| Product: |
Far From Heaven (DVD) |
| Date: |
15/03/06 (122 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: 1950's Slice - of - life, realistic, thought provoking, the acting, the location, the script, etc.
Disadvantages: Time seems to move a bit strangely at points in this movie, some may say that its a bit of a satire
Remember all the TV shows and movies that came out of the US in the late 1950's? Back then, there were many about "perfect" families, and even some about not-so perfect families. But for some reason, when one of those families were in the latter category, they were always portrayed as lovably funny, cutely bumbling or adorably confused - all making silly mistakes that got them into laughable situations. Showing a family with the type of real-life problems and dilemmas that couldn't be solved with a nice cup of tea or a simple withering look from a parent followed by a sincere apology from the child and then hugs all around, just wasn't done. In Todd Haynes' movie "Far From Heaven" we are finally given an idea of what one of those movies might have really shown, if censors back in the 1950's hadn't forced writers and directors to shy away from real issues that were hiding just below the surface of those times.
The plot of this movie is deceptively simple. Set in autumn of 1957 until the spring of 1958 in a Connecticut suburban town, the Whitaker family are, for all intents and purposes, totally perfect. Frank, the husband, loving father and successful businessman is played by Dennis Quaid. Cathy, his wife, is your typical contented housewife, played by the pleasingly plumped up Julianne Moore. Of course, they have two adorable children - a boy, David (Ryan Ward) and a girl, Janice (Lindsay Andretta). And what household of such upper-middle class bliss would be without a faithful black - or should I say "coloured" maid, Sybil (Viola Davis). We quickly find out that these model citizens have been chosen to be an advertisement for Frank's company and have been given the title of "The ‘Magnatech' Family". It looks, at the outset, that this movie is only all about taking a closer look at the lives this flawless group of people, to see what their world was all about.
But as I said, this is all deceptive. And what good movie doesn't have its conflicts to keep our interest? It isn't long into the film that we find out that Frank has a secret life. No, he doesn't have a mistress. In fact, it soon transpires that Frank has been "afflicted" with the dreaded "disease" of homosexual tendencies. What's more, Cathy's sexual frustration has begun to look for an outlet, and when Frank continues to reject her, she turns not to one of her husband's colleagues, but rather to the kind and gentle attentions from her ‘coloured' gardener, Raymond Deagan - played by Dennis Haysbert. And so, you have a double-whammy of troubles here.
I hear you saying "so what", and yes, according to today's 21st century standards, there's very little in this story that would be considered controversial. Homosexuality is no longer (by most people, at least, I hope) considered an illness and a racially mixed couple would hardly raise an eyebrow. But the significance here is the time in which this story is set. Writer/director Todd Haynes (who has been nominated for a Golden Globe for this screenplay) has not just tried to give us an idea of what these obstacles would have done to a family in the late 1950's, he's actually tried to re-create the 1950's feel to this movie as well. In essence, he's trying to show us what a 1950's movie would have really been like, had these issues been allowed on screen back then. I'd never heard of Haynes before this, and from what I can see, this film is really his first big splash, and one which I'm sure, will mark a turning point in the career of this writer/director.
What I mean by this, is that things have been carefully scripted in an attempt to make us believe that this movie was actually filmed in the 1950's. For instance, the dialogue has been crafted so that you'll never hear the type of words that would have been banned for movie audiences back then. Haynes even goes so far as to have the son David use a word like "shucks" only to be immediately admonished by his mother for using "that kind of language". While this has been done quite well for the most part, I truly doubt that in the 1950's they would have filmed a conversation of a group of women discussing how many times their husbands "insisted" on "doing it". Even though the words "sex" or even "make love" never pass the lips of these characters, it still didn't completely ring true to me. However, in the context of the story, it was an important scene, since it was obvious to the audience that Cathy would have loved to have gotten the same thing that her friends were trying to avoid. Some of us might find the dialogue in this movie to actually be a bit silly or even "corny" at times. Some people have even described this as Haynes' own brand of satire. But if we're to believe that this movie could have been filmed in the 1950's, then the conversations depicted here needed to be as true to form as possible. And even if this does strike you as a bit odd at first, you'll soon feel that it all strangely fits with the overall concept here.
Haynes does a great deal more than just manipulate the script to try to set this mood. The costumes, scenery and makeup are all totally 1950's, right down to the Tupperware in which Cathy puts her husband's dinner so she can bring it to him when she see's he's not getting home on time. (And yes, the audience recognized it, and I heard several people whisper the product name when we saw it.) What a shame that it would be dropped and forgotten when she runs off in shock after finding her husband kissing a man! It is certain that a great deal of trouble was taken to make these details look just right. And even making Ms. Moore gain weight to make her look more like a "contented housewife" seems perfectly in sync.
But the one thing that keeps us remembering that this is a 21st century rendition of a 1950's movie, is that this was filmed in full, vibrant colour. You will find no sepia, no black & white footage, no dull, painted-on looking shades in this film. I wasn't even able to detect any special filters or effects in this movie, but I'm sure that much was done to keep soaring skylines and other contemporary icons at bay. Haynes also used as few camera tricks as possible, reserving these for those angles and shots that would be needed to make a statement. For instance, as the film opens, we practically "drop in" on this town as the camera moves from the sky downwards. Overhead camera shots were very popular in the 1950's, since this was about as fancy as technology could do back then. I'm guessing that Haynes wanted to put the emphasis on the story and these people, and therefore decided to avoid as much of the extravagant devices as he could. I found no fault with that.
