Far From Heaven Review
by Richard A. Zwelling (razwee AT yahoo DOT com)March 3rd, 2003
FAR FROM HEAVEN
**** (out of ****)
a film review by
Richard A. Zwelling
One of the most timeless themes explored by authors and playwrights throughout history is the power of love to heal and set the spirit free. Even more powerful as a dramatic device is the denial of that love coming to fruition because of extraordinary external pressures. Anyone at all familiar with Shakespeare will undoubtedly recognize the victims of such denial as "star-crossed lovers", much as Romeo and Juliet were due to their feuding families. Such victims are at the center of Todd Haynes' highly stylistic and emotionally rich tale, Far From Heaven.
Much different from the setting of medieval Verona, however, Far From Heaven is set in New England during the 1950s. As the film opens, it immediately immerses us in a vivid and colorful ambience. The music, the opening credits, and the initial establishing shots are all skillfully and subtly geared towards a very descript picture of America during the middle of the twentieth century.
We are introduced immediately to Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore), the epitome of the devoted and socially graceful housewife. Her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) is a successful and respected TV salesman. At home, we meet rest of the perfect American nuclear family: two children (one girl, one boy) and a friendly, dutiful Negro maid (Viola Davis). Cathy is commonly accosted by a reporter from a local newspaper who views Cathy as the model of citizenship and social awareness, specifically noting her "kindness towards Negroes". Indeed, this is the perfect picture. Too perfect, in fact.
As we move further into the beginning of the narrative, we see Cathy become increasingly frustrated with Frank's tardiness to the routine family dinners. When we do see Frank, he is wavering and uneasy, and as we are taken more into his world, we see a darker side creeping beneath his veneer of normality.
Intent on preserving the ideal of the picture perfect life, Cathy at first merely dismisses these aberrations and gets on with life. Everything is violently and abruptly turned on its head, however, when Cathy finally discovers her husband's secrets. Directly confronted with the truth, Cathy is now unable to deny that their seemingly perfect world has been shattered.
Unable to find solace or refuge from confusion, Cathy does not know who to turn to for comfort and understanding. It is then that she becomes increasingly more involved with the family gardener, Raymond (Dennis Haysbert). Like the Whitakers' maid, Raymond is a Negro, and Cathy immediately finds in him a kindred spirit. He is soft-spoken, well-cultured, intelligent, caring, comforting, and the source of refuge that Cathy so desperately needs. In a world where Cathy must endlessly mask her true feelings through the social fronts of the "perfect" American lifestyle, Raymond represents an oasis of genuine emotion.
And so the story of the star-crossed lovers unfolds. The connection between Cathy and Raymond is undeniable, but much as Romeo and Juliet were limited by their families' hate for each other, so too are Cathy and Raymond limited by the status quo of racial prejudice during the 1950s. Instead of Montagues and Capulets, we have whites and blacks, and as Cathy and Raymond discover, neither side is forgiving enough to look beyond the surface and see two people that were meant to be with each other.
The dilemma which results for Cathy constitutes the moral crux of the entire story. On one hand, there is security in familiarity: Cathy could passively dismiss her encounters with Raymond, much as she does with every other facet of her life that diverts from the so-called "norm". On the other, there is the opportunity to follow her heart, throw off the shackles of her familiar, perfect life, and tread on dangerous ground while doing so. The solution is not an easy one, and watching the central characters struggle against what they think is right and what they feel is right creates cinema that is both brutally honest and emotionally captivating.
At the film's forefront is Julianne Moore, who will no doubt secure an Oscar nomination for this role, and will more than likely take the award as well. The most difficult part of this role is that of convincingly presenting Cathy's transition from the content and devoted housewife to the emotionally torn woman no longer able to put up any fronts. Moore does this with seeming effortlessness and with a strong awareness of her character's demeanor at various stages of the narrative. Nowhere is her vigilance more present than in her body language and series of facial expressions following her discovery of her husband's dirty little secrets. She is so effective at communicating the dichotomy of her burdening façade and her genuine lovingness and vulnerability that the film at times becomes painful to watch. We see her struggle, and we understand what she needs, and we feel pain as we watch her trying desperately to mask her agony.
Equally notable are Haysbert and Quaid, in the primary supporting roles. Haysbert imbues Raymond with a quiet dignity and a strong sense of groundedness. In a world where everyone else is either blinded by prejudice or dishonest with himself about his own nature, Raymond stands out as the sole voice of reason. It is impossible not to fall in love with Raymond's character, particularly during his scenes with Cathy. Quaid, meanwhile, does extremely well in communicating the many nuances of a confused, frustrated man torn between the life he leads and the life he desires.
And then to add to it all, Far From Heaven is one of the most meticulously considered stylistic efforts in recent memory. The lighting is used almost flawlessly in each scene to enhance dramatic effect. One of the highlights of this use occurs during a crucial scene in which the only light available to the audience is the moonlight trickling through windows. The costumes and the indoor décor are carefully chosen to evoke the New England lifestyle during the '50s, and the use of color in both of these is so captivating that it is possible to enjoy many of the scenes simply due to the vibrant hues.
The only weakness that the film has (and it is a small one) is that the plot is fairly predictable, and at times, it is easy to see what paths the characters will take. This does not detract at all, however, from the extraordinary way in which the story is told. The acting is superb, the atmosphere is contagious, and the issues which the story takes on are very relevant to anyone who takes the social welfare of humanity seriously. This was easily one of the best films of 2002.
copyright 2003 Richard A. Zwelling
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
