Edwin Pereyra
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 1998
- Messages
- 3,500
Ah, the benefits of modern technology. 
~Edwin
~Edwin
Home Theater
Entertainment & Streaming Content
Physical Media
Home Theater Equipment and Hardware
Other Diversions
Bargains and Classifieds
Home Theater Forum
*** Official "FAR FROM HEAVEN" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Michael Reuben
- Start date
Lew Crippen
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Messages
- 12,060
My wife and I saw this movie this weekend are were both just stunned. Most of you (especially Rich and Michael) have already written well and commented with insight on this film, so I’ll not repeat those comments, other than to say that this was, for me, the best film of the year.
Outstanding acting (I have a new respect for Quaid, especially), economy of writing and superb cinematography and a sure hand by the director, make for a marvelous film.
I would further Michael’s comment on the closing shot in observing that we have watched fall turn to late fall to (almost) winter during the course of the film, paralleling the lives of the protagonists. For me the dogwood (?) branch in blossom, far ahead of spring, when it is due to bloom, signifies further tragedy, not irony. That those early blossoms will be frozen by approaching winter is clear, as is the promise that they will be replaced by new ones, in bloom at the proper time, and those will be fruitful.
Outstanding acting (I have a new respect for Quaid, especially), economy of writing and superb cinematography and a sure hand by the director, make for a marvelous film.
I would further Michael’s comment on the closing shot in observing that we have watched fall turn to late fall to (almost) winter during the course of the film, paralleling the lives of the protagonists. For me the dogwood (?) branch in blossom, far ahead of spring, when it is due to bloom, signifies further tragedy, not irony. That those early blossoms will be frozen by approaching winter is clear, as is the promise that they will be replaced by new ones, in bloom at the proper time, and those will be fruitful.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
Edwin-
I have to say, as a gay man,
I found Frank's character true to life.
You have criticized the emphasis on the
physical with Frank, and I have to say
I respectfully disagree with you.
And, at 35, while I am not anything like Frank, being
born in 1967, I still felt shades of the society that
Frank was raised in...and I lived in the white picket
fence world, too.
Your criticism of the physical
First of all, gay male culture is the most
physically-obsessed culture there is.
Why?
Because, IMHO, men A(straight, gay, or otherwise)
are attracted to what they see,
and develop deeper feelings after physical desire
has manifested itself.
Gay men are not burdened with the guilt associated with
feminism calling to stop the objectification of the body,
since gay men are objectifying each other, it cannot be
portrayed as some kind of social injustice to "keep men
in their place." Hence lots and lots of unbridaled images
of naked men, even to this day, selling things as non-sexual
as lampshades, within gay, non-pornographic, magazines.
Frank is struggling
with his feelings of sexual desire toward males, specifically
and the male body. He loves his wife, albeit nonromantically, but he isn't
sexually attracted to her, and this is the source
of his torment.
Further, Frank is not upset because he isn't
in a relationship with a man;
He is upset because he desires sex with men.
Only after the trip to Miami does he realize how
it feels to be both "in love" and sexually attracted
to the same person. Frank even says,
essentially, he had no idea how it felt to be in
in lust and love with the same person
when he cries in front of Cathy.
This is a wonderful juxtaposition to Cathy's situation,
where she is emotionally attracted to the gardener and
after getting to know him, finds him "beautiful."
What is that line from sex, lies, and videotape?
Men fall in love with what they're attracted to, and women
become attracted to who they fall in love with.
That's been my experience.
As for the age difference,
I found it totally appropriate.
At 22 year old, I dated more than a few 40+ men.
I liked their maturity and how many parts of their
lives were settled.
I can see why the boy was attracted to Frank.
Also, the younger man, not being bound to anyone,
is probably less hung up about his homosexuality
than Frank is.
Frank is a man that bought into the
"White picket fence" dream, and found it hollow.
Also, the gay community, as it is today, didn't really
start until men hooked up in the military during WWII,
and realized there were other gay men. And even then,
if you didn't move to Christopher Street in NYC or
or SR or LA, your ability to find other gay men
were limited.
Frank is in suburbia,
and Hartfort CT...not a gay mecca, even today.
