Far From Heaven

Started by Gold Trumpet, January 08, 2003, 04:03:12 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Gold Trumpet

#15
May 19, 2003, 03:57:56 PM
Well, since I posted my original thoughts, I've discussed this film at length in this thread and other ones and have switched my original thoughts in ways. Yes, the purpose of the film is to act as a 50s films that pushes some topics a little further than the 50s film would have. The good point of this is that it can bring a new light onto subjects that are in observance of today. The bad part is that the film is not creating, but re inacting something already done. When the filmmaker is suppose to create, he is just in the business here of mimicing stylization and filmmaking from another man. This can only go so far in the creating of a new film. Though I admire the film on some counts for being able to show things in a new light, I'm not sure if I can say anything really significant about the film when most of it is just bringing a old style back. There doesn't seem to be anything redeeming from that.

~rougerum

godardian

#16
May 19, 2003, 04:18:10 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWell, since I posted my original thoughts, I've discussed this film at length in this thread and other ones and have switched my original thoughts in ways. Yes, the purpose of the film is to act as a 50s films that pushes some topics a little further than the 50s film would have. The good point of this is that it can bring a new light onto subjects that are in observance of today. The bad part is that the film is not creating, but re inacting something already done. When the filmmaker is suppose to create, he is just in the business here of mimicing stylization and filmmaking from another man. This can only go so far in the creating of a new film. Though I admire the film on some counts for being able to show things in a new light, I'm not sure if I can say anything really significant about the film when most of it is just bringing a old style back. There doesn't seem to be anything redeeming from that.

~rougerum

Hopefully all this talk will at least inspire you to see Safe. It may not impact your impression of Far from Heaven at all, but still. Do try to see the Sirk films, too.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Duck Sauce

#17
May 20, 2003, 12:09:40 AM
Quote from: godardian

Hopefully all this talk will at least inspire you to see Safe. It may not impact your impression of Far from Heaven at all, but still. Do try to see the Sirk films, too.


I HATED Far From Heaven, but AM going to see the Sirk films just to make sure.

godardian

#18
May 20, 2003, 12:39:07 AM
Quote from: Duck Sauce
Quote from: godardian

Hopefully all this talk will at least inspire you to see Safe. It may not impact your impression of Far from Heaven at all, but still. Do try to see the Sirk films, too.


I HATED Far From Heaven, but AM going to see the Sirk films just to make sure.

A healthy appreciation for the tension between the artifice of the movies and real life is essential to enjoying either. The push and pull between representation and actuality; this was an ongoing theme for Sirk and is an ongoing theme for Haynes. People mistake it for an escape into style. These films are very stylized and simultaneously use that style to play up the inexact-at-best "truth" of any "imitation of life." In this way, these highly artificial films are more honest than the films of, say, Cassavetes; they don't claim not to be a beautiful and moving lie. Their aim is not to claim to be "real," but to revel in and play up the indelible difference between fiction and reality.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

sexterossa

#19
May 24, 2003, 01:22:01 AM
i remember on the old board, around the time this movie came out, i think it was SFVALLEY DUDE (my memory could be shot though (is he still here by the way)) said that he knew someone who knew todd haynes and todd haynes admitted it was the worse film he had ever made. i now believe it.
I dream of birds and sometimes they land and burst into flames. And I dream my teeth are rotting. And when I am awake, I dream of you.

godardian

#20
May 24, 2003, 01:37:42 AM
Quote from: sexterossai remember on the old board, around the time this movie came out, i think it was SFVALLEY DUDE (my memory could be shot though (is he still here by the way)) said that he knew someone who knew todd haynes and todd haynes admitted it was the worse film he had ever made. i now believe it.

That seems an awfully, awfully sketchy source. Right before its release, I had the chance to interview Mr. Haynes, and he seemed absolutely ecstatic about it. He was reading Hoberman's review that had just come through on the fax, and he was giddy.

If there's a film he's made that you get the feeling he's not so confident of or feels has its weaknesses, it's Velvet Goldmine. But he has plenty of proud words for that, too.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Xixax

#21
June 04, 2003, 08:14:04 PM
Well, I can say this about the film.

I don't know if it was the photography, or if the transfer was so incredibly horrible that it made the thing unwatchable, but I couldn't sit through more than 10 minutes of it.

I netflixed it, and put it in, and the whole thing was visually so dark, with deep red saturation that it was unbearable. Even after turning out all the lights, it was still dark visually.

Was this intentional, or did the transfer just blow?

Count me completely unimpressed.
Quote from: Pas RapportI don't need a dick in my anus to know I absolutely don't want a dick in my anus.
[/size]

godardian

#22
June 04, 2003, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: XixaxWell, I can say this about the film.

I don't know if it was the photography, or if the transfer was so incredibly horrible that it made the thing unwatchable, but I couldn't sit through more than 10 minutes of it.

I netflixed it, and put it in, and the whole thing was visually so dark, with deep red saturation that it was unbearable. Even after turning out all the lights, it was still dark visually.

Was this intentional, or did the transfer just blow?

Count me completely unimpressed.

Huh. I didn't notice anything wholly dark, as you describe, in either the prints I saw or on my DVD. I know they were using the palate of '50s-era "glorious Technicolor" a la Douglas Sirk, of course. I thought they really pulled it off, and it was just beautiful.

Anyone else feel the film was too dark with red (??) saturation??
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Mesh

#23
June 05, 2003, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: godardian
Anyone else feel the film was too dark with red (??) saturation??

The interiors were intentionally darker, drenched in blue/green gel light, and shadowy, to ape Sirk's post-Noir look.

Exterior and interior reds were also intentionally deep, but I wouldn't say they were saturated in any sort of negative way.  My DVD seemed to reproduce a brilliant, bright, tonally diverse transfer.

Adjust TV, maybe, Xixax?  But you already thought of that.....

NEON MERCURY

#24
June 06, 2003, 07:45:04 PM
this film is beautiful and very well acted i never get tired of watching this i thought it was unique and well worth any accolades it won
Dennis Q. =under-rated
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions