Rating- * * * * * (5/5)
As I write this review, I am currently questioning my five-point ratings system, in part due to this film. A film as well conceived and well executed as this certainly deserves my highest marks but I days later I still do not feel the resonance that a truly great film would imprint upon me. A film such as The Pianist, for example, is certainly equal to this film in its direction and execution but as far as content, The Pianist was nearly a life changing experience for me while Far From Heaven did not make quite so strong an impression. So how can I distinguish between these two films without being unfair to one or the other? Duh, Matt…that’s why you have a Best Of list. With that crisis resolved, I can tell you that Far From Heaven is an amazing, powerful, masterfully crafted film that does not have as strong an impact as some of its contemporaries but is certainly no less impressive. Written and directed by AIDS-activist/director Todd Haynes, the film is crafted as an homage to the great 1950s filmmaker Douglas Sirk. For those who aren’t familiar with Sirk (don’t worry, I wasn’t either), he was best known for his socially relevant melodramas that were considered the pinnacle of dramatic film in the ‘50s. While they seem a little trite and silly today, the films were actually quite controversial and dealt with themes such as adultery and racism. Far From Heaven is directed, written, photographed, performed, even scored exactly as it would have been had it been made by Sirk in the ‘50s with one twist: it deals with issues that not even Sirk would have touched. The film faces off against the powerful themes of homosexuality and interracial relationships and how they were dealt with in the ‘50s; in other words, it’s the Douglas Sirk film that never got made. It’s a pretty interesting concept and an especially effective one considering that the film certainly has an agenda concerning homosexuality. I know what you’re thinking. “Please, don’t turn this review into a debate about homosexuality.” Don’t worry, I’m not touchin’ that one; it’s not my job, so relax and keep reading. My point is, this film may certainly have an opinion on the debate about homosexuality but the way in which it argues its point is an incredibly effective one; it puts us in a world where homosexuality is not tolerated whatsoever. By reminding us of what it was really like before the gay revolution (wow, did I just say that?), the film lets us see that no matter how you feel about homosexuality, we are certainly better off with how things are now than fifty years ago. The problem is dealt with through a very tragic story about a seemingly perfect couple that begins to disintegrate when the husband realizes that he’s gay. Julianne Moore plays Cathy Whitaker, a typical ‘50s housewife, hostess of all the local soirees, and a kind-hearted, socially liberal woman who sympathizes with the plight of the “colored man”. Her husband, Frank Whitaker (Dennis Quaid), is a big-time advertising executive who loves his wife and kids and works long hours to make sure they get everything they need. Everything looks perfect and the film never rushes the conflict that we know is inevitable. Clues are revealed to us slowly; the girls sit around talking about their husbands’ sexual appetites while Cathy sits by quietly, uncomfortably smiling with that subtlety that only Julianne Moore can convey. In the meantime, Cathy befriends their new gardener Raymond (played by 24’s Dennis Haysbert), a strong, kind, wise man who understands Cathy and with whom she feels comfortable enough to open up and share all her problems. Once the problems begin to flesh out, we suffer through the pain and indignities of the characters as Frank attempts to eliminate his urges through therapy and Cathy endures societal exclusion for being seen with a black man in public. The way the film plays out is absolutely heart-wrenching but also extremely effective in gaining sympathy for its position on tolerance. What makes the film so tremendously powerful are its performances, an element that is absolutely integral to a melodrama. Quaid shows us his agony over his problem and never seems less than distraught even when he is trying to conceal his feelings. Of course, the driving force of the film is Julianne Moore, who received one of her Oscar nominations this year for her role. Moore is the Woman of a Thousand Smiles; I’ve never seen an actor use their smile with such variation and depth. Through variations in her smile alone, Moore can show us anger, utter despair, discomfort, even raging desire. She is truly an amazing actress and is certainly the backbone of this film. As I said before, this is a strong film and is one of the best you’ll see from 2002, but it didn’t seem to leave quite as much of an impression as some of the other films of the year. That could just be me, or it could be that film lacks that extra punch in the jaw that a truly great film should give you. Since I can’t put my finger on it, I’m giving Far From Heaven the benefit of the doubt since it is clearly made with the utmost artfulness and conviction and will spur argument among almost any group that watches it together. Far From Heaven is certainly one of the best films of the year and a must-see for any true follower of the American cinema.