More on why Frank and his lover make sense:
1) I read their final scene as being in an apartment
or somewhere that will transition into an apartment,
since Frank probably needed to find a place to live
ASAP with his lover that people wouldn't think too
much about.
Even if he could afford a house after his divorce,
do you really think he as his lover can share a
house without raising a few eyebrows?
An apartment could be much more discreet.
2) The young lover would be attracted not only to
Frank's status in life, looking for support,
much like a 1950's wife, but, Frank has a hot body...
hotter than the boy's IMHO.
3) Frank's ability to find a single man his age
who isn't as hung up as he is Hartfort is very limited. All the openly gay men are prisses,
like the many of the men in the bar and
at the gallery opening, or they aren't ready for a
relationship, like the man Frank takes back to his office.
4) The younger man, like I said is probably less hung
up than Frank, since he is about 20 years later,
and clearly, was enough in touch with,
and comfortable with his homosexuality to have
his "gaydar" on full alert.
5) I think the boy pursued Frank,
which is VERY clear from the film...and he is also
the one who was more emotionally available and told
Frank he wanted to be with him, and that
he loved him.
6) Frank and they young guy are a bit of a
ying and yang for each other. One is the physical
provider (Frank, with his career, which will probably
survive, now that he will live in the closet, but with
a male lover), and one is an emotional provider (the
young man, who is the only man Frank meets who is
open to him emotionally.)
Makes sense to me, and I have lived that a bit in my
personal relationships.
Like has already been discussed in this thread,
this film is about Cathy's situation, not Frank's
or Raymond's. We don't get to explore how Raymond
copes with the anti-itegration folks within his the
African-American community, either, but we are told
a few specifics within Raymond's world...that the rocks
through his windows are not being thrown by caucasians.
These are approrpriate to Frank and Raymond's storylines.
They don't need to be fleshed out futher, the film isn't
about them.
Finally, I don't know if this helps the argument,
but Haynes himself is gay, and was simply going for
one man's experience without making some false, sugar
coated statement like Philadelphia.
regards,
Mark
I have to say, as a gay man,
I found Frank's character true to life.
You have criticized the emphasis on the
physical with Frank, and I have to say
I respectfully disagree with you.
And, at 35, while I am not anything like Frank, being
born in 1967, I still felt shades of the society that
Frank was raised in...and I lived in the white picket
fence world, too.
Your criticism of the physical
First of all, gay male culture is the most
physically-obsessed culture there is.
Why?
Because, IMHO, men A(straight, gay, or otherwise)
are attracted to what they see,
and develop deeper feelings after physical desire
has manifested itself.
Gay men are not burdened with the guilt associated with
feminism calling to stop the objectification of the body,
since gay men are objectifying each other, it cannot be
portrayed as some kind of social injustice to "keep men
in their place." Hence lots and lots of unbridaled images
of naked men, even to this day, selling things as non-sexual
as lampshades, within gay, non-pornographic, magazines.
Frank is struggling
with his feelings of sexual desire toward males, specifically
and the male body. He loves his wife, albeit nonromantically, but he isn't
sexually attracted to her, and this is the source
of his torment.
Further, Frank is not upset because he isn't
in a relationship with a man;
He is upset because he desires sex with men.
Only after the trip to Miami does he realize how
it feels to be both "in love" and sexually attracted
to the same person. Frank even says,
essentially, he had no idea how it felt to be in
in lust and love with the same person
when he cries in front of Cathy.
This is a wonderful juxtaposition to Cathy's situation,
where she is emotionally attracted to the gardener and
after getting to know him, finds him "beautiful."
What is that line from sex, lies, and videotape?
Men fall in love with what they're attracted to, and women
become attracted to who they fall in love with.
That's been my experience.
As for the age difference,
I found it totally appropriate.
At 22 year old, I dated more than a few 40+ men.
I liked their maturity and how many parts of their
lives were settled.
I can see why the boy was attracted to Frank.
Also, the younger man, not being bound to anyone,
is probably less hung up about his homosexuality
than Frank is.
Frank is a man that bought into the
"White picket fence" dream, and found it hollow.
