Far From Heaven

Rating:
Summary: This Movie is a Modern-Day Classic
Review: I saw Far From Heaven in the theatres and was blown away by how magnificant this film is. It is filmed in 1950's melodrama style, and wow! What attention to detail! It deals with subject matter that was considered taboo back in 50's and the subject matter is presented quite tastefully. I would classify it as a chick flick and one of the best ones of 2002, I might add.

Rating:
Summary: Drama with style
Review: "Far From Heaven" is a surprisingly original form of drama. It tells the story of family secrets, acceptance and love stylistically wrapped up in the techniques of 1950's films.

The story on its own would be enough to make this a wonderful film, but in telling the story of a family in the 1950s at a confusing time (The husband realizes he is gay, and the wife seeks comfort from her black gardener), it captures the essence of older films to help display the older views on homosexuality and interracial relationships. Every detail of this film is like it's counterparts in 1950's melodrama. The old fashioned acting styles are note perfect for both Julienne Moore and Dennis Quaid, the music is wonderfully recreated, the set designs constructed in the same fashion, even the opening title sequence and end credits look authentic. But most importantly, it all worked perfectly with the story.

Lovers of 1950's melodrama will eat this film up, and anyone who can appreciate the guts and talent it took to recreate it so authentically will find much to love. But the story is strong enough on its own to not even need it. Sometimes we forget how harsh mainstream America's views were on some subjects. Sure widespread views homosexuality are still not yet where they should be, but racism and interracial relationships are leagues ahead of where they were 50 years ago.

It's too bad this film wasn't nominated for best picture rather then the enjoyable but greatly flawed Gangs of New York. It would have rounded out a bunch of great films well worthy of their nominations.

Rating:
Summary: The Subtly Subversive Todd Haynes?
Review: This movie is a subtle camp exercise of a nostalgic 50s (wasn't this nostalgia thing over and done with two decades ago?) of "perfect" (but not too bright) housewives and their "perfect" families that go "perfectly" awry. We come to see, arduously, their "perfect" lives as being based on nothing more than lies; thus, they inhabit "perfect" cages in which all vulgarity, originality, and spontaneity are banished. And yet this knowledge ennobles them, elevates them above their restrictive, petty bourgeois surroundings, etc. The highly controlled, stylized Julianne Moore seems to be channeling Joan Crawford and Lana Turner. This movie has its poignant moments, but, with its stylized sets and costumes, its obvious topicality, and its central heroine heaving and sighing in deep frustration, it also seems a camp parody of serious "issue" movies of the past, except now everything's spelled out and the audience doesn't have to guess why everyone's getting all upset. Todd Haynes must be giggling at all the soporofic seriousness devoted to this movie, although I will never understand why the good old repressive 1950s of Doris Day and Rock Hudson movies appear to hold such a pull on white gay men of a certain age--do they feel some ambivalence about being out of the closet? I get the feeling they liked it better when they could sneak around and live lives of inner torture and illicit sex. The thrill is gone when everyone knows about it, I guess. The only person who comes through in this movie is Dennis Quaid. His tortured bitchiness cuts through all the 50s blandness; Moore embodies this blandness, even if (Quel scandale!) she lusts after black men.

Rating:
Summary: Filming: Gorgeous, Music: Beautiful, Story: Well.......
Review: that's another story. The scenery, the sets, costumes, were among the most beautiful I have ever seen in a film. The music was exquisite in some places and you knew you were seeing nothing less than filmmaking at its finest. But the story was an effort (once again) to slam the 1950's by supposedly showing how narrow minded and vapid the people were.

Yes, I know that there were problems inherent in those years. And I am quite certain that the premise of the film, a beautiful woman married to a homosexual man, is one that played out in the 1950's, and before that for that matter. And it is obviously possible for a white lady to turn to a black man for comfort as she did. The supreme injustices that racial minorities were subject to should have been the "message centerpiece" of this film, for there can be no argument that some human beings were treated atrociously during that period of time. But there was so much more that could have been said...So many characters that could have been developed and fleshed out in a better way. In fact, had they tried a little harder, they could have made more than a trendy, revisionist, retro-politically correct film.

Having said that, go and get the movie and revel in the scenery, music, and mood that whisks you back to a better place in time.
I liked it, yes. But I am afraid it was for all the wrong reasons.

Rating:
Summary: Superbly acted and directed look at 1950s America
Review: "Far From Heaven', Todd Haynes' homage to the grand screen melodramas of the 1950s, is the most elegant American movie of 2002. It also has one great performance by an actress in Julianne Moore's portrayal of Cathy Whitaker. I found the film mesmerizing, as well as meaningful. Though the story is easy to follow, it will prove too studied and 'old fashioned' for many viewers. I suppose that to appreciate it fully, one must love movies. A knowledge of history is also helpful, as the film presumes that the audience is knowledgeable of the way society in America was in 1957.

