Far from Heaven

Why was this film made? Was it made in order to attack a decade of the last century? Most films that depict old times, do it in order to attack something that is going on now under the protection of being historical, since they cannot attack the present times directly and still get the film made - producers do not allow just about anything even if it would make money. This film does not execute any threat to present society, which, compared with what is shown here, is far 'nearer' to heaven. This is, of course, not only cowardice, it is also an outrageous lie. The fifties was probably the best decade of the past century. It was a decade of hope. Everything was getting better for everyone and it was the last decade in which most children were allowed to live with both their parents. Then the sixties came and this was no longer so. Only if you see this film as a propaganda-film for the present times in the USA, does it make sense and if so it is, hands down, maybe the most despicable piece of garbage you may ever be able to se - making the war-propaganda of Vietnam with John Wayne "The Green Berets" look like a film of courage (for, after all, it went against popular opinion of its time).

It seems to me that the majority of Oscar nominated films are artsy-fartsy pieces of trash. That is NOT always true - Million Dollar Baby and A Beautiful Mind are two recent examples of non-trash. However, this movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I'm all for indie films, films with a message, films that are out of the ordinary - but Far From Heaven was two excruciatingly painful hours of my life that I can never have back. If I could, I would sue the film company for that lost time. This movie would not have been so bad if something - ANYTHING - had been resolved. I can sit through almost anything and often it will have some redeeming value to it at the end. This movie had no redeeming value whatsoever. With a wonderful cast, you'd think that would not be the case. I don't want to be so negative about this, or any other movie. But seriously - I could not even consider watching it again. The only ONLY thing that could have possibly saved this one for me would have been if Julianne Moore would have ended up with the black guy (whose name I can't recall right now). At least in The Hours, things were resolved at the end. I walked away from this going, "Hmm. There should be an Academy Award for 'Disappointing/Fruitless Ending' or 'Film with No Point'" or something along those lines. There were two major issues - homosexuality & inter-racial relationships. They could have done SO much with either of those but NOOOO. A big fat thumbs down.

One thing I would like to say about the movie is that the acting was superb. I thought Quaid's portrayal of a man, struggling with understanding and accepting his sexuality, was vibrantly realistic. Moore also did an excellent job with mimicking the stereotyped/idealized 50's woman: compliant, overly eager to please, and basically existing in an fantasyland (sans birds and talking mice). The problem was that that was as far as the movie delved...at least in my humble opinion. Moore's character, Cathy, became so annoying during the course of the movie that when a physical altercation erupted between her and her husband..I was actually cheering. The writers may have wanted wanted to portray her as "innocent" of the cruel facts around her, such as her homosexual husband and the social outcry against her attraction to a man of color, which sets up a very complex plot but that's as far as it gets. She is neither strong enough to attempt a fight against the prejudices of the times, or smart enough to recognize and maneuver discreetly around them. Nothing ever becomes resolved or even evolves to another level, and after each pitfall Cathy seemed to just look around her vacantly like "What happened? What did I do?". She lacks the strength and fortitude to affect anything around her, thereby making the audience's focus on her a very unsatisfying experience. Definitely not a repeat rental. As a friend of mine commented: "Cathy's clutching, helpless, and indecisive desperation would make any man impotent around her".

If Todd Haynes intention was to lull us to sleep with the shallowness, closemindeness and already well documented mores of the fifties he succeeded. I for one can take only so much beautiful scenery before I start to get irritated from the LACK of a REAL story and "unstaged" acting. From all the hype of this film and hearing that Todd Haynes was a genius I really was expecting a lot more than a animated Norman Rockwell Painting. Really, Todd, you have a great future as a designer or landscape architect, but PLEASE no more movies like this. Nolie from South Africa said it much better in His/Her review a few days back "exquisite to look at but more than a little flat" and "stolid affected version of Pleasantville for the faux Hollywood cineast crowd, people in love with themselves as much as the film makers are in love with their product" I grew up in the fifties and their was more REAL drama going on in my neighborhood and in the lives of my family and my neighbors in a single afternoon than in the entirety of this "FILM".

