Todd Haynes' Safe [Archive] - FilmLeaf

Howard Schumann

04-22-2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Well, I want to put in a good word for Todd Haynes' Safe. By far the best thing he's done. An extremely disturbing movie with a unique focus. Julianne Moore's kvetchy, crybaby manner extremely effective here, before it became overexposed in later films (though I would not fault her performance in Magnolia!). Look again, Howard. You can watch Safe while I'm watching My Dinner with Andre. Well I wasn't going to do this but I am persuaded to post my review of Safe, a film that I am not lukewarm about but actively dislike for personal and cinematic reasons.
SAFE

Directed by Todd Haynes (1995)

I try to see the good in all films. If a film director is honest and his motivations sincere and he has attempted to entertain or to challenge, I will give him/her the benefit of the doubt. There are a few exceptions, however. Some films I have a visceral dislike for because I feel that the director is either promoting an agenda, or simply being dishonest in presenting the material. One film that falls into this category is Safe by Todd Haynes. The film was made in 1995 and has received a great deal of praise.

Safe features an outstanding performance by Julianne Moore, and does well to express the sense of unease and dislocation that many people experience in the modern urban world. The movie begins with Moore's character, Carol, coming into an awareness of the emptiness of her life. At a dinner party scene early in the film we see that behind the laughter and amiable conversation surrounding her, Carol feels isolated and afraid. She has little sense of who she or of what is meaningful to her. She finds herself coughing and experiencing sudden fits of dizziness and nausea and we are meant to wonder what is wrong. The question is compelling; at one point it is suggested that Carol is simply "allergic to the 20th century." Unfortunately the film really slips up when Haynes takes us to Act Two.

Carol abandons her home and family and takes refuge in the "chemical-free zone" of Wrenwood, a healing facility out in the desert. She wants to retreat from the whole world. Wrenwood is presented as a New Age cult, run by the slick Peter Dunning (Peter Friedman) who is infected with AIDS. In the words of reviewer Steven Shaviro, "He (Peter) encourages Carol to look inward, into herself. Her selfhood is as carefully nourished in Wrenwood as it was denied at home. You yourself are responsible for your illness, Peter tells her. If you got sick, it's because on some level you chose to. If you want to get well, shut your eyes and ears to everything from outside. Purge away those negative feelings, and give yourself to love. Learn to cherish and love yourself, and everything will be fine". However, Carol does not progress but gets worse. She loses all sense of her identity, and at the end of the film is as lost regarding her sickness as at the beginning.

The problem I have with the film is not so much that Wrenwood fails to help Carol, or even that the group is portrayed negatively. What I object to is the casual way that Haynes recycles the worst cliches and falsehoods regarding self-help movements, and to my mind, est in particular. I do not wish to debate the merits or demerits of est or any other organization of this kind apart from stating that, in my experience, the goal of these programs was to transform people so that they could experience themselves and the people around them fully, with love and with joy. The fact that over a million people participated attests to the fact that, in the main, people got value from them and shared that with people they cared about. Peter Dunning is portrayed, however, as a slick phony, praying on people's insecurities with a combination of charisma and empty pieties. It follows that Wrenwood's participants are dupes, brainwashed, taken advantage of.

Because Haynes uses ideas that have a direct basis in reality, there is a burden to be honest about what movements such as est stood for and practiced. Yet, Haynes' approach is cynical and fundamentally dishonest. The truth is that no one in any of the self-help programs I was familiar with ever told anyone anything such as Peter tells Carol. Many came to similar conclusions but only through looking inward and discovering the truth for themselves. Haynes failure in portraying the group at Wrenwood is problematic not only ethically, but finally, and perhaps most important, dramatically. Watching this section of the film, one senses that Haynes is not truly invested in the journey of his protagonist; rather, he is leading Carol around like a puppet through events contrived to enforce his own attitude toward groups like est. The action falls flat, as the film becomes nothing more than a moody demonstration of cliched and profoundly false assumptions. A serious issue such as the one Haynes has developed in the beginning of the film demands a serious exploration. Safe never follows through on its intriguing premise.

