Far From Heaven

Rating:
Summary: Great Photography and Acting, Predictable Plot
Review: I really enjoyed this movie however I cannot give it 5 stars because despite beautiful photography and solid performances the movie often seemed trite and formulaic due to its rather predictable plot. I don't want to spoil it so I am not going to mention any details. Let's just say the plot development and the quality of the dialog leave much to be desired.

Rating:
Summary: A Stunning Work of Art
Review: "Far From Heaven" is Tod Haynes' masterpiece, a deeply moving and textured period piece that resonates with prescence and authenticity. Set in 1950's Connecticut, its suburban mix of domestic bliss and martini-swilling liberalism both engulfs and betrays the main characters - the luminous housewife Cathy and her conflcited husband Frank. Their story, which begins in what many will know as domestic heaven is swept away by events beyond their control, and as both couple and individuals, the characters are reinvented before our eyes. Human "beingness" = the frailties that we all confront, the demons we all at some point face down crashes head first into the social order of the day - the condescension towards "negros", the perfectly manicured lawns and society funtions. The effect is almost spiritual and familiar at once, as the audience tries to cope with the realities of plot and setting and the unexpected sensation of really UNDERSTANDING these characters.

Tod Haynes has created a multi-layered work of art that deserves to be seen by any adult who relishes superb filmmaking and simply put, flawless acting. Julianne Moore is breathtakingly beautiful in a surreal role that asks her to be vulnerable, angry and honest beyond imagination, often all at once. Her Cathy is a domestic goddess of another era, confronting situations and ideas that have never even occurred to her, much less happened. Moore's capacity to act with simple grace and moral authority makes Cathy deeply human, fallen and far from innocent. Dennis Haysbert as the family gardner, with whom Cathy explores her own lifeview and inner resolve, is superb - a yong Morgan Freeman, with deep pools for eyes and a heart that seems to lift off his chest. And Dennis Quaid gives perhaps the performance of the year as the troubled Frank, the salesman-poster-boy who has it all and then throws it all away so that he, too, may be fully alive. Quaid speaks volumes with casual glances and toss-away remarks in whatever role he finds himself -as father, husband, corporate citizen and lover. Quaid and Moore deserve Oscars for giving the performances of their careers, and Haysbert's star is certain to rise. Their work - along with Patricia Clarkson - ought to be celebrated and studied for years to come.

"Far From Heaven" is a five-star profound film that dares to plumb the human condition and address important themes (universal and commonplace even fifty years later) we can all relate to. It's easily one of the year's finest films and a sure Oscar contender in myriad categories.

Rating:
Summary: Maybe They SHOULD Make 'em They Way They Used To-Again
Review: I am astonished at how good "Far From Heaven" is in all categories: screenplay, direction, themes, acting, locations, and design. It's just triumphant in all respects, especially considering it's a genre that Hollywood seems to have lost the blueprints for in the early sixties, back when anything unconventional became the norm to explore and movies about domestic travail of the bourgeoisie were DONE, already.

Although not a direct replica, the director modeled his overall style after the idiosyncratic 1950s film director Douglas Sirk, who was known for domestic melodrama such as "All that Heaven Allows" and "Written on the Wind." (Notice similarity between name of first film and this one.) Fortunately for us, citizens as well as moviegoers here in the 2000s are freer to examine topics that could only be alluded to 45 years ago: homosexuality and racial interraction.

How long has it been since a TV show or movie came along set in the Fifties that was sincere about itself? "Happy Days" was an amusingly exaggerated notion of the Fifties, nothing more. "Pleasantville" was an excellent movie with a serious social topic (racism), but at heart its gimmick was camp science fiction, the notion that Nineties kids have to be sucked into an old Fifties sitcom to make sense of their lives.

Indeed, since the mid-1970s an easy way to get laughs is to rip off the Eisenhower decade through simple parody, as when Beaver shoots Eddie Haskell on a late-night parody of "Leave it to Beaver", or the lazy rage for mock-retro TV advertisements.

But after beating up the Fifties for 25 years, the Fifties have turned tail and beat ME up. Excellent "Far from Heaven," set in Hartford, Connecticut in 1957, came along and hit me in the head like a tennis mallet. Dennis Quaid stretches himself to the max as a midlevel TV company sales exec who is drifting farther and farther away from his family because of work commitments but mostly from his growing attraction toward sex--the same sex. He tries to quell his guilt with alternate bouts of rage and alcohol then makes things worse when he goes into therapy with the most modern kind of psychiatrist of the day, a strict conversion-oriented Freudian. Nothing could be worse.