Also, the gay community, as it is today, didn't really
start until men hooked up in the military during WWII,
and realized there were other gay men. And even then,
if you didn't move to Christopher Street in NYC or
or SR or LA, your ability to find other gay men
were limited.
Frank is in suburbia,
and Hartfort CT...not a gay mecca, even today.
More on why Frank and his lover make sense:
1) I read their final scene as being in an apartment
or somewhere that will transition into an apartment,
since Frank probably needed to find a place to live
ASAP with his lover that people wouldn't think too
much about.
Even if he could afford a house after his divorce,
do you really think he as his lover can share a
house without raising a few eyebrows?
An apartment could be much more discreet.
2) The young lover would be attracted not only to
Frank's status in life, looking for support,
much like a 1950's wife, but, Frank has a hot body...
hotter than the boy's IMHO.
3) Frank's ability to find a single man his age
who isn't as hung up as he is Hartfort is very limited. All the openly gay men are prisses,
like the many of the men in the bar and
at the gallery opening, or they aren't ready for a
relationship, like the man Frank takes back to his office.
4) The younger man, like I said is probably less hung
up than Frank, since he is about 20 years later,
and clearly, was enough in touch with,
and comfortable with his homosexuality to have
his "gaydar" on full alert.
5) I think the boy pursued Frank,
which is VERY clear from the film...and he is also
the one who was more emotionally available and told
Frank he wanted to be with him, and that
he loved him.
6) Frank and they young guy are a bit of a
ying and yang for each other. One is the physical
provider (Frank, with his career, which will probably
survive, now that he will live in the closet, but with
a male lover), and one is an emotional provider (the
young man, who is the only man Frank meets who is
open to him emotionally.)
Makes sense to me, and I have lived that a bit in my
personal relationships.
Like has already been discussed in this thread,
this film is about Cathy's situation, not Frank's
or Raymond's. We don't get to explore how Raymond
copes with the anti-itegration folks within his the
African-American community, either, but we are told
a few specifics within Raymond's world...that the rocks
through his windows are not being thrown by caucasians.
These are approrpriate to Frank and Raymond's storylines.
They don't need to be fleshed out futher, the film isn't
about them.
Finally, I don't know if this helps the argument,
but Haynes himself is gay, and was simply going for
one man's experience without making some false, sugar
coated statement like Philadelphia.
regards,
Mark
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
Edwin-
Just to answer your questions directly:
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
1. The shot of Frank kissing another man whose only other purpose is for Cathy to catch them in the act.
Frank is caught in his office making out with a man.
Probably not the first time Frank has done this, and
certainly Frank isn't looking to get into a relationship
with a man, since he despises his homosexuality and wants
to be cured from it.
Cathy needed to catch him in the act.
Why is this a problem?
It is not like he was going
to tell her about it.
2. While on vacation with his wife, Frank falls for a younger man who almost looks about half his age. Why was this?
Because the young man is beautiful, and he pursues
Frank all the way back to his room.
Why does anyone fall for anyone?
Do you think Frank, with his limited experience is
going to toss aside a beautiful young man when one
offers himself up? I wouldn't (as long as he is over 18).
You're not going to ask why Donald Trump and Hugh Hefner
date women one-third or one-quarter their ages are you???
3. While Frank was in his hotel room, a full head to toe body shot of this same young man with particular emphasis on his upper bare torso partially concealed only by his white robe. What was the purpose of that shot?
To show what Frank is looking at the young man with
the bodily lust he is feeling...and to show the youth seducing Frank.
(Who was stroking his torso as he looked at Frank.)
It is a lusty, gorgeous POV shot,
and that is how I have looked at a few men
(and been looked at) myself.
I would ask you to think about comparable scenes
showing straight men admiring women's bodies in everything
from beer commercials to films like
The Woman in Red and The Seven Year Itch
4. The never-ending exchange of nervous glances with another man in the gay bar.
Um, that happens all the time, even now.
5. While Frank was on the phone with Cathy, a shot of what I assume of the same young man above (if this is not him, then that’s another problem) sitting on a bed that was slept on from the night before between the two and of all places in a hotel room! Why was that?
