. The movie has a lot of sex on screen. There is so much sex I found myself laughing after awhile. The characters seem to live for the erotic. I say "seem to" because it is never clear to me how much of their behavior is driven by erotic desire and how much is driven by a desire to run back and write it down in their diaries and books. The story definitely contains a 'tongue-in-cheek' element. Nin revealed the story to the world after all the characters were dead, so we'll never know how much was fact and how much fiction.
| 