While certainly this film is about race and sexual preference, I think its observations are actually much more universal. What it is about - and so many of the movies it references are also about - is how social structures work hard to prevent you from stepping outside your little world. People work hard to control attitudes towards outsiders - in this case, black people and homosexuals - in a negative way that not only keeps them out, but also keeps you in. Many people just don't like it when you seek something from the outside and will be manipulative to keep it so. Witness Patricia Clarkson, who is so manipulative that she has to remind Jualianne Moore how old and dear friends they - oldest and dearest - in such a way that it is a threat more than a comfort. And the film does this within the conventions of the genre it is putting itself in. In many ways, it merely uses the tawdry, cliched imagery of Hollywood soapers in such a way that, if you are not familiar, they may appear to be cliches here. But they are very intentional. And in this way, everything is controlled about the film - reactions, colors, everything. No wonder the characters need to break out of their worlds.

Had it been released in the year it's set in -- 1957 -- FAR FROM HEAVEN would have broken grounds on several different levels because it brings to light what stories then only hinted at. Todd Haynes, channeling Douglas Sirk inch by inch, goes one step further and comes up with a masterpiece of domestic melodrama. This is the story of three people caught in unfortunate circumstances. The Whitakers, Cathy and Frank (Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid), are the Perfect Couple, married and living under the conservative spotlight of Suburbia, known more as Mr. and Mrs. Magnatech, successful -- the couple who have everything going for them. Of course, with the slight detail that Mr. Whitaker is gay and about to come out. Coming into the picture at the time the local society writer (Celia Weston) comes to interview Cathy about their idealistic marriage life, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) enters the picture. A quiet man who happens to be black in a time when being black meant being segregated, Cathy expresses kindness to him, and the writer jots down 'friend to Negros' which comes to mark Cathy later on. Frank's double life is the catalyst which will bring Cathy and Raymond together. When Cathy, in her manicured, wifely way, comes to bring Frank his dinner at work, she walks in to seeing him kissing another man (Matt Malloy). Clearly, something is wrong in this picture... and gets progressively so when Frank decides to beat his illness, while still going to sordid bars with equally ashamed men who hang out with the spectre of fear just out of frame, as if one of the many bar raids would befall them at any moment. Once Frank is out of the picture Cathy turns to Raymond for solace. Friends begin talking, mainly through the correctly named Eleanor Fine (a chilling Patricia Clarkson) who doesn't know how to react to this friendship, while we know she is probably spinning stories behind Cathy's back. It is here when the morals of the time come into play. We are, in fact, reminded that this is the late fifties at every turn. Cathy has been 'seen' with a Negro and this means trouble. Frank, even though he already has a boyfriend, can't stand her friendship. Raymond's daughter gets assaulted by a couple of boys coming home from school. Doors are closing all around Cathy, but there is the hope she may leave with him to Baltimore. Raymond assures her, that is impossible. The Douglas Sirk influence virtually comes out of the screen at every frame in Todd Haynes film. From the saturated color and excellent cinematography, set decoration, to the almost exact acting from all the leads and supporting actors and its pessimistic/happy ending. Where many movies fail through anachronisms, an almost perfect attention to detail has been taken to make this movie as authentic as possible -- down to the cinematic language and its characters, who are enclosed in its time period. For example, in one scene, Frank swears... but then apologizes, because it is impolite to do so. His gayness even as the film reaches its conclusion remains closeted, within its shame, as he secretly meets with his boyfriend. No happy ending for him here. Neither for Cathy and Raymond, whose acquaintance is vibrant with tension even though they barely exchange a shy kiss and are destined to remain apart. It reminded me a little of IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (2000), another film enclosed in its time period with the two romantic leads knowing their chances of a relationship is nil due to tradition. Here it's man's bigotry to himself.

