Finally Saw FAR FROM HEAVEN

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/14/06 at 11:57am

Wow, what an excellent, fascinating piece of filmmaking. Absolutely amazing how so much genuine emotion is contained in every single frame that is so reflexive that it's almost as if it continually has a brand screaming "MOVIE!!!" all over it. And yet, director Todd Haynes takes it as seriously and as thoughtfully as a director such as Douglas Sirk would. Nothing is condescended to. The characters are not seen as campy archetypes but instead as actual people living within a movie universe. Interesting that what Haynes does with this material is much different than another director, such as John Waters, would. It could so easily fall over the cliff into the realm of "camp" and it never does. Amazing.

And HOLY F*CK that cinematog was BEYOND beautiful. *drools*

If I had to pick out one flaw, it'd probably be with Dennis Quaid's performance. While there are scenes here where he is brilliant, he, for the most part, seems to not know how campy the movie is intending to be. He goes a just A LITTLE over-the-top with his performance, which is somewhat distracting because everyone else is playing their characters completely realistically. His performance just seems to be missing one thing that I can't quite put my finger on in order to give it more "oomph!" It's not an awful or bad performance, it's just as if he's not on the same wavelength as the other actors.

Julianne Moore, however, is just brilliant and so is Dennis Haysbert. He should definitely take a break from that 24 show every once in a while to exercise his talent with films because he's ****ing incredible here.
Updated On: 1/12/07 at 11:57 AM

[broadway86]

Posted: 10/14/06 at 12:16pm

I can't believe it took you this long to see it!

I think it's the best film of 2002. Everything about it is beautiful. Moore, I think, should have won the Oscar. Hands down. She gave a flawless and transcendent performance. I also LOVED the work of Quaid, Haysbert, and Clarkson (who created a complete character with a handful of scenes). Updated On: 10/14/06 at 12:16 PM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/14/06 at 12:30pm

I actually had been meaning to see it for a while, I just couldn't find it anywhere.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 2:33pm

Rewatched it again this morning. Heartbreaking.

I feel as if the movie literally suffocated me. Wow...
Updated On: 1/11/07 at 02:33 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 2:37pm

Wow, Cruel... you typed the "f" word twice... and you weren't censored!

I'm impressed.

And I agree that Far From Heaven is brilliant in so many ways. We watched the DVD again about a month ago, when the leaves were starting to turn. Just seemed like a good "fall" movie.

And I've been playing the CD in my car lately. Elmer Bernstein's score is a classic, just like his "To Kill a Mockingbird" music.

Updated On: 10/15/06 at 02:37 PM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 2:49pm

Yes! That score was amazing!

Especially since you constantly think it'll fall into the realm of "corniness" so quickly and it never does.

I'm really really surprised by how devastated I was left by that film. I really wasn't expecting to be so affected by it. It sounded more like an exercise of film geekery that I would feel more of an intellectual connection with but would never come close to shedding a tear. Oh how wrong I was...

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 3:00pm

I love that movie.

But I still think Kidman deserved the Oscar.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 3:10pm

It isn't corny because every performance in it, as well as the writing, the music and the direction, comes straight from the heart. It's "true."

The emotions were real, even if the style of the film was from that "heightened '50s genre" done so well back then by Douglas Sirk.

Oh, I should also add that it's Dennis Quaid's best film performance ever. Talk about haunting.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 3:45pm

See, I'd disagree with that. I felt that the intention of the film was to create a hyper-realistic, post-modernist, "movie-movie" universe, but populated with real human beings who are not being seen through the glaze of irony. I felt Dennis Quaid was still in the "movie-universe" (for the most part. many scenes, especially near the end, were so brilliant...) while everyone else was acting in the "real world". It's not a bad performance and it doesn't derail the film and I quickly got over this weird distanciation I got from his character the second time I watched it this morning.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 8:10pm

Wow, this is embarassing. I'm watching this for the third time today.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 8:36pm

LOVE this movie. If I had to come up with a flaw this moment . . . it would be that they threw too much "OMG moments." Meaning, that Dennis Quaid was married and gay AND THEN Julianne Moore was falling in love with a black man. I mean I personally didn't think it was too much or anything, but a couple of my friends from college thought so. But, all performances were AMAZING!

[broadway86]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 8:55pm

For me, the only surprise was that Quaid's character was gay. Her romance with Raymond is heartbreaking, complex, and -

"Oh, please. 'Mrs. Whitaker' is so formal. Won't you please... Ask me to dance."

Sublime.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 10/15/06 at 9:59pm

I love every frame of that film. I love Douglas Sirk.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 10:49pm

Bump.

For some reason, I just feel so horrible. I cannot watch this film without feeling awful. It's so immersive, it sucks you in and forces you into the lives of these characters. It's almost Bergmanesque in that way. I can't even bring myself to listen to the score for this film, which is a drag because Elmer Bernstein's work is brilliant. I just feel so bad.

I think it may be because these lives are so stunted by conformity. They can't do what they really want to do because society has tied anchors onto them.

Hopefully, one day, I could possibly bring myself to watch this movie again. But not now.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 10:58pm

While I don't agree that it was the best film of 2002, I do agree that Moore should have won an Oscar that year, but it should have been the Supporting Actress Oscar for THE HOURS, the best film of 2002.

Updated On: 1/11/07 at 10:58 PM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:00pm

2002 was a great movie year.

I still say ADAPTATION. was the best film of the year, overall (Mostly because I can actually bear to watch it again :)), but FAR FROM HEAVEN is a close second.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:07pm

It was the best film never made in the 50's.

Stunning. You should read Peyton Place.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:08pm

I loved this movie but, apparently, in a completely different way than you, Cruel. The first time I saw it, I remember watching the entire film with a grin from ear to ear. I loved the way it paid homage to the Sirk films of the 60's, but everything about it was too over-the-top for me to take it as seriously as you did. But I still love everything about it. In addition to the performances, the set design and cinematography are flawless!

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:11pm

So, you saw it more as an intellectual film experiment? I was thinking I would see it that way. I'm familiar with 1950s melodrama and was eager to see a non-ironic take on it. I wasn't exactly expecting a comedy. I guess I was perhaps expecting an experimental film.

For a while, it does seem to be that way. But then it just gets sadder and sadder and you realize that you are actually investing yourself into this movie universe. It raises so many questions, in addition to the ones that the story within the movie world pose, about the relationship with reality and movie-fiction.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:25pm

I hear ya. And I'm certainly not dismissing your take on it. Films affect everyone differently. That's the beauty of them. So many factors enter into what any one given person takes away from any one given film. And while I didn't see it as a comedy, I guess I was grinning because of how "on the mark" Haynes' homage was to that particular genre of filmmaking. It's really a brilliant film.

Updated On: 1/11/07 at 11:25 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:31pm

I liked the film but mostly because of the saturated color. Amazing.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/11/07 at 11:39pm

In the scene where Moore's character welcomes her girlfriends for lunch, I especially love the way the colors of the clothes perfectly match the colors of the leaves on the trees. It's pure eye-candy.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 12:24am

It's amazing because all that color was done during production. Nothing was changed in post. He is such a cool director.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 1:08am

I still think Dennis Quaid should've gotten the Best Supporting Actor nod over John C. Reilly.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 5:57am

I agree, StageManager2...

I loved this movie so much I saw it twice in movie theaters...it may not have been my favorite movie of 2002 but it was definitely up there.