What's new

*** Official "FAR FROM HEAVEN" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I saw Far From Heaven last weekend, but I've been too busy to write a review. Moore, Quaid and Haysbert are extraordinary -- all three deserve Oscar nominations -- and Patricia Clarkson has a wickedly good time playing Moore's best friend. The movie is gorgeous to look at, and the Elmer Bernstein score suits the "period" feel without sounding entirely retro.
It's very easy to laugh at many things in the movie that feel out of date (the audience I saw it with couldn't restrain themselves). But by stylizing this lost 50s world with a style of movie-making that feels equally antique, Haynes somehow manages to bring it back to life. The movie is a time capsule, but it's one that pulses with barely-contained emotional turmoil. A lot of contemporary viewers won't get this film; a lot of them won't believe that there was ever a world like the one it portrays; a lot of them won't understand how the characters could behave the way they do. Those who either remember the period or are willing to surrender themselves to Haynes' re-creation, will be amply rewarded.
M.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
I was beginning to wonder if anyone else had seen Far From Heaven. It's an amazing film, and from the sound of Michael's report, I should be glad I didn't see it with an audience that got caught up on the retro qualities.

I think it's absolutely perfect and certainly one of the year's best. A couple of other fellow critics I talked to afterward felt the same way, but one seemed to miss the point completely, complaining that Haynes must have watched too many sitcoms, that she lived at that time and that it wasn't that way. Not enough time to go into much detail right now, but push Far From Heaven to the top of your must-see list.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Michael:

We came out of the film, and this particular critic was griping about how the kids said "mother" and "father" with such obvious overstatement, that kids didn't really talk that way then. I was floored that she had seen the movie and that this was what provoked a response. I wasn't around in those times, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge. I took the heightened speech--the heightened everything--to be the reality of the time as presented in popular culture rather than a true representation of the time. (Everything I've read about the film would lead me to believe the same thing.) I was disappointed someone was caught up on something like that when the film was flat-out great.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I took the heightened speech--the heightened everything--to be the reality of the time as presented in popular culture rather than a true representation of the time.
I think it's both. All narratives present a stylized, "concentrated" form of reality. Haynes just chose to stylize this story in a way that hasn't been seen in over 40 years. Maybe kids of the time didn't say "mother" or "father" with such emphasis, but their attitude toward these twin authority figures was a lot different than what you see today. The society presented in the film is rigorously structured, and everyone is supposed to know their place. All of the film's "exaggerations" are intended to show you the rigid social, gender and racial divisions of the period -- and what happens when people don't respect them. Watching the film is a bit like visiting a museum exhibit on 50s suburban life -- except that the figures in this exhibit periodically reach across the dividers and insist that "attention must be paid".

M.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
I agree with everything you've said. Far From Heaven doesn't work without the conceit of being a Sirk-like film. It's a real mindbender to watch at times because it really feels like an older film that no one knew had ever been made. I also appreciated that it isn't played for kitsch value.
 

Kirk Tsai

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 1, 2000
Messages
1,424
Coming from someone who hasn't watched any of Sirk's films, and only a handful of 50s' dramas, I think too much emphasis has been put on the fact that Far From Heaven is a retro-50s/Sirk film. Why do I say this? Because it works standing alone. If we can watch The Crucible and attempt to relate to the times and culture of those days, Far From Heaven is closer, especially since the views on interracial and changing homosexuality still exist today. Therefore, the emphasis on enjoying this film as a stylistic excercise or homage to 50s drama might be misleading; or, it could limit its audience by scaring someone like myself who is not terribly famaliar with the Sirk cannon.

The film is obviously beautifully shot, well scored, as well as featuring top notch performances (especially for Moore), but I think everytime a period piece comes up, we can look at it as a social commentary on our own times. It is, afer all, our present views that shape our vision of the past. The conditions the Witikers live in is not so much different from today's suburbia. Much of the suburbs is class segragated, and therefore in our culture racially segragated. Notice how the characters in the films tend to not oppose equal rights, but outspoken against the integration of races. Of course, there are those who argue strongly that homosexuality can be changed today, too. Far From Heaven might not be commenting on our times directly, but like the study of deviance in sociology, it points to what we think of as the norm of today. The 50s was far from heaven, but so is today.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
I found Far From Heaven to be a good film with very good performances especially by Julianne Moore. However, it appears that the film is getting recognized more for its technical achievements than anything else.
Money can buy just about anything these days including pristine decorated sets, nice costumes, the best lighting, exceptional period details, beautiful cinematography, a commanding musical score and other production values guaranteed to give the right feel and mood for the film. All of these elements are present in Far From Heaven. But without a strong story to support it, all of these elements become just eye candy.
The stylistic conventions that Todd Haynes use is majestic but the film, for me, did not have the emotional impact as it should have. I very much wanted to like this beyond its technical merits. But with its genre being the domestic melodrama, hyper real settings and 1950’s period, Todd Haynes doesn’t really cover any new ground here that other films in this period haven’t already done so.
Far From Heaven has a lot going for it that come Oscar time, the Academy might even nominate it for Best Picture as this is more or less a reminder of a traditional Hollywood film. But as the title suggests it is far from heaven.
(out of four).
~Edwin
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,608
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Far From Heaven". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Far From Heaven" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy
 

ThomasC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
6,526
Real Name
Thomas
I agree, Edwin. I thought everything looked great and the performances were fabulous, but I left the theater trying to figure out what the story was. Am I alone in thinking that Bernstein's score was too much at times? I'm guessing it was an homage to the scores of the 50s, am I right?
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
Am I alone in thinking that Bernstein's score was too much at times? I'm guessing it was an homage to the scores of the 50s, am I right?
I did not find the orchestration too much as I was fully aware what the filmmakers were trying to emulate. It was definitely an homage to the score that accompanied the films released in the 1950's especially those of Douglas Sirk.