At home, the amazing, versatile Julianna Moore plays the wife. In good Fifties housewife style, her character tries for, and succeeds at, the difficult balancing act of making the house look as though it were running itself, while at the same time hosting daiquri-driven "puncheons" for her friends and no-holds-barred parties for Hartford's upper-middle-class, even at the same time holding up the social scene and the arts. Like the graceful swan, she must look stately above water while paddling like hell underneath to keep afloat, but we can't condemn her because her motives are well-meaning, not hypocritical. She knows perfectly well these fatuous social gestures complement and keep afloat her husband's career at TV-manufacturer "Magnatech."

Alcohol, money worries, stress, and even her husband's ambivalent sexuality are not the lady's immediate worries: her chief antagonist is the set she runs with. Free spirits are slaughtered; conformits stay alive. That much we all know about the Fifties, but HOW that occurs and the WAY in which its citizens were so damaged is fascinating, especially with such terrific direction, acting, and a good taut script. Turns out that her husband's gayness (a very non-Fifties term) throws the family into crisis, but her having a friendly relationship with an African-American gardener throws the smart set into a frenzy. So much for Yankee tolerance. Ironically, all this is played out against President Eisenhower's attempt to desegregate the public schools of Little Rock, Arkansas. Wonder which is worse: mean and forthright or mean and genteel?

Only people "of a certain age" will remember this time and milieu well, but those who have affirm that this superb film's rendering of a bygone era is scrupulous. This writer--a real meanie when it comes to looking for anachronisms and continuity error--was informed of one by a friend: a container of nutmeg had a plastic top. Shhhh! I myself am puzzled about how some of the vaster effects were obtained. A 1950s passenger train with coaches that wouldn't have survived Amtrak? Oh, one or two from a museum, but a whole train?

Not just material things, but things visual: how on earth did "Far from Heaven" cough up a tracking shot that covers an entire town? Oh, a neighborhood is easy enough, but a whole town? (Several Jersey suburbs lent their exteriors to this production). Entire fleets of vintage cars? Much skill, craft and inspiration must have gone into this movie--and a lotta dough. My thanks go to Steven Soderberg and George Clooney, executive producers. Your courage won't be forgotten.

Unless you'd absolutely despise a serious movie set in the year 1957 with blazingly brilliant fall color and top-notch acting, I'd more than highly recommend "Far from Heaven." In my opinion it's one of 2002's very best.

PS: In a superlative year, it's a pity this film had to be overlooked in the wake of other such superlative films as CHICAGO. An embarrasment of riches! But what few Oscar noms. it garnered, I'm more than happy to support.

Rating:
Summary: Truly a masterpiece, as entertaining as it is intelligent.
Review: I was quite surprised after seeing "Far From Heaven", and then reading some of the tepid-to-terrible audience reviews on this web page.

I only went to see this film based on my experience with another Todd Haynes film, the powerful "Safe". My trip to see "Heaven" was strictly a time-out diversion from the holiday season, and I only expected it to be reasonably enjoyable. I ended up being totally blown away, have seen it twice since, and everyone I've sent to see it (mostly acting and theatre devotees) has had a similar reaction.

It IS a peculiar film, in that the genre is so much like stepping through a time warp back into the 1950's. The look, the style of acting, the photography, EVERYTHING seems meticulously like a movie actually made in the mid-fiftes. However, underneath all the Technicolor glitz are tortured dilemmas that past film-makers could only hint at. In fact, that seems to be a fascinating theme throughout Haynes' films, beginning with a college film about singer Karen Carpenter told through (of all things!) Barbie dolls. The writer-director bores through a seemingly perfect surface appearence to reveal the pain and emotion never glimpsed by the outside world.

Haynes, as he did in "Safe", once again makes masterful use of quite possibly the best actress of our generation. As protagonist Cathy, Julianne Moore does more with a tiny bit of energy and concentration than anyone chewing up and spitting out the scenery. No one elicits more empathy from an audience. In "Heaven" she's challenged to walk a tightrope between placidity and melodrama. One teeter in either direction could have sent the movie into a dangerous imbalance, but Moore walks straight down the middle. If "Heaven" doesn't get her an Oscar nomination, something is very, very wrong.

Equally strong (and startling) is Dennis Quaid as Cathy's husband, Frank. His depiction of a bisexual husband is eye-opening, tragic, and tortured. In fact, the whole picture painted of how homosexuality was viewed in that time period is chilling and scary, and that's coming to you from a gay man. Although I consider him a good actor, this is a performance I would never have expected out of Quaid. Certainly assured a lot of recognition for best supporting actor in 2002.