Well you asked, sort of

Chris Knipp

04-22-2004, 09:16 PM

I don't agree. You somewhat disqualify yourself at the outset by confessing that in this case you did not give the director "the benefit of the doubt," "because" you "feel that the director is either promoting an agenda or simply being dishonest in presenting the material." One could pretty much always accuse a director of "promoting an agenda." And it is you who insist that Haynes is protraying "est," and doing so unfairly. The film doesn't reveal such an aim. In a sense it is you who are promoting an agenda -- defending "est" -- not Todd Haynes.

I also take issue with your, "The fact that over a million people participated attests to the fact that, in the main, people got value from them and shared that with people they cared about." Hardly. "There's a sucker born every minute," and a million is chicken feed.

But I see the movie quite differently. Its whole power is that nothing is quite clearly defined, while it communicates from first to last a vague, pervasive sense of disquiet. Very unnerving, and hard to digest, and not easily described, this is a movie that can be read on a variety of levels.

I think that clearly on the literal, physical level the Julianne Moore character suffers from environmental illness, but Haynes has turned environmental illness into a kind of metaphor for contemporary existential angst. The movie is disturbing precisely because nobody can really help her, and she falls into the hands of dubious quacks who, nonetheless, give an effect of credibility and respectability through speaking in hushed tones and pretending that they know exactly what they are doing. There are lots of exploitive cults out there, and there are lots of us who feel something like this kind of existential angst, which at the same time is inextinguishable from a physical nausea. The world is too much with us. Haynes has taken this situation, common at some times to almost any sensitive people, and magnified it to the point where it is hallucinatory and deeply troubling. No "self-help movement," as you call them, can cure existential angst or right what is wrong with the modern world of consumerism and exploitation. That's the point; but the fact that it's stated in such a vague way, that nothing is resolved, and that Moore's character is trapped and helpless, is why the movie is so disquieting and effective -- if we open ourselves to the unnerving experience it provides.

I think you've missed the point here by focusing on the "group at Wrenwood" and assuming that it is "est," and that "est" is being treated unfairly. Moreover I'm sure there are people who would be quite glad to provide a negative critique of "est" if one were needed to justify Haynes' screenplay; but one isn't , because he's not critiquing "est" or any other specific "self-help group" or whatever "est" is. (Or maybe he is; but the movie doesn't have to be taken on that level; the issue of the authenticity or identity of the group is incidental to the whole theme.)

I realize you acknowledge the main character to be an expression of "the sense of unease and dislocation that many people experience in the modern urban world." But your over-literal interpretation of the second half of the movie, and your pointless defense of "est," leads you to miss what is going on and find fault with Safe for doing things it doesn't do.

Howard Schumann

04-22-2004, 11:43 PM

I object to the fact that Haynes brings up real answers to Carol's problems but dismisses them with false and misleading assumptions, leaving her to founder, confused and directionless, an innocent victim of the modern world. It is so "existential" to show the character as trapped and helpless but it is cynical and fundamentally dishonest. It denies possibility and the power that each of us have to transform the quality of our life.

You say that the movie is disturbing because no one can really help her but this is only because Mr. Haynes does not let her be helped and presents the practitioners to be dubious quacks.

His cynical conclusion is that these movements have no value and there is no way out. In fact, he offers the right ideas - alternative diets and self-awareness groups and therapies are indeed valuable to allow people to look at and take responsibility for their lives. However, he distorts and lies about their value, recycling all the cliches about these movements that have slipped into the public consciousness by those such as Scientology and Christian anti-cult crusaders with an axe to grind or simply by those who think it fashionable to criticize them without personally investigating their value.

I doubt if Mr. Haynes really knows anything about New Age movements. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is simply being lazy, taking as a fact judgments and evaluations he's heard from people who have never done the work and are not aware of their value. I won't even dignify your statement about "a sucker born every minute" because you simply - how can I say it politely - don't know what you are talking about. I spent seven years working with Werner Erhard and est and can attest to the fact of their complete integrity. My son has done Landmark Education and is currently active in their leadership. The value that both of us have received has been enormous. Are you telling me that we are both suckers, unable to distinguish between what is real and what is phony?