Like you, I'm surprised there are not more comments about this film around here. With only 284 theaters playing it, the film has not reached a wide release. It also needs to build a good word of mouth to generate some Oscar buzz at this point.

~Edwin
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Re: Far From Heaven. If you receive the Sundance Channel, look for a new installment of their "Anatomy of a Scene" series that covers the party scene and the conversation immediately following between Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid. Very interesting commentary from the director, actors, costume and production designers, cinematographer and editor on how the scenes were conceived and realized.
M.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Coming from someone who hasn't watched any of Sirk's films, and only a handful of 50s' dramas, I think too much emphasis has been put on the fact that Far From Heaven is a retro-50s/Sirk film. Why do I say this? Because it works standing alone.
It certainly does, but I think you're doing yourself a disservice by not approaching this film also from the perspective of one well-versed in Sirk. And I don't just mean "All that Heaven Allows", but the entirety of Sirk's oeuvre with a special emphasis on "Imitation of Life".

But I agree that one of the aspects I found so extraordinary about the film is how well it worked as a stand-alone drama, in and of itself and without reference to anything outside itself, but I think the film is given even greater depth in how well it works as a re-construction of Sirk. And not simply Sirk's films, but behind the scenes of Sirk's films and behind the veil of 50's-era acceptability in the sly manner in which it acknowledges yet another layer of meaning, in hindsight, that modern audiences ascribe to Sirk's films - specifically, Rock Hudson's homosexuality.

But it isn't just Sirkian tropes that Haynes plays with, but also other elements of circa-50's culture. Even very obvious visual allusions, which might have seemed too heavy-handed in a lesser context, reverberate in a deeply sympathetic tone. The visual rhyme as Cathy (Julianne Moore) and Raymond (Dennis Haysbert) stand before the red and black figures in a painting at a modern art showing prepares us to start drawing allusions... and then Raymond's daughter enters the gallery, dressed exactly like the little girl in Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With", replete with pigtails and white dress and the sad realization of her possible fate slowly settles all around us (indeed, we have already heard a radio broadcast alluding to Little Rock just a little while earlier, not to mention a snippet of conversation that cites Gov. Faubus). It's not simply Sirk that Haynes is channeling and reconstructing... it's all our notions and impressions and totemic images of that period.

Quite simply, the film is a cineaste's orgy that also works as a self-contained story... and it's also the best movie I've seen this year, thusfar.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
But it isn't just Sirkian tropes that Haynes plays with, but also other elements of circa-50's culture.
True. Now who was it that said that this is one of the best film about the 1950’s that was not made in the 1950’s?

However, the notions, impressions and totemic images you talk about remain firmly grounded in the 1950’s mindset giving a rather false impression in the way a key character in the film was handled. To a certain extent, why did the filmmakers treat Frank’s homosexuality as one of physical attraction and need rather than an honest emotional state of substance? There is even a shot of his partner in bed while Frank was on the phone with Cathy, making his “condition” or relationship with this other person rather shallow and undermines the character.

Why is it that Cathy’s emotional state of being able to care and finding love with a black man (which is taboo at that time) carries more weight but the same feelings of a man for another man (another taboo) is treated as inconsequential?

To the bitter end, the homosexual element of the story is treated as one of perception unable to get past the physical attraction even when the story has already shifted to Frank’s point of view far removed from that of society’s as experienced by Cathy with her friends and other moms.

To this point I am still trying to find some connection to Cathy’s emotional plight when essentially, the same type of emotional plight of Frank was handled rather carelessly, insignificant and without merit.

~Edwin
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
It's Cathy's story, not Frank's (or Raymond's for that matter). That being said, I disagree that Frank's is treated as "inconsequential". He gets less screen time, because he isn't the film's protagonist; but what makes Dennis Quaid's performance so impressive is how much he manages to convey about Frank in a relatively small number of scenes.

M.
 

Edwin Pereyra

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
3,500
It's Cathy's story, not Frank's (or Raymond's for that matter).
I realize that. But the issues I'm talking about could have better been handled without adding too much to the film's running time with the film still remaining very much as Cathy's story.

~Edwin
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Edwin, I think the film makes those judgements about Frank as a reflection of those times, not ours. The film is being told from the 1950s perspective.

To this point I am still trying to find some connection to Cathy’s emotional plight when essentially, the same type of emotional plight of Frank was handled rather carelessly, insignificant and without merit.
You're looking for modern commentary. Haynes has made a film that views the characters and their actions according to how a 1950s film would have. Films from that time depict racial issues, but I'd guess you'd be hardpressed to find a film from then that would be compassionate toward a homosexual, especially one who has the "perfect" heterosexual family. Of course, by doing this Far From Heaven ends up commenting about our times and life in the 50s, but from a textual basis, the film stereotypically views Frank's homosexuality as wrong. That's why, as you say, his plight was handled without merit. It doesn't see any merit in it. I suspect this will be one of the sources of confusion for some, but I think it's to Haynes' credit that he lets us figure it out.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
the film stereotypically views Frank's homosexuality as wrong
I would put it differently. Frank's homosexuality is utterly outside the insular world that the film portrays. That world has no frame of reference for comprehending what's happening to Frank (for that matter, neither does Frank).

M.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,837
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top