HTF REVIEW: "Far From Heaven" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[RobertCharlotte]

Awesome film, one of my favorites from 2002. I know it will get screwed over on Oscar night (Haysbert already has been in not being nominated), but I'm glad the DVD does the original justice!

Amusing anecdote: the missus was joking after we saw this movie that I might have something to worry about if Dennis Haysbert ever starting casting glances her way. To which I replied, "Hell, I've got no problems with that. Jesus, I'd f*ck Dennis Haysbert!"

 

[Brian W.]

I'm unable to find any other Canadian website that shows that cover for Far From Heaven, though several of them do show the theatrical poster. But all the other Canadian retailers are showing the Universal cover art -- it says "Universal" in the lower right-hand corner, while the alternate cover says "Alliance." So that could well be the final Canadian cover art. I wish I had some way of finding out for sure, because I'd order the Canadian disc in a heartbeat.

 

[Brian W.]

I've contacted Alliance Atlantis and asked if the Canadian DVD cover differs from the US. Their response:

We have used the theatrical campaign for the video/DVD release of this title, therefore different from the U.S. I hope this answers all of your questions, any further inquiries please don't hesitate to contact us, and thank-you once again for writing to Alliance Atlantis Home Video.

So apparently the above cover from DVD EnFrancais is the final Canadian cover, and the specs appear to be the same.

Well, I'm off to order the Canadian version...

 

[Yumbo]

sorry,

but I thought this movie is over-rated.
'far from' the best.
is being gay 'better' than having an inter-racial relationship? parody yes, drama no.

Transfer = not good. it IS dark, way soft, and lacking contrast. I'd blame the compression, but if this is the original theatrical look - it's piss poor.

even the score is over-rated.

watching this back to back with Red Dragon is like night and day in terms of transfer and score (aspersions aside on actual movie).

 

[TonyD]

interestingly enough i did just watch those 2 back to back. far from heaven first and felt the same about the way it looked as chris.

the beginning was beautiful and colorful but as the movie went it got darker and murkier/hazy.

could have been done that way on purpose as the tone of the movie itself became this way.

i like the movie very much and thought the same as chris on the being gay for the man was apparently more acceptable then being a woman with a black man.
maybe thats just the way it was in the fifties.

i thought the volume for dialog was lower then most movies i watch at home.

when i put red dragon on right after this i had to run into the room to turn the volume down on the menus that first comes on when you oput the disc in.

did anyone else notice when a camera angle would switch from one camera to another the entire frame would occasionallly shift a little .

i paused it when it did this on one part and frame by frame you can reallly see the frame shifting for 2 or 3 frames.

minor quibble but it bugged me.

 

[Brian W.]

One detail is particularly true to the time: Interracial love and homosexual love are treated as being on different moral planes. The civil rights revolution predated gay liberation by about 10 years, and you can see that here: The movie doesn't believe Raymond and Cathy have a plausible future together, but there is bittersweet regret that they do not. When Frank meets a young man and falls in love, however, the affair is not ennobled but treated as a matter of motel rooms and furtive meetings. Haynes is pitch-perfect here in noting that homosexuality, in the 1950s, still dared not speak its name.

 

[PatrickL]

i like the movie very much and thought the same as chris on the being gay for the man was apparently more acceptable then being a woman with a black man.

 

[Mark-W]

PatrickL-

Perfect analysis, IMHO.

I realize this is not the film review thread, but for those who are thinking that homosexulity is treated with more acceptance in the film that being black, I would have to heartily say "no."

The irony of being homosexual, is that, aside from people who exhibit stereotypical traits, it is very VERY easy to hide one's sexual orientation, especially from those who have no desire to see it in you: Hence, Mel White, the primary writer for a leading fundamentalist Christian, highly homophobic, preacher for many many years.

But this is a double edged sword, because with that ability to hide comes a price: one of self respect, and
also, since to few people get to see (in the 1950s) all the diversity within the homosexual population, only those who exhibit stereotypical behavior are identified as gay, and, henceforth, the average person thinks all gay men are swishy, pinch their toast, and dish and tweeter with the other "girls" at the art show.

Take a look at Sirk's Imitation of Life, which does present an African-American character, Sarah, to pass as white, and look at the price she pays and the energy she uses to hide who she is. She even denies her own family access to her.

The Quaid character may be in a relationship, but look at how much energy he and his lover will have to expend to hid the nature of their relatinship. Meanwhile society at large thinks homosexuals are mentally ill, and even get labotomys for a "cure."

Quaid gets his relationship, but the presentation of it to the outside world is going to have to be masked. It will have to be phoney to the outside world. Quaid's character has moved from a relationship that was acceptable to the larger world, but felt artificial to him, to one will have be artificial the bigger world, but be feels more real to him, behind all the lies upon lies upon deceptions he will have to create, unless he and his lover move to a gay ghetto in, say, 15 years and live in yet another kind of prison.

