Far From Heaven is as much about now as it is about the 50's. Todd Haynes has a lot of balls to tackle the subject of race, specifically issues dealing with being a black man in America and he does so successfully. As for the issue of women's rights, it was nearly impossible for him to get the funding needed to make the film because the central charactor was a woman. One of his points is that times haven't changed all that much.
As for Clark, (I did not see Bully) he strikes me as being one of the most out of touch artists when it comes to the here and now or "reality" or whatever you want to call it. His world is a never never land devoid of people over 30, populated by bad boy junkies and just enough girls to keep it all sexually ambiguous.
That's my point---Haynes attempt is noble, but he fails to make the connection with contemporary life. I have no doubt about the purity of his motives. He chose to do something incredibly difficult in this epoch of fluff.
He wants us to realize that these forces are still in operation in society and individuals today, but the film's preoccupation with surface style and props (even in the acting approach), precludes that realization, and results in a lack of depth and resonance both in the period and in the present.
A lot of people have praised the film, and pegged FFH as a film about how bad things were "back then." And they were, much worse.
Our points seem to me to be quite different, Mine is that Far From Heaven is connected to contemporary life. There is no denying that tese themes are still big issues today. As for the surface style, props, wigs etc. What would you have him do? It's a period piece.
I don't dispute that Haynes is deeply interested in style, all his works are, They are also deeply sincere. A balance I think most works of post-modernism rarely achieve.
|
As for Clark, (I did not see Bully) he strikes me as being one of the most out of touch artists when it comes to the here and now or "reality" or whatever you want to call it. His world is a never never land devoid of people over 30, populated by bad boy junkies and just enough girls to keep it all sexually ambiguous.
- steve 3-04-2003 8:17 pm
That's my point---Haynes attempt is noble, but he fails to make the connection with contemporary life. I have no doubt about the purity of his motives. He chose to do something incredibly difficult in this epoch of fluff.
He wants us to realize that these forces are still in operation in society and individuals today, but the film's preoccupation with surface style and props (even in the acting approach), precludes that realization, and results in a lack of depth and resonance both in the period and in the present.
A lot of people have praised the film, and pegged FFH as a film about how bad things were "back then." And they were, much worse.
- bunny (guest) 3-04-2003 9:21 pm [add a comment]
Our points seem to me to be quite different, Mine is that Far From Heaven is connected to contemporary life. There is no denying that tese themes are still big issues today. As for the surface style, props, wigs etc. What would you have him do? It's a period piece.
I don't dispute that Haynes is deeply interested in style, all his works are, They are also deeply sincere. A balance I think most works of post-modernism rarely achieve.
- steve 3-05-2003 1:35 am [add a comment]
And yes, some things were worse back then, but his film isn't about the "worst things" of the 1950's. It's set in CT. Not China or Littlerock.
- steve 3-05-2003 1:38 am [add a comment]
I don't really know what you mean by your statement that "our points are different." I just disagree with you.
You think the film successfully points to contemporary parallels and I do not. The fact that it's a "period piece" is not what I'm complaining about. It's lack of depth in the story and characterizations.
In what way do you think FFH makes points about contemporary racism, sexism, homophobia etc.?
Also, if there is any validity to your point that the film deals "successfully" with racism and the experience of black men in America, then the film IS about the "worst things" of the 50s. If you acknowledge the complexity of the societal position of the Raymond character in FFH, you have to acknowledge that Connecticut was Little Rock, but worse, because even a middle-class striver like Raymond, who owned his own business, lived the experience of racism and de facto segregation every day.
In fact, at the end of the film, he has to leave town to avoid the hatred and violence spawned by his friendship with the Moore character. And where does he choose to go? Back down South, where boundaries were both more defined in some ways, yet less rigid in others.
- bunny (guest) 3-05-2003 3:56 am [add a comment] [edit]
The film is about racism, sexism and homophobia, both varieties "contemporary" and old fashioned. You complain that it lacks depth storywise, Far From Heaven is virtualy a remake of All That Heaven Allows, the scripts are almost identical in terms of story and structure. As for characterization, the characters are as deep as any as Sirk came up with.
Todd Haynes has the gall to make films about the things we hold personal and "proprietary" The Carpenters, Glam Rock, Douglas Sirk etc. and try to make something new out of them. Shame on him.
- steve 3-05-2003 6:22 pm [add a comment]
I agree that it's about those things. However, just because the film follows the template of "All That Heaven Allows" doesn't mean that it works. I haven't read anything specific in your remarks that describes why and how FFH brings its points home in contemporary life.
Because there exists racism in society today? Because there exist closeted gays and homophobia in society today?
Because oppression of women still exists in society? Haynes makes a film about these themes in the 50s, very specific to the period in every way, and that is enough for you to say that
his film makes contemporary points about those issues? How? Do you seriously think those same characters in that film would be in the same situation today?
The Dennis Quaid character might be living in suburban Connecticut, but he'd be living in a Neutra house, probably very successful, with a live-in or live-out boyfriend. He and his boyfriend might even have kids. He might not be open about his preferences/identity at work depending on where he worked, but since this character worked at an Ad agency, there probably wouldn't be any need for him not to be "out." He'd probably be in aa if he had the drinking problem described in the film.
The Moore character might be in a stifling marriage, but she would probably at least have a job, and a nanny, in order to handle two kids and a large house. If she didn't work, she'd probably have some economic activity on the side, and at least one forthright friend who would be supportive, maybe a shrink to talk to, and scores of books and magazines telling her to fulfill her own destiny.
As for the Raymond character, he might live in one of the large houses in her neighborhood, CEO of a nationwide chain of gardening stores, and probably working all the time. His daughter might be attending a private school, if the local school was not deemed good enough. If he wanted to date Moore after her divorce, there might be some gossip and salacious remarks initially, but there wouldn't be for long. If he and Moore had a public friendship prior to a divorce, there might be gossip, but there would be anyway, even if he weren't black. The fact of his race would just mean a little more nastiness and titillation for those who enjoy watching the conflicts and hardships of others.
I don't really understand your parting remark, seemingly intended as a weird sarcastic retort. I don't consider Sirk any personal favorite of mine, nor do I think his work must remain untouched. Glam rock, the carpenters--I don't see these as particularly "bold" choices of subject matter either. They're clever ideas, Haynes is an extremely inventive and original filmmaker.
Don't throw the nutria out with the bathwater.
- bunny (guest) 3-07-2003 2:12 am [add a comment] [edit]
To exhaust the exhaustion:
I guess the best I can say regarding any contemporary resonance of FFH is that the film can be appreciated as a horror film. This slice of life is what the Bush "TEAM", jurists, cheerleaders, ideologues and demogogues, would have American society go back to.
This is where things could go back to (for the lucky, because at least all three characters looked well-fed) if the neo-conservatives get their way, as they've been getting with precious little opposition.
Thanks for this board for allowing my screeds and pedantisms the past couple of days. I think i'll go write some letters to columnists, legislators etc. ad naus3eum.
- bunny (guest) 3-07-2003 2:39 am [add a comment] [edit]
I already said my (uninformed) piece on FFH. Please see my afterthought on Bully, below.
- tom moody 3-07-2003 3:01 am [add a comment]