Do you think they can set up house together?
This is set in 1957 and in, Hartford CT.
Not Christopher Street in NYC.
I thought it was a temporary housing
situation while Frank looks for a new place to live,
where he will probably tell people his lover is a
"border" he has taken in to help pay expenses.
In the absence of words and dialog to that effect, how a director frames his shots speaks louder. If the physical nature of his homosexual tendencies is not what Todd Haynes had intended to convey, then in my view, Haynes picked the wrong shots to portray Frank’s own predicament especially those coming from his own perspective.
But it is the physical desire of man-to-man sex
that Frank is grappling with. He is getting all the
love and support any man could want at home.
He wasn't on a quest to fall in love with a
man. He was struggling with his bodily "urge to merge"
with another man.
Yes, Frank finally losses it and explodes toward the end but only as expected to release his frustrations and finally accepting who he is despite what others think.
I disagree. Frank comes to the amazing revelation
of what it feels like to be in love with another man who
loves him in return. A man wants to "be with" Frank in
more than a sexual way, and Frank finally has understands
how profound love can be when sex and love are found in
the same person.
~Edwin
Regards,
Mark
Just to answer your questions directly:
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
1. The shot of Frank kissing another man whose only other purpose is for Cathy to catch them in the act.
Frank is caught in his office making out with a man.
Probably not the first time Frank has done this, and
certainly Frank isn't looking to get into a relationship
with a man, since he despises his homosexuality and wants
to be cured from it.
Cathy needed to catch him in the act.
Why is this a problem?
It is not like he was going
to tell her about it.
2. While on vacation with his wife, Frank falls for a younger man who almost looks about half his age. Why was this?
Because the young man is beautiful, and he pursues
Frank all the way back to his room.
Why does anyone fall for anyone?
Do you think Frank, with his limited experience is
going to toss aside a beautiful young man when one
offers himself up? I wouldn't (as long as he is over 18)
. You're not going to ask why Donald Trump and Hugh Hefner
date women one-third or one-quarter their ages are you???
3. While Frank was in his hotel room, a full head to toe body shot of this same young man with particular emphasis on his upper bare torso partially concealed only by his white robe. What was the purpose of that shot?
To show what Frank is looking at the young man with
the bodily lust he is feeling...and to show the youth seducing Frank.
(Who was stroking his torso as he looked at Frank.)
It is a lusty, gorgeous POV shot,
and that is how I have looked at a few men
(and been looked at) myself.
I would ask you to think about comparable scenes
showing straight men admiring women's bodies in everything
from beer commercials to films like
The Woman in Red and The Seven Year Itch
4. The never-ending exchange of nervous glances with another man in the gay bar.
Um, that happens all the time, even now.
5. While Frank was on the phone with Cathy, a shot of what I assume of the same young man above (if this is not him, then that’s another problem) sitting on a bed that was slept on from the night before between the two and of all places in a hotel room! Why was that?
Do you think they can set up house together?
This is set in 1957 and in, Hartford CT.
Not Christopher Street in NYC.
I thought it was a temporary housing
situation while Frank looks for a new place to live,
where he will probably tell people his lover is a
"border" he has taken in to help pay expenses.
In the absence of words and dialog to that effect, how a director frames his shots speaks louder. If the physical nature of his homosexual tendencies is not what Todd Haynes had intended to convey, then in my view, Haynes picked the wrong shots to portray Frank’s own predicament especially those coming from his own perspective.
But it is the physical desire of man-to-man sex
that Frank is grappling with. He is getting all the
love and support any man could want at home.
He wasn't on a quest to fall in love with a
man. He was struggling with his bodily "urge to merge"
with another man.
Yes, Frank finally losses it and explodes toward the end but only as expected to release his frustrations and finally accepting who he is despite what others think.
I disagree. Frank comes to the amazing revelation
of what it feels like to be in love with another man who
loves him in return. A man wants to "be with" Frank in
more than a sexual way, and Frank finally has understands
how profound love can be when sex and love are found in
the same person.
~Edwin
Regards,
Mark
Lew Crippen
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Messages
- 12,060
Great posts Mark.
