Todd Haynes

Amie: [looks at watch] That was only two hours?!

INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY (UK) 23rd March 2003
THIS IS THE LIFE

A close friend of mine was a respected film critic for over a decade before packing it in to spend more time with her cat. While in situ, she was fascinating about the hypocrisy of her fellow preview-theatre troglodytes. She told of frequent occasions when the fraternity of critics (almost all film reviewers are male and look like badgers in glasses) had patently enjoyed a movie, only to retire and savage it in print.

I particularly remember her saying how there was an almost carnival atmosphere among the critics oogling Paul Verhoeven's kitsch go-go extravaganza Showgirls, but almost every reviewer slated the movie as offensive soft porn.

Showgirls is certainly a vulgarian's wet dream, but so is Moulin Rouge - it's just more socially acceptable (if marginally so) to like Elton John songs than to like strippers cat-fighting. If there's anything more annoying than critics being mealy-mouthed when a film's entertainment value exceeds its IQ, it's the same sages gushing over a film that has cultural pretensions but no heart. (This paper's critic, Jonathan Romney, is an exception and only recommends highly cultural works with pounds of raw heart - I just wish they weren't all set in Uzbekistan). How often have I trekked off to see a film, convinced I am about to watch a work of hitherto unimaginable cinematic genius worthy of Hitchcock, Kubrick and Bunuel rolled into one fat, beardy French uber-director, only to sit slack-jawed with disappointment at the monumental work of disengaged tedium passing before me?

So I should have known when I bunked off work to see "the best film of the year so far", "a marvel of production design", "more clever and literate than anything around", that it would be the Emperor's new turkey. Far from Heaven is director Tod Haynes' ludicrously overwrought tribute to Douglas Sirk's ludicrously overwrought Fifties' melodrama All That Heaven Allows. Haynes may have written a new screenplay, but the cast of characters and plot remains largely the same, with just a couple of updates that are supposed to be a sophisticated wink at a contemporary audience. For example, Julianne Moore's domestic goddess, Cathy, is not a widow, but the wife of a repressed homosexual, and she falls for a black, rather than a white, gardener. But it's still an utterly pointless act of retro devotion to anyone not given to musing, "Wow, that's really neat to have a closet queen in the remake, when the original starred Rock Hudson!" Furthermore, Dennis Quaid as Cathy's surly husband, Frank, is about as gay and "charming" as Billy Bob Thornton. Meanwhile Julianne Moore wafts through the autumnal haze of a master-class in cinematography (all the colours of the fall, geddit?) in startlingly full-skirted frocks, with all the period authenticity of one of those crinolined dollies you put on top of the loo roll. The LA Times wrote, "What she does with her role is so beyond the parameters of what we call great acting that it really defies categorization." Actually, it's so far beyond those parameters that it defies what I call acting. Moore is just a milky, wide-eyed canvas on which Haynes projects his stultifying lens.

And yet Far From Heaven is up for four Academy Awards, including Moore as best actress. But when you look at the films that have won best movie over recent years it all makes sense. There's American Beauty, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, and The Last Emperor: scrupulously tasteful but low-cal dinner-party fodder every one - films with literary associations that make people feel sophisticated, like knowing the correct way to eat artichokes. Was there ever anything more vomit-inducing than listening to the chattering classes forcing laughter at Shakespeare in Love just to show they got the tepid jokes about Webster and Marlowe?

Over the past 21 years the only two films that have won best film and deserve to be in any sane person's DVD collection are Unforgiven and Gladiator, both of them rudely vibrant movies that know how to take a big screen by storm. Over the same time equally mesmerising classics such as Blade Runner, LA Confidential, Strictly Ballroom, Heat and The Fellowship of the Ring, failed to triumph. I am fairly certain it's because none of them was scripted, directed or remotely touched by a luvvie, such as Sir Tom Stoppard or Sam Mendes. Judging by this criterion, Sir David Hare's screenplay for The Hours should help that turgid piece of pseudo- intellectual onanism carry off the top honour this year. But I shall still hold that the year's best films were The Two Towers, Laissez Passer and The Devil's Backbone. And for those who want to see a masterpiece about the price of emotional repression in a censorious society, may I suggest Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love? If Far From Heaven is painting by numbers, In the Mood for Love is a Turner sunset.

Yay, I am a vulgarian!

So I think the ending of Far from Heaven is in keeping with the ambivalent endings of several of Sirk's melodramas.

