Oh, to be Julianne Moore openly demonstrating human rights discussion while simultaneously dressing as a fashionable, '50s housewife. Todd Haynes' film Far from Heaven is a very interesting drama with a lot of compelling potential but one that fails to really decide upon a path and stick with it. This film is the epitome of white, milquetoast perspective, as it brings light to a lot of the glaring racism and homophobia issues of the 1950s but does not really have anything to say for itself past the introduction of these themes. Bordering between social critique and takedown of the nuclear household, this film reminds me a lot of American Beauty but without the edge of its dark, satirical comedy. The performances from the main cast and the cinematography throughout this film are absolutely worth nothing for how elegantly they were weaved into the film but when it comes to the direction and script, I just could not get past how bland this otherwise compelling premise turned out to be.
Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) lives as a housewife for her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) while raising their two children. When Frank's repressed sexuality begins to come to light and Cathy deals with a newfound relationship with her gardener's son Raymond (Dennis Haysbert), all of the troubles and prejudices of the 1950s begin to crash in around her. This film, written and directed by Twitter's favorite filmmaker Todd Haynes, is such an interesting one to examine because of its potential to critique and analyze societal problems much bigger than itself. As Cathy is struggling with her relationship with Raymond, a black man in the 1950s, her husband Frank is also dealing with his relationship with the men in his life and while these two classes of people definitely did not have the easiest time in this era, Far from Heaven did not really do anything to ease that tension. The semi-romantic subplot between Cathy and Raymond was interesting and the repression of urges subplot that Frank displays is just as interesting too but neither were ever really fleshed out. The character of Cathy just sort of meandered around the story, soaking in the cultural issues around her and this movie never tried to really say anything about that, other than bringing awareness to the topics. Focusing a film on the housewife character and giving her a much more emotional range than what has often been seen in film before is a very progressive and fantastic idea. The issue I had with this aspect of the writing is that in order to make said housewife character a good protagonist, there needs to be some kind of change that they go through that is directly caused by them and not just them being submissive. That was my main problem with the character of Cathy is that while it is fantastic seeing how she recognizes and deals with the prejudices that are thrown her way, she never does anything productive herself to better the situation. This is not to say that I expected her to lead some kind of racial, sexual, or cultural revolution but I at least wanted her to have much more agency than she was given.
Even though this film's attempt at providing something unique with its housewife character did not bode entirely well, Haynes' direction does a great job of satirizing the soap opera, overly dramatic style of filmmaking. The way that he paces this story shows so much mastery of the dramatic genre and I loved seeing how well he could handle these multiple subplots. Haynes digs deep into the American suburb, "trouble in paradise" tropes and I did find a lot of enjoyment with his handling of that along with the production design and costuming that helped to set this scene very well. James Lyons' editing also plays into this a lot, as he is very clean with knowing when to cut during dialogue. Focusing on one characters' reactions despite who might be talking is a technique that only sometimes pays off but along with Haynes' reflexive attitude towards the genre, his cutting works so undeniably well. The cinematography from Edward Lachman also stood out to me a lot and every scene of this film seems to be shot with the utmost focus on lighting and mood, which really helps create this uneasy, suburban atmosphere. However, the undoubtedly best part of this entire film was the performance from Julianne Moore. Quaid and Haysbert were both solid in their supporting roles but Moore steals this movie like no one else could. She plays such a perfect sponge, as her character simply absorbs every bad thing happening to people in her life, which makes the occasional, emotional outbursts in her character that much more affecting. The writing may not have given her that much to work with but her acting abilities really up this film's ante and she personifies the submissive housewife incredibly well. I think the restraint that Moore shows throughout this movie is really the highlight of her talent because while she very easily could have fought back or been more blatant about her character's motivations, the subtlety in the emotions of her character were played very well. Like I mentioned, I wish that Moore could have been given something stronger to work with but when placed into a film that does not necessarily have anything memorably strong, it becomes easy for her to be the standout.
Todd Haynes' Far from Heaven is far from perfect and with his lackluster handling of this story's many ideas, I just think there was too much thrown into this movie all at once. Films that center around a protagonist as they are put through the ringer of countless conflicts are very hit or miss and while usually done for comedy, this film could not exactly nail the dramatic aspects of it either. Julianne Moore was definitely the greatest part of this movie, however, and if nothing else, at least we got to see her as a strong lead character for once.
My Rating: ★★★
No comments:
Post a Comment