I just tore up (ok, deleted) what I wrote on my view of Frank and how Haynes presented him in these scenes.
I’ll have to watch the film again, but if I recall correctly, Frank is always shown either in the dark, or in very subdued lighting—a very big contrast in this film, with its gorgeous landscapes and fall colors. The one time that I recall Frank being outside in the daylight is his trip to the medical building, and in this case we are presented with an overcast day—no sunlit bright foliage, but rather a somber, gray autumn day.
It is not until we are in Miami by the pool that Frank is shown in direct sunlight. Of course this is where (and when) he sees the one with whom he will later fall in love.
And even here, the palette chosen is full of blues and aquamarines—a very cool view, contrasted with the warm, New England one with its reds, rusts, and yellows.
I just tore up (ok, deleted) what I wrote on my view of Frank and how Haynes presented him in these scenes.
I’ll have to watch the film again, but if I recall correctly, Frank is always shown either in the dark, or in very subdued lighting—a very big contrast in this film, with its gorgeous landscapes and fall colors. The one time that I recall Frank being outside in the daylight is his trip to the medical building, and in this case we are presented with an overcast day—no sunlit bright foliage, but rather a somber, gray autumn day.
It is not until we are in Miami by the pool that Frank is shown in direct sunlight. Of course this is where (and when) he sees the one with whom he will later fall in love.
And even here, the palette chosen is full of blues and aquamarines—a very cool view, contrasted with the warm, New England one with its reds, rusts, and yellows.
Rob Willey
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 1,345
- Real Name
- Rob
Has anybody noticed that this film is very slow in getting a larger release?
Crawdaddy
Crawdaddy
Lew Crippen
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Messages
- 12,060
Jodee
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1999
- Messages
- 1,044
I think it's interesting how the film portrays the fates of the characters. While homosexuality is perhaps still considered more taboo than an interracial romance, Frank is allowed to have his lover while Cathy is not. I think this reveals some of the hypocrisy and sexism & racism of the period. Being a white male (even a gay one) still afforded more privileges than a female or a black man. And there is some naivete going on here. A man hanging out with another man wouldn't have caused anyone a second look, but a woman just doing something as innocent as speaking with a black man instantly raises a red flag and is seen as a sexual thing (despite no sex having ever taken place.)
- Joined
- Jan 6, 1999
- Messages
- 3,297
- Real Name
- Mark
Jodee-
I noticed this, too. One more way this film works on
so many levels is in perceptions of identity. Gay men
who can pass for straight when in homophobic communities will gladly continue to do so, while people
in interracial relationships do not have such a luxury.
But being in the closet has its own price.
Note that Frank worked for a company that sold televisions
and that he and his wife were the image for that product.
(And on top of being an allusion to Sirk's All That Heaven Allows,
it also plays with reality vs idealized imagery on a tertiary level, just like the interviewer with the
photographer interviewing Cathy.)
I do think that the relationship that Frank has with the
younger man might raise a few eyebrows because the youth
doesn't pass as well as Frank does, and Frank cannot pass
off the younger man as either his son, or a "buddy,"
which is another reason why (going back to Edwin's comments)
I like that relationship for the film:
Frank will have to remain very secretive about this new
relationship. It will not be ideal for either for long,
and the honeymoon period will be over quickly.
Frank will probably have to start over again with
another man, but at least secure in the knowledge that
he can have a relationship with a man that isn't
only about sex.
But, if he's like me, he'll find women make better
"long life partners" for gay men than other gay men.
Mark
I noticed this, too. One more way this film works on
so many levels is in perceptions of identity. Gay men
who can pass for straight when in homophobic communities will gladly continue to do so, while people
in interracial relationships do not have such a luxury.
But being in the closet has its own price.
Note that Frank worked for a company that sold televisions
and that he and his wife were the image for that product.
(And on top of being an allusion to Sirk's All That Heaven Allows,
it also plays with reality vs idealized imagery on a tertiary level, just like the interviewer with the
photographer interviewing Cathy.)