It's a great film. Todd Haynes at the Oscars is sort of incongruous. I'm actually relieved he didn't win.

for me it kinda wasn't

Haynes's is v. talented at making "impossible" films--films that can't really be assimilated to any one set of critical expectations, and that are necessarily frustrating for that and other reasons. They're difficult to love, in my experience. I'm still wondering if that sort of thing has a value in itself, but given how much thought I've given to Far from Heaven I suppose the answer is yes.

can you expand on this pls?

hollow meta levels

i think i'd rather see a douglas sirk film in 2002.

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story: classic or what?

far from heaven wz a bit of a slog tho

Bob Dylan has given permission to a Hollywood studio to make a film about his life and will be portrayed by seven actors - one of them a black woman reports The Times Online.

Todd Haynes confirmed last week that he is searching for a woman who can do justice to the short white Jewish singer's "inner blackness". The seven will play Dylan during different eras in his 43-year career, starting in the 1960s when his song "The Times They Are A-Changin'" turned into an anti-war anthem. Costing £30m, the film is due for release next year under the title "I'm Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan".

It is traditional in films spanning a lifetime for characters to be played by more than one actor, but rarer for them to change sex or race. Haynes is considering actresses ranging from pop singer Beyoncé Knowles to tennis champion Venus Williams and the one and only Oprah Winfrey.

I'm really curious about this. Like Ned, I could care less about Dylan's music, but I do think he's a pretty compelling personality and icon.

Far From Heaven seems to work best on people who recognize top-flight pastiches can unleash emotions, like Magnetic Fields' 69 Love Songs.

yes, beyonce. what a terrible idea. it is a pointless, and obscene, gimmick.

(but if you swap sirk for glam, and VG for FFH, i wd probably be defendin it, so maybe it's just that i'm not really THAT big on sirk myself)

the person i wz with - unrepentent sexual pirate and general tomboy activist - knew nothing abt sirk or sirk theory and wz emotionally overwhelmed, except in a bad way: we had to go straight to a gay bar after and have several drinks

I'd rather he get Venus Williams (or Lisa Leslie) than Beyonce though!

If it were Todd Solondz behind the camera, I'd agree with you. (Actually, wait, doesn't his new film Palindromes do the whole multiple-actors-playing-the-same-character thing, too? That's weird.) But Haynes truly does have the ability to transcend his conceits. That combination of intellectual cleverness and genuine, overwhelming emotion is why Far From Heaven and Eternal Sunshine are two of my favorite films of this decade.

The score is the score from the Go-Between

Its a wonderful score but for me a major contributor to the self conscious late 60s Losey pastiche which i found tiresome, not least because every Losey film I've seen since the Servant has been a major disappointment. In that way I guess he's similar to Haynes for me, I feel like they both lucked into one great film where everything clicks and its a miracle but everything else theyve done is laboured and smug. I haven't seen every Losey film though and Haynes hasn't done anything as bad as Eva.

I thought Portman was way too much, the gags felt overdone. The screen is a mirror. I'm not really sure what I was supposed to be confronted by. Maybe it needed another hour or so of portman wandering around in a sunhat. The Chabrol comparison feels way too kind, at least there would be a dead body or a painting or a suitcase of cash it was Chabrol. I was going to say maybe Haynes should adapt a Highsmith novel but then I remembered he already has. I wonder what Laura Mulvey would say about it.

I was disappointed by this too, weird kind of mix of trashy and prestige but not really nailing either

My Letterboxd this weekend was a feast of May December backlash

I thought Portman was way too much, the gags felt overdone.

Interesting. To my mind she's an inadequate actress, but she and Haynes exploited her weaknesses well. I was more conscious this second viewing of how nicely she spaced out her delivery, how she managed a second-tier actress' trick of I Am Listening Now when another person spoke to her.

I liked it, but for a film about forbidden love, there was very little I found uncomfortable. the moral POV seemed pretty well prescribed

The most uncomfortable moment to me was was Portman telling her casting people that the 13-year-olds they were sending her weren't sexy enough. But it was also funny.

Yeah, was also uncomfortable with the variation on that theme, very willingly answering the drama class clown's question on how to film sex scenes

Take this with a grain of salt, but this film has grown in my estimation the further I've gotten from it. I found it uncomfortable and just generally not enjoyable as I watched it, but I admit I do keep thinking about parts of it (especially the final scene).

I didn't read a lot of previews or have big expectations going in, beyond knowing the basic premise. I was shocked after I watched it to find people saying how funny it was - I truly did not laugh once, and did not ever get the sense it was going for comedic beats.

