The best film of 2002

[dave durbin]

Todd Haynes has crafted not only a beautiful cinematic valentine to the films of Douglas Sirk but also to film lovers desperate for a reminder of why we go to the movies in the first place. Heartbreaking performances, stunning cinematography, lighting, and costumes, and a subtle/melodramatic storytelling technique that makes golden observations about our society, cultures, and love. It's the best film of the last 10 years.

[oscar jubis]

It's a pleasure not to have to defend Far From Heaven this time. I certainly prefer it to Chicago and The Hours,which are getting the awards. Todd Haynes and J.Moore's other collaboration: SAFE, also was neglected. I recommend it. Now...what didya say bout the last 10 years?

[dave durbin]

Glad to hear someone else understood the picture as well. It seems strange to have to defend this movie from people who have slammed labels -homophobic, racist, pointless- on it. About the 'last 10 years' comment, I have seen some beautiful movies made but none that have moved or impressed me as much as Far from Heaven did. (And it's ridiculous -but not that surprising- that the Academy Awards snubbed the film and Todd Haynes's direction in favor of Rob Marshall's Chicago!) Yes, I've seen Safe and thought it was disturbingly brilliant.

[Tommy Rocket]

My theory on the Todd Haynes FAR FROM HEAVEN snub: The accomplishments of the film were overlooked by the Academy and critics at large because Todd Haynes made it look so easy. To make an homage to 50's weepies (which often teeter on the edge of camp while still being remarkably touching) and get the tone just right is a bold challenge to face. Todd Haynes pulls it off with enormous skill. Not to mention the brilliant Julianne Moore, whose work has been consistently good in films like SAFE, THE END OF THE AFFAIR and even in AN IDEAL HUSBAND [that rotten film]. It is almost a shame that her work is so skillful; she makes it look too easy. I fear her performance will be overlooked because Nicole Kidman is wearing a fake nose (Kidman is a labored actress, though this is by far her best work). Don't get me wrong, I loved THE HOURS and think it is a challenging and beautiful movie with its three separate stories so carefully interwoven, but the difficulties of making a film like FAR FROM HEAVEN are myriad and should be honored. I hope it gets some kind of attention at the awards. Though really - who cares in the end. The Oscars are just a marketing tool anyway. I mean - look at the history - SONG OF BERNADETTE won over CASABLANCA... When are the Oscars ever fair or right?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Tommy Rocket Though really - who cares in the end. The Oscars are just a marketing tool anyway.
I care specifically because the Oscars ARE a marketing tool. Oscar nominations and wins attract the larger audience (and advertising budget) that my favorite films deserve. I get ticked off when films like Beautiful Mind and Song of B win awards because they steal the audience and the spotlight from truly deserving ones. Chicago is one fun, kinetic and amusingly cynical musical, arriving just when we needed one. But it pales in comparison with the audacity and achievement of Haynes' revision/homage to the Sirk melodrama. I want more people to see it.

[Tommy Rocket]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I want more people to see it.

Indeed! And FAR FROM HEAVEN should be seen by a wider audience.

I suppose my cynicism about the Oscar race is fueled by the idealistic notion that OSCAR is a reflection of artistic achievement, which, in all its long history, it does not seem to be. With notable exceptions, the Oscar statuette is infrequently awarded to my favorite films or performances - those I believe deserving of artistic recognition. It seems to be Time which determines a film's greatness, or a superb technical achievement - be it an actor's performance in a role or other film elements. One could make a parlor game of all the Oscar slights (name the film, performance or technical award which actually won and the slighted nominee or non-nominee in the same category). I would like to care more about the Oscars, but they usually just get my goat. That is, in a way, a reflection of the fact that I want my ideals realized.

But I digress - FAR FROM HEAVEN is probably the finest film of this year, too esoteric perhaps for certain movie-goers, and even too finely made to be recognized for the heights of its achievement. In my first post I think I mentioned that people don't recognize a film unless it looks difficult. I think FFH will be overlooked. I pray not in many categories. In the meantime, I look forward to adding it to my DVD collection.

FAR FROM HEAVEN is far superior to CHICAGO, no doubt, though the latter is surprisingly good, given the weakness of the movie musical in the past 30 years. I was also quite moved by THE HOURS and would have a hard time deciding between FFH and TH. But for FAR FROM HEAVEN to be slighted so?!!! There's nothing to be done now but hope we will be vindicated if FFH at least wins best original screenplay or Ms. Moore gets her much-deserved statuette!

Shall we start a new topic to discuss Oscar's shortcomings? Such a debate could go on and on

[dave durbin]

Hit it!

[Tommy Rocket]

Hey Dave -

Can we start a new thread called Oscar Slights? I'm still not sure how to navigate the sight, but if we're changing the thread topic I feel as though we should start a new topic - since it won't have all that much to do with FAR FROM HEAVEN except for being instigated by this subject.

How do we begin?

Tommy

[dave durbin]

Go back to the main page, scroll down to General Film Forum, hit 'new topic' or 'start new thread' -whatever it says, then let 'er rip.

[Tommy Rocket]

kewl - check out Oscar Slights on the main page.

[dave durbin]

Where? Can't find it.

[Tommy Rocket]

I think it has been put under FAR FROM HEAVEN. check again and let me know!