The gay man at the art show is acceptable, only because he is a benign, powerless character, who has no influence over anyone except the ladies who find him amusing as one finds a chimp amusing in the zoo. He is a sexless gay man, who, I am sure, never discusses any romantic entanglements he is involved in. The only time anyone will take him seriously is when picking out a china pattern or selecting the appropriate drapes to go with the new couch.

He is like, to make a clearer example, the gay people tolerated in a certain predominate religious organization, which, historically, has big issues with pretending things are not "real" by ignoring them: It is okay to be gay , so long as one doesn't actually have sex, which is a bit like telling a comedian, it is okay to be a comedian, so long as you are never funny.

I realise most of this is going to pass the casual observer by, but that is why truly great films, like Far From Heaven need to be re-watched and analyzed within their own context (not against the vastly inferior, and simpler Red Dragon), and see why Haynes choose to make deliberate echos of Sirk, and what that means.

And layers, presentation, and image are all what Far From Heaven is about.

Mark

 

[Yumbo]

mark,

I saw all that.

but the presentation, image and sound, were on a (poor) level such that the IMPACT was diminished.

was it murky in the cinema?

is the subject matter taken too literally, in order to hide itself?

 

[Mark-W]

Chris-

It didn't look murky to me in the theater.

There is nothing subtle about the components in Sirk's melodramas either. That doesn't mean there are not more complexities going on underneath. As Montgomery Clift said, "films don't hold a mirror up to society, they focus a magnifying glass on it."

(There's a gay man who's life has no subtlety to it either, plays like the cheesiest soap opera ever made, and yet has some real things to say about social position, presentation, and so forth and so on.)

Why does Haynes have Quaid work in advertising?
Why televisions? Why does he have Quaid fall for a youth, that caused many gay film goers to be upset at the portrayal? Why release a film about the 1950s now?
What is Haynes saying about the "love that dare not speak its name," which is now the love that won't shut the hell up?" How far have we come in dealing with inter-racial relationships in the past 50 years? Is that more acceptable these days than the homosexual relationships?
Why?

Look at Haynes's other collaboration with Julianne Moore, Safe. The story about a woman who is allergic to the world, life itself. The brilliance of the films is not in how literal one takes the story, but the questions it generates after the film is over.

The only question I asked after seeing Red Dragon was "I'm not the only one who found this film riddled with cliches and a highly predictable plot twist, am I?"



Regards,

Mark

 

[Yumbo]

there we have it,

theatre - good.
DVD - murky.

Red Dragon - DVD good.
movie - remake.

 

[Mark-W]

Chris-

I haven't seen the DVD for a comparrison, and I am red/green color blind, so I generally stay away from reviewing the picture quality of DVDs because more than color blind, most of my life, I just felt "color retarded."
(Ironic that both one of my film profs and myself are red/green color blind, but we love the great directors known for being highly selective with their color choices: Hitchcock, Sirk, Powell & Pressberger....)



Even with all of my verbage, don't consider me an expert on anything, other than my own foibles.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Rob Willey]

The DVD looks great on my plasma and seems to be an accurate representation of what I saw in the theater.

I did notice a massive continuity error in the film. About a half hour into the movie, Frank visits the psychiatrist (played by James Rebhorn). On the psychiatrist's desk there is an object d'art, a metallic sphere of some sort with an arrow through it (similar to the murder weapon in one of my favorite film noirs, The Big Clock with Ray Milland and Charles Loughton). As the POV switches back and forth between Frank and the psychiatrist, the sphere appears and disappears on the desk. Since they go over these things frame by frame during editing, I'm shocked nobody noticed.

Highly recommended.

Rob

 

[Yumbo]

rob,

interesting.
which plasma/player do you use?

this is one of the few discs that look poor on my RP-82/HD5 setup.

 

[Tom Tsai]

Canadian Coverart for those interested:

http://www.dvdsoon.com/servlet/image...80&quality=0.8

 

[Tom Tsai]

^ by the way, all contents are the same as the US release from what I can tell.

 

[RobertCharlotte]

I've just picked this up and mine did not have any kind of booklet or flier inside ... anybody else finding this is the case, or did I get a goof?

 

[Rich Malloy]

Haven't gotten mine yet, but I've seen a number of posts on this and other forums saying that there's no insert.

Anybody find differently?

 

[Yumbo]

true,

no insert.
PAID IN FULL didn't have one either on our copy.

 

[Guy_K]

I'm a bit dissapointed that there's no insert, but it's not a deal breaker. I guess studios are trying to save every penny they can.