See it, buy it, rent it, whatever . . . but see it!

Rating:
Summary: Wish I was a little older to appreciate this more
Review: Considering I was born in 76, I really didn't see any of what happens in this movie around me. It was hard to relate to what was going on. But I still think it was an important movie to go see since I managed to learn a bit about life in the 50's in this country.

However, rather than disect the interracial-relationships or homosexuality issues this film focuses on as taboo for the time it takes places in, I'll focus on something I'm more familiar with, the quality of production.

Acting was fabulous. Truly wonderful on both parts of Quaid and Moore. Supporting cast was also fabulous. I had to admit to getting sucked into it all. Asking questions about where it was going to go, how were these relationships going to play out. It was very intersting to watch the realistic reactions of others (neighbors, friends) who witnessed what was taking place.

The attention to detail of that time period was more than evident across the board and well thought out. Subtle touches in production design and costume design were spot on. Wonderful.

I really do urge many of you who were around during the 50s to go see this. It's a wonderful film and I learned a considerable amount from viewing it.

Rating:
Summary: Melodrama is alive and well in Todd Haynes hands
Review: First, this is a melodrama, and if you hate melodrama, you will hate this film. Not that many are made these days, and they are not for everyone. FAR FROM HEAVEN is pretty explicitly based on the films of Douglas Sirk, and if you hated WRITTEN ON THE WIND and IMITATION OF LIFE and ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS, you will definitely hate this. But if you like Douglas Sirk, you will love this. And yes, it is a straightforward copy of Sirk. In interviews Todd Haynes and others working on the film straightforwardly acknowledge this. Moreover, some of the background film footage for some of the scenes shot from inside cars was the exact same footage as was used in some Sirk films. And the black gardener, portrayed by Dennis Haysbert, was pretty transparently based on the Rock Hudson character in ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS.

Spoiler ahead: What I have not seen mentioned is that some of the key plot elements seem borrowed from David Lean's great romantic film BRIEF ENCOUNTER. In that film, a man and woman married to others meet, become friends, fall in love, and yet do not consumate their love. Likewise, in this film. Furthermore, their final encounter is at a train station. FAR FROM HEAVEN is far too carefully made for this to be merely accidental.

In what way does FAR FROM HEAVEN differ from a Douglas Sirk film? Sirk would never have dealt with interracial love in the way that he does. In IMITATION OF LIFE, he does have a light-skinned female character who passes for white, only to be brought tragically down to earth when she fails. And there is a consciousness in many of Sirk's films about race. The way this new film differs is in bringing a deep attraction between a black man and a white woman in the 1950s to the forefront. Also, issues of homosexuality are never addressed in Sirk. Some have claimed that it was by the casting of Rock Hudson in several of his films, but it seems artificial to me to graft on what we learned twenty-five years later about Rock Hudson's sexuality. In a way, FAR FROM HEAVEN is an attempt to do a Douglas Sirk film dealing primarily with issues that were far too taboo in the 1950s for Sirk to even bring up.

Two things stand out in FAR FROM HEAVEN: the performances and the art and set design. Julianne Moore is being touted in some quarters as the probable Oscar winner for her performance. She is an outstanding actress, and she really shines in this film. I have never seen Dennis Quaid better than in this film. It is not a congenial role, but he does a great job of portraying a man who is utterly conflicted by his own sexuality, and the near impossibility of even finding conceptual categories for it in his age. Instead of being "gay," he "has a problem." Dennis Haysbert does a find job in a role that was not terribly well written. In the hands of a lesser performer, his role could have been insufferable. As far as the appearance of the film goes, the designers clearly were trying to make this film as beautiful looking as possible. They succeeded magnificently. In part this is clearly in an attempt to provide ironic contrast with the far-from-beautiful relationships at the heart of the film. But also, you get the feeling that they merely delighted in producing a film that presented the most complete presentation of an idealized 1950s community. In this they succeeded.

I don't recommend this for all, or even most, film goers. Not everyone will enjoy a good melodrama. But for those who do, this film is arguably the finest example of the genre in a couple of decades.

Rating:
Summary: "Far From Heaven" is far from good
Review: Julianne Moore is a wonderful actress. It's a shame this melodrama is such a predictable bore. I know they were trying to invoke those cheesy 1950s films by Douglas Sirk, from plotlines to color palette, but this film is a snore. There wasn't a single character I cared what happened to. The only person even remotely sympathetic is the black gardener played by Dennis Haysbert, but he isn't given much to do aside from play a 1950s-style "strong silent stoic Negro."