Cathy and Frank are a society couple in 1950's Connecticut. Their perfect house, perfect kids and happy marriage all contribute to making them the toast of the middle classes. However Frank's secret desire for men wrecks Cathy's image of their marriage but they manage to keep it a secret and seek help. When Cathy confides in her black gardener the rumours begin that again threaten Cathy's all-American society queen existence. It helps when writing a review of a film like this that you can throw round all the right references and draw comparison's wit the two Sirk films from which Haynes drew inspiration from. Sadly I can't do that as I haven't seen either of the works (although have seen some Sirk films), so I'll do the best I can! From the outset this film builds a plastic perfect 50's world before revealing that everything isn't as the outside world (and even those on the inside) may perceive. This works well but the film is strong because it works on several other levels past this one. Past the fake nature of lives – we are all human after all – are several other broader themes that are not as clear but still important. The place of women is society is one – where Frank's indiscretion appears to still let him work etc, Cathy much smaller crime sees her condemned from all around. Her relationship with Raymond shows how women held social status only as trophies in some circles and, when this role was threatened or made redundant, they had little more standing that blacks etc. The two fallings of Frank and Cathy are parallel and it is interesting to see the two. Frank stigma that he must hide is one of sexuality while Cathy is less lucky in that her stigma is as clear to observers as the skin on Raymond's face. This is not to say that the film works as well on each of these levels, but it does work well enough on all of them. It is slow and patient and it may frustrate some audiences who will claim `nothing really happens' – if a review says this then ignore it – they have clearly missed the point. The 50's feel is bang on and very well done. I'm not sure if Haynes has lifted the touches that make it feel `50's' from Sirk directly (i.e. copied) but it really works. The colours are lush and every set and costume feel like it must be straight from the 50's. It is to Haynes credit that he has done this without being camp or wistful in the way that many films set in the period can be. He plays it straight down the line. The cast are roundly good. Moore deversedly got her nomination for this work and she is excellent. She never goes over the top but is visibly simmering throughout. Quaid is good but has a less complex character to carry, we don't get to understand what he is going through or felling – is it deep guilt, lust, love etc? Haysbert in 24 is OK but plays a stiff, morally righteous man who is so `good' as to be difficult to swallow! Here it is not quite as bad but Raymond is still a ` good, wholesome' man. Haysbert does him well but again I wanted more to the character. The support cast are good and all play the plastic socialites and professionals of 1950's well. Overall this film is very lush – nothing but praise can be given to director, costumes and set designers etc. The cast are all good even if they must act with decorum and patience throughout and the emotion and drama of the story (although stilted and controlled) is still very involving. A very good film – if it had been made in the 50's it would be held as a classic today.

This is a very long Carol Burnett skit with Carol playing the role of Cathy an uptight 50's housewife who discovers that her husband Frank played by Tim Conway is a little light in the loafers. Soon Cathy finds comfort in the arms of her Negro handyman played by Harvey Korman. At first Cathy is spooked to find a Negro in her garden - in fact she is surprised at least THREE times to find a Negro in her garden. On a vacation in Miami - Frank falls head over heals for a pool boy played by Lyle Waggoner. Vicki Lawrence plays Eleanor - Cathy's nosy best friend. The laughs come hard and fast as Cathy and Frank struggle to make sense of their soap opera lives.

Well-acted, but ultimately disappointing examination of morals in the 1950s, with a prominent married society couple torn apart by his need to cheat on her (with men) and her friendship with their black gardener. The scenes between Julianne Moore and Dennis Haysbert (as the handsome groundskeeper) are wonderfully captured, moving and lovely--everything the scenes with Dennis Quaid are not. Quaid is not a bad actor, nor is he miscast here, but I do think his role is somewhat contemptible. The husband is shown not only to be a closet-case, but an obnoxious liar and alcoholic--weak and crippling. His relationships with two other men in the film are barely touched upon. Is there some kind of movie-law against showing what is so attractive about two men in lust? True, when the guys kissed, a teenage girl in the row behind me called out, "That's gross!" (making me wonder why some people even venture out of the house), but I do wish we might have gotten to see different sides to the husband; as it is, he's just a closet jerk, and an anchor on this story. **1/2 from ****

The reviewers had written very positively about this film so I went with high hopes. Possibly too high, particularly when Hollywood is producing poor quality films aimed simply at getting butts on seats. So this is supposed to be a return to quality stuff is it ? Sure it had lovely sets, costume, shots but where were the real characters ? Where were the insights into human behaviour ? It brought nothing new to me at all and I couldn't fathom what it was saying at all. Simply because it was saying nothing. All the characters was far too simple as were the scenes, dialogue and structure. And don't start lecturing me that this is how it was in the 50's. I grew up in that decade and saw films like 'Look Back in Anger', 'On the Waterfront' and 'Rear Window'. Surely what was needed was to bring more characterisation and development of the story, not less. Heaven help us all if this is seen as Hollywood getting serious.