I do think that the relationship that Frank has with the
younger man might raise a few eyebrows because the youth
doesn't pass as well as Frank does, and Frank cannot pass
off the younger man as either his son, or a "buddy,"
which is another reason why (going back to Edwin's comments)
I like that relationship for the film:
Frank will have to remain very secretive about this new
relationship. It will not be ideal for either for long,
and the honeymoon period will be over quickly.
Frank will probably have to start over again with
another man, but at least secure in the knowledge that
he can have a relationship with a man that isn't
only about sex.
But, if he's like me, he'll find women make better
"long life partners" for gay men than other gay men.
Mark
Dana Fillhart
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 977
I saw this film last Saturday, and while I was blown away by the atmosphere and style the film conveyed, as well as Moore's performance, something about Quaid's dialogue delivery was off -- significantly off at times.
Quaid was perfect, absolutely perfect, in his emotional portrayal. And in some moments he brilliantly conveyed that emotion through his dialogue. But there were many scenes (which I cannot specifically cite at the moment) I felt his delivery was awkward. It's more of an overall feeling right now, and I'll have to see the film again to point out those moments I felt he slipped. I do stand by my opinion that his performance was slightly uneven, and as such I don't think he should win an Oscar for his performance (and I think the NY Film Critics Circle made a mistake giving him the award). Nominated, definitely; win, no.
Quaid was perfect, absolutely perfect, in his emotional portrayal. And in some moments he brilliantly conveyed that emotion through his dialogue. But there were many scenes (which I cannot specifically cite at the moment) I felt his delivery was awkward. It's more of an overall feeling right now, and I'll have to see the film again to point out those moments I felt he slipped. I do stand by my opinion that his performance was slightly uneven, and as such I don't think he should win an Oscar for his performance (and I think the NY Film Critics Circle made a mistake giving him the award). Nominated, definitely; win, no.
Yeah, what do those NY film critics know about acting anyway?
Crawdaddy
Crawdaddy
Dana Fillhart
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 977
Funny Robert
Well, he isn't in the majority thus far; NBR gave it to Cooper, and while Spirit nom'd him, their list is 5 (like the Academy's) whereas most others seem to be 3. LA Critics also chose Cooper, and had Walken as a runner-up. David Ansen didn't list Quaid as well (though to be fair he put FFH way down in his Top 10 list compared to others who had it much higher). Boston had Arkin win; I'd like to see if Quaid was even nominated. And, oddly, he didn't win either first OR second place in the NYFC Online (Dafoe won; Cooper was runner-up).
[Edit:]
Seems the Broadcast Film Critics also left Quaid out in the cold. But what do those critics know about acting, anyway?
Hmm, Chris Cooper's on a LOT of lists. And right now, he's my favorite pick for Best Supporting Actor for the Oscars (but that's for a different thread...)
Well, he isn't in the majority thus far; NBR gave it to Cooper, and while Spirit nom'd him, their list is 5 (like the Academy's) whereas most others seem to be 3. LA Critics also chose Cooper, and had Walken as a runner-up. David Ansen didn't list Quaid as well (though to be fair he put FFH way down in his Top 10 list compared to others who had it much higher). Boston had Arkin win; I'd like to see if Quaid was even nominated. And, oddly, he didn't win either first OR second place in the NYFC Online (Dafoe won; Cooper was runner-up).
[Edit:]
Seems the Broadcast Film Critics also left Quaid out in the cold. But what do those critics know about acting, anyway?
Hmm, Chris Cooper's on a LOT of lists. And right now, he's my favorite pick for Best Supporting Actor for the Oscars (but that's for a different thread...)
ThomasC
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,526
- Real Name
- Thomas
Man, was I ever wrong about the score.
If you read my review of the movie here, you'll see that I didn't care for the score too much. But I was listening to the last track of the soundtrack a few minutes ago(Beginnings), and boy, was I ever wrong. At the time, I was also at the official site, flipping through the photo gallery, and I came upon a picture of Raymond on the train, but still on the steps (http://www.farfromheavenmovie.com/stills/still12.jpg). Tears flowed down my eyes, the music and that picture went right together. Apologies to Elmer Bernstein, you've written a classic.