I agree, and I believe Haynes when he’s said as much in interviews. (Although he obviously miscalculated with the “hot dogs” music sting, only an alien would think that wasn't intended as a camp laff.)

I find myself having that experience more & more over the last 5 or so years, seeing some really severe drama or horror movie overpraised online as a hilarious dark comedy. I think about it a lot tbh and cant really figure out exactly what I think about it. I know part of it is obviously just an effect of Me Getting Old, but I think theres definitely some things going on in current film culture that are resulting in audiences bringing a lot more irony to the table than in times past, at least w/certain kinds of films.

Kids these days reserve their solemnity for Tiktok reels

I mean, I just heard Portman and Moore going for beats in their line deliveries that amused me. idk if I brought anything.

The problem with comedy and finding things unfunny is that no one wants to feel left out of the joke.

I will never use the phrase "hilarious dark comedy" and will give serious side eye to anyone who does.

I do

congrats on finally tying the knot!

I get my boxing terms mixed. xpost

Throw those dreary vows away, they bore me!

I like the idea that Haynes is focusing on us (the audience) as avid consumers of lurid tabloid stories, and turning the narrative and whatever truth there might be about it back on us, to what our reactions to this movie might reflect about us

Throw those dreary vows away, they bore me!

― stephen miller is not your friend (Eric H.), Monday, December 18, 2023 8:49 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

lol

The general atmosphere here is very Macbeth-ish.

We've seen you like this before. Is it over or is it just beginning?

thought joe actor/character was really good. the put down of 'this is what grown ups do' was one of the most off handedly condescendingly mean thing I've seen in a movie in a while. the graduation dress shopping scene with the daughter's reaction to the 'your brave to wear that dress and show off your upper arms' volley from the mum was great/chilling. never got a handle on who gracie was throughout the whole thing. hopefully that was the point.

the music cues kept making me think of 'invitation to love'

the put down of 'this is what grown ups do' was one of the most off handedly condescendingly mean thing I've seen in a movie in a while

Yeah, this one got a gasp from me

Portman nailed the delivery.

This latest “controversy” is really killing any remaining goodwill I have toward … well discourse in general tbh

this. a24 not contacting the last remaining brother of the von erichs until after the iron claw was made…the aaliyah story a younger zendaya turned down…it should be an ethical requirement to request an individual’s permission for a biopic or “inspired story,” based on THEM. https://t.co/56QqnSQ7kI

— kristen (not crystal) yellowjackets shish-kabob 🍡 (@lordesbbqribs) January 4, 2024

give me a fucking break here lol pic.twitter.com/rhW0HmvyQk

— alice (@modlssss) January 4, 2024

I think artists should be able to write about whomever they want…but I also think if they’re based on a real person, there should be a sincere effort to understand that person and give them a fair shake…kind of a theme of this movie iirc

joe was clearly the character the story was most sympathetic to imo, fwiw

Right. I'm not myself feeling sympathetic.

He may be the inspiration but it's not a biography. It would be extremely misguided to even mistake it as one, just as it would be to think Charles Foster Kane is supposed to be a biographical depiction of William Randolph Hearst. Public figures inspire countless fictional characters. The plot may involve adapting a controversial event into a TV show, but it's still doing so within the realm of fiction.

I don't know why so much of the audience nowadays has trouble grappling with the concept of fiction - it's like when they mistake any film, book or song as being some kind of coded memoir. Is it reality TV warping their understanding of such things?

And thanks to its mixture of tones it winds up fair to all the principals? We understand without sympathizing.

I can understand the guy's feelings, sure, but that's just how stories work. Stagger Lee would like a word.

sensible and justified for this dude to see it the way he sees it

sensible and justified for haynes et al to proceed with their creative project without involving him

"If they had reached out to me, we could have worked together on a masterpiece"

i do like his delusions of grandeur though

Indeed, this movie could've been up there with The Amy Fischer Story. Instead, it's merely Haynes' best movie since Safe (the Village Voice poll's best movie of the '90s).

It's funny how in the movie the people the story is based on are involved but not in the actual production of the movie where that happens

This movie is so exquisitely awkward

Yeah, between this and Showing Up it was a good year for awkward.

Showing Up is awkward, and is a remarkable film about a small local community of people (an arts community in Portland OR) trying to navigate the world, with all of the frustrations and divided feelings that come with it. It is my favorite movie so far from this year.

May December is also a favorite film this year, but it seems very slippery and knowing and almost conniving, and is almost the opposite of awkward to me, although there are some moments in it that are cringy