Rating:
Summary: poor. poorpoorpoor.
Review: I honestly do not see anything remotely likeable about this movie. I thought maybe it would've worked as a satire, but it didn't try for that approach at all--this film actually took it's pathetic self seriously. I guess the acting was good, but the dialogue--my GOD. I cringe at the thought that people actually had to sit down and WRITE this. Visually, it was well done, but pretty much everything about this movie was cliche and horrible. The scenes that were supposed to be dramatic left me wanting to laugh out loud or put on my headphones so I wouldn't have to listen anymore. I wished I had a flask with me for most of the film. And could they have beaten me over the head with the themes just a LITTLE bit more? Let's see; homosexuality, racism, women's rights--don't get me wrong, I love a good social commentary, if it's done right. Some people seem to think that the portrayal of the husband's homosexuality was vivid. I think it was about as sparse and underdeveloped as could be. We saw him at the doctor once, and we saw him get angry a few times, and then we saw him saying he wanted a divorce. Yep, that's it. And the race issue was just the most hackneyed and cliche thing I've ever seen. The scene outside Raymond's house near the end was Horrendous. HORRENDOUS. Never have I seen such uninteresting and uninspired dialogue. For the love of God, do not see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: The Stepford Wife in Connecticut
Review: Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) is an affluent wife of an executive who cannot be truthful to her because he is unable to be honest with himself. Frank (Dennis Quaid) has issues with his sexuality that are worsened considerably by an out of control drinking problem. The man leads his life in a reckless manner as if he wants to get into trouble. The couple, along with their two young children, live in Hartford, Connecticut in the late 1950s. Their social milieu might be open to modern art, but race and homosexuality are topics best ignored. Even a casual conversation between a man of color and a white woman is sufficient to encourage considerable gossip. Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) is a well educated black man unable to find employment equal to his formal educational level. He takes over his late father's gardening business and one of his clients is the Whitaker family. Cathy's marriage is disintegrating and Raymond does not hesitate to offer an arm to lean on. He is a man of quiet dignity relegated to a second class status by the dominant white establishment. The latter do not commit violent acts against the blacks living in their city. There are even bars for gay men that are tolerated if they remain hidden from public view. Still, gay pride and political activism are most certainly not viable options. Minority citizens, however defined, are expected to know their place and abide by behavioral codes that are both tacitly and explicitly restrictive.

The whole film revolves around Cathy who readily reminds one of a Stepford wife. She patiently endures abuse and presents an inauthentic plastic persona to the outside world. Cathy has no life other than being an eager to please wife who causes no problems. This woman seems unable to take a minute out of her busy day to spend on herself. There is only one thing that can be said about Cathy's friends: with friends like these folks, who needs enemies? She is far too nice and passive. The feminist revolution is a few years away, and Cathy is definitely not a pioneer ahead of the curve. We almost cease feeling sorry for her and have to fight the urge to get angry at Cathy's punching bag mentality. Julianne Moore may very well win an Academy Award. This might be her best work. Todd Haynes has directed a five star movie. I also strongly recommend Gregory Peck's 1947 "Gentleman's Agreement" that dealt with how the Connecticut upper crust power structure discriminated against Jews.

Rating:
Summary: Like the best old movie you've never seen before.
Review: Days after seeing this, I find myself still saying things like "My stars, Debbie! Don't you look fetching!" and "Goodness!" The reason for it, strangely, is the delight I felt about this movie, which is not supposed to be set in the actual 1957 or a parody of 1957. This movie is supposed to evoke the feel of those cheesy Douglas Sirk too-perfect Technicolor melodramas for the time by standing alongside them, looking like them and treating its subjects in the manner that those movies did. It is, as best it can be, a fun old movie (that just happens to have been made today).

It's almost impossible to describe to people who aren't familiar with Douglas Sirk. (Even if someone's seen "Imitation of Life," they don't necessarily associate Sirk with it.) The movie's like an episode of "Leave it to Beaver," only Ward's fighting his attraction to guys and June's main confidante is her black male gardener. They try to maintain their idyllic appearance in the society, though the issues that they can't completely comprehend nor put into words are tearing apart their world.

This was everything I wanted "Pleasantville" to be. But it's better than that because it represents its '50s movie culture subject without making fun of it, just going along with the joke completely straight-faced. At the same time, it manages to say more about the issues it faces by placing them in that environment, forcing its characters to confront things that are completely alien to them.

I don't know if a lot of people are going to get this movie, and I fear that it's going to face a backlash. I overheard someone on the way out of the theater calling it "too stylized." To me, though, the style was, yes, campy but apt. The acting was across-the-board excellent. The movie was important, beautiful and fun.

This is the best film of 2002.