I would like you to confront people who have done these trainings such as John Denver, the Wachowski brothers, Chris Palahniuk (author of Fight Club), Cloris Leachman, Professor John Mack of Harvard, Ted Danson, Yoko Ono and thousands of others who have said it was the most valuable thing they ever did and tell them that they are suckers. The truth is as Peter tells Carol that she is responsible for her illness, and that if she is sick, it's because on some level she chose to. But the message cannot be processed if it is being told to someone in the distorted way that Mr. Haynes thinks these groups work. The message can only be received through the result of personal experience after a long process. Haynes has a responsibility to tell the truth.

Chris Knipp

04-23-2004, 01:47 AM

I've read and reread your review, and it has the same honesty and seriousness of purpose all your reviews have, and I'm sure you are completely sincere. But I think you have missed a lot this time and been led off on a false tangent.

As can be seen also in another much admired and more recent effort, Far from Heaven, a movie that I detested but many love, Todd Haynes is an artificial and very manipulative director. And I can in that sense agree with you about the director's tendency to push agendas.

But I don't know that any other viewers see Safe as a screed against est as you do. All I can say is that I don't and I don't see why anyone would. Wrenwood is not really a moveable set of meetings like est: it's more like a haven for people with environmental illness, located in New Mexico in a presumably pollution-free region –but run in a manner that has weird psychological overtones. It’s an ambiguous amalgam; it’s Todd Haynes’ pure invention!

Surely there are slick and fake self-help groups like the one he creates in the movie (which is not without its valid messages, either, because that’s ambiguous too), but the reference to actual groups clearly doesn't matter. We are in the realm of science fiction. Nothing we see is quite real; it's as if superreal, or as in a nightmare, and the director's point is to say something indirectly about modern existence (and something also simply about pollution, because basically it remains true that Carol’s, Moore's character's, symptoms relate to environmental illness).
From what I see in Safe, Haynes has every right to tell the story he tells. It's his story. It's not a docu-drama. And in relating it all to est and insisting that self-help groups (as you call them--one could call a lot of them cults) are well meaning and aim at fully experiencing oneself "with love and joy", you are pushing your agenda with little if any justification.

I would let it slide, except that I have to be true to my own gut reaction, which was to find this a very original and very disturbing movie -- and one which, far from using "ideas that have a direct basis in reality" and therefore have a "burden to be honest about what movements such as est stood for and practiced," creates very much its own mood and its own world.

A more valid criticism of the movie would be the fact that it has three themes which are never quite brought together: (1) the woman's mysterious environmental pollution/allergy-related illness, which seems also a kind of existential angst; (2) the cult in which people are exploited and their money is taken by a leader who blames them for their own problems; (3) the possibility that Moore's character actually has caused her own problems, and therefore perhaps instead of having something external against which to protest, we are all in a trap of our own devising. But although (1), (2), and (3) are never quite fused, that also works because it contributes to the immense sense of unease the movie engenders in the viewer. It's disturbing, and in a fresh way. One writer, Jeremy Heilman, puts it this way: "Safe is a movie that's so ambivalently torn between mocking its subject and looking at her with complete conviction that it becomes exhilarating." And another critic I've never heard of, Rumsey Taylor, has said, "There is evidence to support a number of claims of Safe’s contemporary social relevance, but the film is durably and tacitly ambiguous." (Italics mine.) Another says: "A chilling allegorical tale." That's right: an allegorical tale. Not a docu-drama or a critique of est by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know where you got that idea, or how you can believe that there are not cults that exploit and victimize their members for money.

Your approach to the movie, Howard, is far too narrow and too literal-minded, though you certainly have no obligation to like it.

We should start a thread on Todd Haynes' Safe, and move all this discussion there, in case anybody else wants to join.
__________________

oscar jubis

04-23-2004, 03:59 AM

What I object is the casual way that Haynes recycles the worst cliches and falsehoods regarding self-help movements, and to my mind, est in particular. (Howard Schumann)

My biggest difference of opinion with you is that I don't think Haynes is being particular or specific in his depiction of Wrenwood. I will grant you that the auteur takes a satirical view of certain aspects of the New Age movement (almost as an afterthought, given other more central and compelling aspects of Safe that Chris has expertly dissected).