Kathy and her husband, Frank [Dennis Quaid], live in a lovely New Haven, CT suburb. They are a popular couple with two young children. Frank is a successful executive at a TV manufacturing company, while Kathy is active in charity work and in local arts groups. They are representative of the burgeoning middle class which sprung up after WWII. Still painfully aware of that dreadful conflict and blessed with a multitude of technological advances, the American people were consumed with creating a bright, beautiful, almost utopian world for themselves and their children. But life, of course, doesn't operate in a vacuum, nor does emotion. Desire and change have lives of their own. Underneath Frank and Kathy's perfectionist existence lies the truth about themselves and the world. Slowly but surely, reality wrecks their shimmering, idealistic construction.

The cinematography by Edward Lachman is gorgeous, and the set designs by Ellen Christiansen are about as close to the look of 1950s suburbia as you will ever see onscreen. Greatly enhancing the movie is the evocative music by Elmer Bernstein, whose first film score was written in 1951.

Highly recommended for those who like their movies to actually be about something of worth.

Rating:
Summary: It's Been Done
Review: The problem with this movie, like so many other Hollywood movies these days, is that instead of attempting to imitate life, it attempts to create a perception of life, in this case, as it existed in 1950's America. A fictional account of fiction, as it were. It is therefore robbed of any potential statement it may have had to make about its subjects--homosexuality, racism, and to a lesser degree, alcoholism--because nothing in it really resembles the way life was in this time and this place.

The first perception is that 1950's suburban America was a dreamland--a heaven--of dreamy, lush landscapes; beautiful, large homes; colorful, brightly painted automobiles; and perfectly coifed hair and clothing. Every camera angle is shot at eye level, so there are lavish, abundant, autumnal colors in every shot. A gentle sun shines. Flower petals cover the sidewalks and lawns. A regular paradise. But is this to be believed? Was upper-middle class life in the fifties really this opulent? Uhhh, no. Of course not. What the filmmakers have created is a fantasy land, and one which we realize almost immediately they are going to attack.

The second perception is that everybody in the United States at this time was an unabashed racist. But this, we know, is not true either. The film very carefully shows us how upset the neighbors of Ms. Moore's character are at her relationship with the black gardener. But the reality is, most Americans in her social class--particularly in the north-east--were much more progressive. With few exceptions, they would have at the very least given lip service to black equality--if perhaps they did not act on it--but they would never have openly spoken against it. To do so would be to risk being socially ostracized; to be known as a bigot, or, God forbid, a Goldwater Republican. It just didn't happen this way.

And then there is the Moore character's relationship with the gardener. She goes with him one afternoon to a mostly segregated cocktail lounge, has a drink with him, and dances with him. This is shown so that we can see what effect this is going to have on her backward neighbors. But this is also not reality. She is a socially prominent housewife in an affluent suburb. There is no way she would go anywhere with her gardener--be he black, Hispanic, Japanese, or even white--because not only is he someone who is so obviously beneath her class, but also because of the potential appearance of infidelity. The film blithely glosses over this, as it so desperately needs a foil to show how restrictive society was. But it's a pretty heavy-handed point if you have to resort to these tactics to make it.

The homosexual angle is handled a little better because, after all, society in the fifties truly attempted to suppress any desire for or even thought of it. But the movie stumbles here also because it really doesn't know what it wants to say. Yes, we see Mr. Husband ask his wife for a divorce so that he can be with Mr. Boyfriend. But is this the "heaven," that the movie purports to show the fifties as being so far from? With a broken family left behind? With a smirking boyfriend who may or may not really like him? In a tawdry-looking hotel with a neat scotch in his hand? Of course, moral ambiguity is often a desirable trait in film or fiction, but as this movie so obviously has an agenda, is it not fair to ask, what is the point?

As to be expected in a film like this--in which the actors are asked to play caricatures instead of real human beings--the acting is horrible. Ms. Moore is a one-dimensional Barbie doll, smiling chirpily and clueless, just as the filmmakers would like you to believe a fifties' mother was. Mr. Quaid's performance is also stale, as it must be; first he's the businessman Dad, then the anguished homosexual. It is done by the numbers, with no freshness or originality. None of the others are worth mentioning.

Perhaps what is most irritating about this film is that it pretends that it is showing us something that we haven't, perhaps, considered before. Are they serious? Racism in America? The suppression of homosexuality? The stifling effect of suburbia? These themes have been aired out zillions of times, in fact, to a large degree, in the fifties themselves. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, To Kill a Mockingbird, Raisin in the Sun, The Lost Weekend, Days of Wine and Roses, Rebel Without a Cause; do I really have to go on?

This is not a serious movie. It is a silly movie. It is a silly movie made ... with only a rudimentary and superficial understanding of our complex society and the spiritual, economic, social and historic forces which shaped it. As its title suggests, it was apparently made for anybody ... to believe that America in the fifties was actually like heaven. If anybody in the world is truly that ..., then this movie will almost certainly appeal to them.