I understand that most of this movie was filmed on location in the town of Hartford, Connecticut. What little studio filming was done for this picture was very carefully matched with the locations, which gave this film a very seamless quality to it. I never once felt that I could tell the difference between a scene which must have been built especially for the film, versus the parts of the film that were obviously done on location. Even the scenes that were set inside a building felt totally right and real, as if they actually filmed the whole movie in real homes and offices and businesses that exist in Hartford. I realize that this could not have been the case, since I understand that while Hartford was once a very up-and- coming suburban Connecticut town, it has now fallen much into disrepair. Therefore, it must have been the film editors and directors of the cinematography that fooled us with their artistry. A hearty Bravo for this.
As for the acting, I must admit that there are some pretty special performances here. Firstly, Julianne Moore (Hannibal, An Ideal Husband, The Hours) is almost unrecognizable here. Like I mentioned before, she's quite beefy-looking in this film, but even so, I do believe that this part is quite a break-away from the characters she usually plays, and that's why she seems so different here. It was pure pleasure to see how her stature and voice were adjusted to fit the situation she was in. I was surprised she didn't win any of the big film awards, but at least she was recognized by many of the smaller awards, and nominated for an Oscar (as well as many other nominations) for her work here.
Dennis Quaid (Traffic, The Parent Trap, and Dragonheart) is slightly less successful in the portrayal of his part in this film (but he was also been nominated for a Golden Globe for this part, albeit in the category of best supporting role). While he needs to show the "tortured soul" of a man that knows he's living a lie, and knows that the truth will ruin his life, I think there are a couple places where he goes a bit overboard here. Knowing how versatile an actor Quaid is, I'd say that this was probably an error of judgement on the director's part. His best scenes are when he's out trying to meet prospective lovers, and the change in his demeanor when he is finally able to shed the falsity with a man in his arms. Together, they display just the right amount of discomfort and familiarity that a couple in this situation would have had in this era.
Moore's best friend Eleanor Fein (a Jewish name? Perhaps, but probably not.) Is played flawlessly by Patricia Clarkson. This name may not seem familiar to you or me right now, but after this performance, I'm certainly going to keep an eye out for her. It was a wonderful performance which culminated in a totally well rounded character who you felt you could reach out and touch - or strangle, as the case may be. But you'll have to see the movie to understand what I mean by this, sorry - I am trying to say as little about the plot as possible.
The other notable acting in this movie was done by Dennis Haysbert who plays Raymond Deagan, the gardener. Actually, he's more than just a gardener, he owns a garden supply shop. This is no half-wit who knows nothing but how to dig and mow. No, he's educated and intelligent and he's a total hunk! Yes, that too. Moreover, he's a widower with a young daughter that he's raising on his own. So he's got that sensitive side as well. Finally, he's warm and gentle and caring and a total hunk! No wonder Cathy starts to fall for him! Haysbert plays the part using absolutely no pretense and we feel that perhaps there are many personality traits that are shared by the character and the actor (aside from being a total hunk!). It was a pleasure watching him on the screen, and now there's yet another actor I'll have to keep an eye out for.
Since you can see that I'm fairly enamored by almost everyone that appears here - kudos to the casting director on this film, they've put together a real cohesive team, here, I think I'll end that part of this review now. If I look over what I've written so far, I see that I haven't mentioned the soundtrack. I now find that the composer for this film, Elmer Bernstein, has also received a Golden Globe and Oscar nominations for his work on this film. In truth, I can't honestly tell you that I remember much of the music from this film - not the theme song and not the background music. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since in a film such as this, background music that you can remember might be distracting. But I'm sorry that I can't remember the theme song or if there were any really good 1950's tunes that they played here or there in this film. Some of the songs might have been significant to the story, and I have certainly missed them. I guess I was just too engrossed in the movie itself to pay much attention to the music - which certainly says something about how well the movie will pull you in, doesn't it!
There is one drawback to this film that I really should mention to you. For some reason, I felt that this film seemed to work with time very strangely. Some parts of the movie seemed to me that they really could have taken place further on in time, but I soon found that these actions were happening at a much slower pace than what I was expecting. The reverse was also true - there were parts that I figured happened within hours or days of each other but then realized that they were happening weeks later instead. Does this make sense? I'm not sure exactly how I can explain this. Perhaps the best was is to say that throughout the film I had a strange feeling of disorientation regarding how they represented time passing. It is primarily because of this that I've decided to rate this film only four stars. It was a very unsettling feeling for me, and I felt that some of the scenes didn't make sense because of it. You know, the "how did that bruise heal so quickly?" feeling only to find out that the action isn't taking place the next day, but two weeks later instead. Understood?
The bottom line is - even with the one drawback of the feeling of passing of time in this film (which is the only reason why I gave this four stars instead of five), I really do have to highly recommend it. This film deals with some interesting subject matter, the acting is top notch, the scenery, sets, makeup and costumes are a joy to behold, the music doesn't disturb your viewing pleasure, and the script is fresh and original, despite its being set in the 1950s - which I think is its crowing glory. That's why I said that Far From Heaven is One Hell of a Film!
Thanks for reading!
Davida Chazan © January 2003, updated March 2006
~~~~~
Technical Stuff:
Official Web Site for this movie can be found at http://www.farfromheavenmovie.com/
This movie has been rated PG-13 since some of the material may not be suitable for younger children. I'm assuming that since there's no nudity, no foul language, and no violence, that they must be referring to the reference to homosexuality.
Available from Amazon.co.uk on DVD for £6.97, Used & New from £2.65. Soundtrack is only available from the American Amazon site for $17.98, used & new from $7.76.
******
This film was nominated for, but unfortunately didn't win, the following Oscars:
Julianne Moore - Actress in a Leading Role
Writing (Original Screenplay)
Cinematography
Music (Score)
******
~~~~~
Summary: A interesting film which investigates 1950s morals and attitudes the way they couldn't back then.
|
|