My assumption is that, because of your positive personal experience, you are emotionally invested on self-help movements being portrayed in a positive light. Maybe if there were more films showing characters healed by New Age approaches, you wouldn't "actively dislike" Safe so much. Perhaps the media has not provided a balanced view of this movement, but cliches have some basis in reality and certainly the amply documented abuses cannot all be "falsehoods". This movement is as ripe for satire as any other. The film itself aims its jabs at several targets.

Assorted quotes:

Carol's intolerance to her surroundings is experienced as a crisis of identity. If she can no longer drive or perm her hair or buy new furniture, then who is she? And, who are we? Her disease is imbedded in the very fabric of our material existence.
(Todd Haynes)

Haynes doesn't blame Wrenwood. He wants to engage us on a deeper level_ to challenge our notions of illness and identity, make us wonder if we aren't all, in some way, "allergic" to the 20th century.
(S.F. Chronicle)

Howard Schumann

04-23-2004, 11:14 AM

Your approach to the movie, Howard, is far too narrow and too literal-minded, though you certainly have no obligation to like it. I can understand how you would draw that conclusion but then again, the fact that I have an emotional investment in what is being played out in the film, allows me to see it from a point of view that perhaps is not available to others. In this case, what you have to say is extremely valuable and there are no rights and wrongs but I wish you would give some credence to the possibility that what I have to say might have some basis in a reality outside of my own emotional involvement. Perhaps I am taking it too "literally" and should see it as just a film but I think the way ideas are presented in a film is important to the overall value of the movie and one aspect of it which I cannot ignore. Sorry.
Surely there are slick and fake self-help groups like the one he creates in the movie. One could call a lot of them cults Can you name some. Perhaps I might agree.
You are pushing your agenda with little if any justification. My agenda is to correct the lies and distortions I perceive and to report the film from my own experience of the subject matter. Consider for a minute if your wife was a midwife who works tirelessly to promote safe deliveries. Then you saw a film, entirely fictional and the total creation of the director, in which midwives were shown to be sick people who sold babies on the black market or something improbable like that and that the public perception of midwives is that they were unethical and exploitive. I bet you would have something to say about where the truth lies. So just try to see where I'm coming from. If the premise of the film, entirely fictional of course, is that Carol is a victim of the "environment" or the 20th century or whatever and that no one can help her, that is a lie which whether I had done est or not, it would behoove me to point out.
We should start a thread on Todd Haynes' Safe, and move all this discussion there, in case anybody else wants to join.
__________________

That's a good idea. Why don't you do that since you are more familiar with the workings of the board.

Howard Schumann

04-23-2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
My biggest difference of opinion with you is that I don't think Haynes is being particular or specific in his depiction of Wrenwood. I will grant you that the auteur takes a satirical view of certain aspects of the New Age movement (almost as an afterthought, given other more central and compelling aspects of Safe that Chris has expertly dissected). No I don't think he is being specific or in fact knows anything about the human potential movement (a better term than self help groups). He is just tuning into and reinforcing the public perception falsely created by the media that the movement was exploitive and didn't produce compelling results, both of which are without basis in fact.
My assumption is that, because of your positive personal experience, you are emotionally invested on self-help movements being portrayed in a positive light. Maybe if there were more films showing characters healed by New Age approaches, you wouldn't "actively dislike" Safe so much. Perhaps the media has not provided a balanced view of this movement, but cliches have some basis in reality and certainly the amply documented abuses cannot all be "falsehoods". This movement is as ripe for satire as any other. The film itself aims its jabs at several targets. The truth is that I am emotionally invested in correcting the false perceptions conveyed by the media (with much influence by Scientology and Christian anti-cult crusaders) about the value of these movements. While est no longer exists and Werner Erhard is living somewhere in voluntary exile, an offshoot of est, Landmark Education is still a viable entity that has been quite successful. Keep in mind that the entire human potential movement that began in the 70s was revolutionary and very much ahead of its time. When the media portrays people being "cured", they almost exclusively look at professional psychiatrists as the only ones capable of producing results. Everyone else is labeled a cult or a fraud and its leaders vilified by those who have an interest in promoting the status quo.