Rating:
Summary: Far from the Fifties
Review: I have to ask: was Julianne Moore's acting in this film acclaimed because she was judged to have so accurately portrayed a fifties suburban housewife, or was it because she put such yeoman effort into such a ridiculously stereotyped role? Apparently, the movie's creators used old sitcoms for guidance in drawing Moore's character. They have her clomping around her home in pumps and dressy, crinolined frocks, fluttering about as spacily as Lucy Ricardo--when the dialogue proves her to otherwise be intelligent, socially conscious, and forward thinking. The creators obviously did no homework concerning racial relations or homosexuality either. Are we to believe that in the fifties a white woman couldn't carry on a conversation or ride in a pickup truck with her black gardener without an entire community assuming they were having an affair? Given the taboos of the times, people would have been more likely to think anything but that! And oh-so-proper Moore would have been the last person her acquaintances would suspect of scandalous behavior. On the other hand, the movie's treatment of attitudes toward homosexuality suffers from a present viewpoint being imposed on the past. The characters appear much less shocked and dismayed by the idea of same-sex conduct than by that of interracial sexuality, a notion that is simply out of kilter with the times! The script dutifully attempts to convey the decade's condemnation in presenting various exhibitions of shame and confusion, but then the love that dares not speak its name abruptly finds a voice--a lilting one at that! This would have been a great movie had it drawn believable characters and dealt realistically with the subjects at hand. The relationship depicted between Moore and Dennis Haysbert is utterly charming, and viewers can easily maintain sympathy and interest in their plight. One could be mightily tempted to block out the other action and just watch them!

Rating:
Summary: Everything that Was Left Out of 1950's Melodramas
Review: Julianne Moore stars as Cathy Whitaker, an affluent housewife leading a seemingly idyllic life in suburban Connecticut in the 1950's. Her charmed life is shattered when she learns that her husband (Dennis Quaid) is homosexual. She takes comfort in a friendship with her Black gardener (Dennis Haysbert), only to find that her affection for him endangers both of their families. "Far From Heaven" is Cathy's gradual discovery that real ugliness, cruelty and hypocrisy lie beneath the surface of her heavenly world.

Written and directed by Todd Haynes, "Far From Heaven" both emulates and scrutinizes 1950's America with its stylized environments, vivid colors, and well-manicured everyone and everything. The first thing the viewer notices about this film is certainly its astonishingly vivid colors. I don't think I've ever seen such colors in a movie before. They are more saturated than Technicolor. Still photographers will recognize Far From Heaven's hues as looking a lot like Fujichrome Velvia, but of course it couldn't be as that is not a movie film. I am not normally a fan of super-saturated colors, but it is so striking and unusual to see in a modern film that I thoroughly enjoyed looking at this movie. Its Oscar nomination for cinematography is well-deserved. Moving past appearances, Far From Heaven closely resembles a 1950's melodrama in its exploration of the trials and tribulations of the most perfect suburban housewife that the world has ever known. What separates it from the melodramas of the past that it emulates so precisely is that Far From Heaven's housewife is dealing with life-changing problems that could not be spoken of in suburban 1950's America or in the films of the time. And the fact that they could not be publicly discussed in that society is precisely what makes these issues into problems. The issues in question are: homosexuality, racial hypocrisy, and women circumscribed by double standards. We see the consequences of these social taboos so clearly because Cathy Whitaker really is the self-sacrificing, beautiful and perfect housewife of legend. Her appearance genuinely reflects her character, and so she suffers the hypocrisies of her society when unspeakable realities invade her life. The performances in Far From Heaven are fantastic. I cannot praise Julianne Moore enough. Cathy Whitaker could easily come across as being a cartoonish or satirical character, but Julianne Moore makes her completely sincere and sympathetic. Dennis Quaid is wonderful as Frank Whitaker, torn between his own needs and those of his family. Dennis Haybert is perfection as Cathy's gardener and friend Raymond Deagon. Patricia Clarkson is also admirable in a small role as Cathy's best friend, Eleanor.

See this film for great performances, peceptive writing and extraordinary looks! It's one of the year's best! --This text refers to the VHS Tape edition

Rating:
Summary: Well Acted, But A Soap Opera All The Same
Review: "Far From Heaven" is a well acted, reasonably well done, trashy, soap opera of a movie in which all of the principal characters have serious problems. The main issues are racial prejudice, sexual preference prejudice (homosexuality), marital infidelity and a little girl that is struck by a rock. The affected characters cry, are anguished, bravely face the future and walk slowly. Julianne Moore's considerable acting talent is wasted here, but it is the only reason for seeing the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful stunning film
Review: This movie with very powerfull shocking contest that absolutely brilliant and goes into the heart of the pretty looking but rotten american suburbia......with unspoken secrets and lies...
Fabulous acting and visually photography is so talented. Must see it even it is so sad... It is about beautiful friendship between man and woman and horrid relationship between husband and wife which looks so perfect........on surface which is an american superficial ideal. Just hited the target!