Far From Heaven
dir. Todd Haynes
Focus Features
"Ninety-two percent fresh."
That's the Rotten Tomatoes numerical assessment of the positive critical reception that has greeted Far From Heaven, a classy piece of Oscar bait that wields the sins of the 1950s like a cricket bat and then beats the decade over the head with them.
"[Director Todd] Haynes has transformed the rhetoric of Hollywood melodrama into something provocative, rich, and strange," says the Village Voice.
"What [Julianne] Moore does with her role is so beyond the parameters of what we call great acting that it nearly defies categorization," says The Los Angeles Times.
"Its core is a nugget of emotional truth and longing that's irresistible, and inextricably tied to a power so purely cinematic you wonder why so many other directors even bother," says Newsday.
What is it about Far From Heaven that has critics so universally mesmerized? Why has this film provoked sapphire sentences of eloquent praise?
It's a good-looking film, for starters, burning with the red and brown beauty of New England in fall. The acting is tight and often excellent. And the issues it wrestles with are heavy: the insidious nature of Northern racism, the destructive power of homophobia, the vicious impact of small-town gossip. In short, there's a lot for a critic to like; if movies were cars, Far From Heaven would be a tuned-up Rolls Royce, purring along with a perfect blend of power and precision. For anyone keeping score, this film gets impeccably high marks.
 |
|
|
This is less true for those who go to the movies for less professional reasons, such as a wish to be entertained, or amused, or enlightened. This is isn't a funny film, and the issues it tackles are about as fresh as Fatty Arbuckle.
In fact, it's painful to watch. Moralistic, implicitly preachy, dauntingly consistent, Far From Heaven chugs along like a flawlessly produced after-school special. In fact, the film would be perfect for 8th- and 9th-graders; its simple themes, engaging eye candy and strictly "on message" script would make it an ideal vehicle for the education of youngsters.
Contrast it with "hurts so good" films like Heavenly Creatures, Requiem for a Dream or Raging Bull. Sure, they're fueled by relentless emotional torment. But character growth and the natural arc of a fresh story are the governing principles that motivate these excellent films. Far From Heaven feels hemmed in and entirely defined by its "issues" — which are basically dead, to boot.
So for those who have already passed Civics 101 and American History: The Struggle for Civil Rights, Far From Heaven comes up short. Instead of bridging the gap between the 1950s and the present day to confront contemporary issues, it firmly sets its lance against less elusive — and almost totally inert — targets. It boldly confronts 1950s-style racism and segregation. It stands up against throwing rocks at pre-teen black girls. It bravely assails the savage and ignorant attitudes that once led some closeted gays to seek "treatment" — including electro-shock therapy — for their "problem."
Yes, it vividly illustrates the suffering of those trapped on the wrong side of those issues 50 years ago. But by tying itself so faithfully to a paticular time and place, it loses the freedom to explore its characters and make their suffering feel contemporary. Much of the pain they process seems hardwired to their environment; the questions they wrestle with seem largely solved, or greatly changed. A friend called it "the best movie of 1957," and that feels just about right. No longer (thank God) are restaurants strictly segregated, with the sight of a white woman entering a black-frequented restaurant enough to ruin her life and the lives of her family members. And no longer is homophobia so pervasive that gay people are automatically assumed to be afflicted with something that modern medicine should combat; outside of society's fundamentalist fringe, most people agree sexual orientation is a complicated combination of nature and nurture, and nothing to be particularly proud or ashamed of.
Well, bravo. We've come a long way. But we knew that before we walked into the theater. We figured out a long time ago that 1950s mom and 1950s dad had a lot of issues; we don't need a feature-length presentation to illustrate what the issues might be.
The result is that we've bought a ticket to a gorgeously executed rehash of a long-dead decade, presented with fanfare and panache, but intellectually void and emotionally torturous.
"Oh, don't do that to the nice black man. Oh, that poor woman, victim of small town gossips! Oh, that poor, angry, closeted gay husband and his poor family! Oh, those poor kids! Oh, blah blah blah," and so on, etc., all painted with a technicolor palette of sometimes staggering beauty and sophistication.
There's no shame in walking out of Far From Heaven thinking you've seen a good movie. Whole wide swathes of the film are terrifically executed.
But when there are challenging films out there — and truly entertaining films, and films that bring you to new places — why shut yourself into an elaborately decorated coffin?
— James Norton (jim@flakmag.com)