If you read my review of the movie here, you'll see that I didn't care for the score too much. But I was listening to the last track of the soundtrack a few minutes ago(Beginnings), and boy, was I ever wrong. At the time, I was also at the official site, flipping through the photo gallery, and I came upon a picture of Raymond on the train, but still on the steps (http://www.farfromheavenmovie.com/stills/still12.jpg). Tears flowed down my eyes, the music and that picture went right together. Apologies to Elmer Bernstein, you've written a classic.
Arman
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,625
Far From Heaven is my 5th best film of 2002 so far.
I'm in complete agreement with all what Mark Walker had said. Great posts Mark!
I'm in complete agreement with all what Mark Walker had said. Great posts Mark!
Paul_D
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,048
Saw this tonight and didn't expect to like it at much as I did. Really interesting thread too. Some great posts! Easily one of the best films of the year.
Easily one of the best films of the year.
Arman
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,625
For the 2nd time, I saw Far From Heaven again today. I'm upgrading the grade I gave to Far From Heaven from A to A+. Like Adrien Brody to The Pianist (Congrats Adrien for deservingly winning the Academy! That's the biggest upset & most pleasant surprise of the night.), Julianne Moore is to the Far From Heaven. She gave one of the very best performances of all-time. As I write this Denzel is announcing the nominees for Best Actress.
Along with The Pianist & Talk To Her, Far From Heaven is one of the best films of 2002.
Okay, Denzel just announced Nicole won by a nose. Julianne's loss reminds me of Al Pacino's lost for The Godfather II. (Too bad Julianne did not win anything tonight).
Along with The Pianist & Talk To Her, Far From Heaven is one of the best films of 2002.
Okay, Denzel just announced Nicole won by a nose. Julianne's loss reminds me of Al Pacino's lost for The Godfather II. (Too bad Julianne did not win anything tonight).
Brian W.
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jul 29, 1999
- Messages
- 1,972
- Real Name
- Brian
I liked Roger Ebert's take on the Frank/boy relationship:
Jack Briggs
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 1999
- Messages
- 16,805
What my friend and colleague Michael upholds as one of the film's chief virtues is, in my view, its chief flaw. Stylism gone amok has resulted in a film filled with caricatures instead of characters. And by portraying a seemingly idyllic family so beset with so many wildly dysfunctional elements, the entire situation comes off as a little too tailor-made—all in an effort to shed light on the (thankfully) now-quaint attitudes in the 1950s.
What I mean is, there's too much coincidence here to make for a commentary on tired social mores. The exposure of a gay husband, the infatuation with an African-American gardener, the contrived comments of a newspaper society editor: It all has the effect of being in-your-face, with the result being just so much heavy-handed moralizing.
The film slaps the viewer in the face with its seen-through-2002-mores take on 1957.
Again, too much coincidence and neatly set-up situations, all in the service of making us feel good about how far we have come from the oppressive conformism of a long-gone era.
The performances are solid, but the characters themselves are unconvincing.
In the end, it's a morality play veiled by pretentious autumnal shots, apparently suggesting the waning days of an earlier era.
For this viewer, Far From Heaven is far from perfect.
Lew Crippen
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Messages
- 12,060
I may need some time to think about your comments (and I would not pretend to speak for Michael), but I’m guessing that you don’t care much for Sirk, Jack.
His films, with which I am sure you are familiar) are equally laden with the elements you note and dislike (heavy-handed moralizing, contrived comments, and pretentious autumnal shots.
His films, with which I am sure you are familiar) are equally laden with the elements you note and dislike (heavy-handed moralizing, contrived comments, and pretentious autumnal shots.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Sign up for our newsletter
and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more
Latest Articles
-
One False Move – Criterion UHD Review- Started by: JohnRice
-
John Wick 4 – UHD Review- Started by: Sam Posten
-
Halloween ENDS 4K UHD Review- Started by: Timothy E
-
A few words about…™ – Planes, Trains and Automobiles — in 4k UHD- Started by: Robert Harris
-
Saturday Night Fever 4K disc – major problems- Started by: Indy Guy
Staff online
-
Ronald EpsteinFounder