The fact that these groups produced exciting results that in many cases turned peoples lives around in the space of one or two weekends was very threatening to the psychiatric establishment that lives off the notion that progress in life can only be achieved inch by inch over the course of a long treatment program. I know you are involved in the profession and I'm not attacking it. I know also from personal experience about the value of this work. My only point here is that there is no attempt to present a balanced point of view regarding other methods and Mr. Haynes' films simply reiterates the false public perceptions.
cliches have some basis in reality and certainly the amply documented abuses cannot all be "falsehoods". Yes, that's true. I'm sure that in your work there will always be some who are dissatisfied with the results and even those who accuse their doctors of unethical behavior. This does not negate the value that the vast majority of the patients receive or the validity of the method.

Chris Knipp

04-25-2004, 10:37 PM

We can grant that the 'human potential movement' may have yielded positive results. The question is what that has to do woth Todd Haynes's 'Safe." In finding 'Safe' wanting solely on the basis that you admire and value the 'human potential movement' and you think Todd Haynes doesn't is to judge the movie on a very limited basis indeed. It may in fact not be about that at any point, and even if it is, clearly it's mostly about a lot of other things, so you're judging the movie on a tiny and dubious aspect. As I said earlier, it is you who have an agenda, not the director of this 1995 movie.

Haynes is working, however imperfectly, as a cinematic artist to say something quite allegorical and metaphorical about the modern world and, on a more literal level, about the destruction of the environment and how that causes human beings to suffer. Simply because he invents a kind of treatment that you rather fancifully believe refers to Werner Erhard's 'est' program of the 70's doesn't mean that he is under any obligation to represent the 'human potential movement' in a favorable light. His Wrenwood is an imaginative construct, not a vague allusion to 'est.' It is partly a place for the treatment of environmental illness, partly a small cult with a subtly abusive leader. As Oscar Jubis has said, ."
I don't think Haynes is being particular or specific in his depiction of Wrenwood. You persistently continue to ignore this. Why? One can see no justification for it.

As I’ve said before, criticism of 'Safe' might on the contrary be that it is too open-ended, open to interpretation on too many levels; not that it is a mean-spirited treatment of self help movements.

For me the most powerful thing about 'Safe' is the way Carol seems so doomed and helpless and one can't be sure where that comes from -- from the environment, the culture, unseen malevolent forces, or her own weaknesses or masochistic (possibly ineffectively manipulative) helplessness. I watch with a growing sinking feeling. Todd Haynes has created a disturbing, oppressive world in 'Safe.' It’s a world of what might be, not what is. The experience doesn't seem quite like that provided by any other movie.

Another issue, unrelated to the movie, but purely to issues you bring up:.
The fact that these groups produced exciting results that in many cases turned people's lives around in the space of one or two weekends was very threatening to the psychiatric establishment that lives off the notion that progress in life can only be achieved inch by inch over the course of a long treatment program.

Perhaps in some cases psychiatrists may have felt threatened in this way; I have no idea -- maybe Oscar could comment. They need not have done so, since these programs usually don't last. But I suspect that psychiatrists hve been more concerned that offers of a quick fix will do damage not to their professional reputation but more importantly to the participants themselves, by giving rise in them to false hopes and leading ultimatedly to disillusion. My own personal experience, and I gather from interaction and study the experience of most people who try to make major changes in their behavior, is that such changes don't happen "in the space of one or two weekends." The "one or two weekends" might have jump started an effort at personal development. But the work of changing goes on, if not in a "long treatment program," nonetheless in the fullness of time and indeed "inch by inch". An example of a personal development method that has survived and flourished from the '30's until now is the whole panoply of 12-Step Recovery programs, and these are always seen as a life-long process to be worked at patiently "one day at a time", not something that can happen in "one or two weekends."

Howard Schumann

04-26-2004, 12:49 AM

With all due respect, you don't seem to be getting what it is I'm saying. At the risk of repeating myself, let me state the following: The film posits that Carol is a victim, at the mercy of forces beyond her control. She is physically ill and her illness is ascribed to being "allergic" to the 20th century. This is proposed without any evidence whatsoever except that Carol is isolated or alienated and can't connect to people.

I will let Jonathan Rosenbaum speak for a while:

"It's been described as a movie about "environmental illness," but don't let that fool you: the alienation of one suburban housewife in southern California, effectively captured by Julianne Moore, may take physical form, but its sources are clearly spiritual and ideological. Haynes does a powerful job of conveying his hatred for the character's Sherman Oaks milieu (where he himself grew up). He also offers a scathing (if poker-faced) satire on New Age notions of healing." What is so is that Carol is uninteresting because she is uninterested. Her "existential" profundity adds up to little more than her willful isolation from participation in life: in politics, in the community, in the arts, etc. She goes to doctors looking for a cure but they cannot help her. She tries New Age healing both dietary, vitamins, and falls prey to a sleazy cult leader at a retreat. Neither modern medicine nor New Age healing can help her.

Haynes sets her up to fail because he does not understand that health and well being is directly related to personal responsibility. He falsely denies the healing potential of health foods, supplements, and movements that stimulate personal awareness. Like a puppet on a string, she is led through all the cures and therapies that are available to her and of course none of them work because the premise of the film is cynical and dishonest, namely that there is something out there that is the cause of our experience which is beyond our power to control.
Perhaps in some cases psychiatrists may have felt threatened in this way; I have no idea -- maybe Oscar could comment. They need not have done so, since these programs usually don't last. But I suspect that psychiatrists have been more concerned that offers of a quick fix will do damage not to their professional reputation but more importantly to the participants themselves, by giving rise in them to false hopes and leading ultimately to disillusion. My own personal experience, and I gather from interaction and study the experience of most people who try to make major changes in their behavior, is that such changes don't happen "in the space of one or two weekends." The "one or two weekends" might have jump started an effort at personal development. But the work of changing goes on, if not in a "long treatment program," nonetheless in the fullness of time and indeed "inch by inch". An example of a personal development method that has survived and flourished from the '30's until now is the whole panoply of 12-Step Recovery programs, and these are always seen as a life-long process to be worked at patiently "one day at a time", not something that can happen in "one or two weekends." I could debate this subject with you if you had taken any of the programs I have been discussing. (By the way, there were many others besides est that worked: Actualizations, Esalen, LifeSpring, Life, Context to name a few). If you have not personally participated in these programs, however, then you have no personal experience of what I am talking about and are only giving us your good old-fashioned mainstream ideas.

I could cite to you the results of independent studies which demonstrate that major shifts in people's lives can and do occur in the space of a weekend. In case you are interested, here are the results of some independent studies regarding the value of Landmark Education and The Landmark Forum another program created by Werner Erhard:

The IMC, Inc. Report: Evaluations of Landmark Education’s Programs

In a recent survey conducted by IMC, Inc., nine out of 10 Landmark Forum graduates expressed strong satisfaction with the value they received from the program. 94% agreed that The Landmark Forum made a profound, lasting difference in the way they live their lives.

To understand what value the Landmark Forum delivers to its participants, IMC, Inc. – an independent marketing consulting firm, conducted a survey among 2000 Landmark Forum graduates in several cities across the United States.

According to the results, a vast majority (nine out of 10) of the program’s participants agreed on the value they received:
• 94% felt that The Landmark Forum made a “profound, lasting difference in the
way they live their lives.”
• 93% said that The Landmark Forum was “one of the most effective programs”
they’ve taken.
• 93% reported that The Landmark Forum “exceeded their expectations.”
• 99% said The Landmark Forum was “interesting and challenging.”

“Overall, the Landmark Forum is perceived to be a highly effective program that delivered on its promises and left its customers feeling satisfied with the results they experienced.”
-IMC, Inc.

Other research includes:

The Yankelovich (DYG, Inc.) Study: Analysis of The Landmark Forum and Its Benefits

http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=350

The Talent Foundation Study: A Shortcut to Motivated and Adaptive Workforces

http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&siteObjectID=137

oscar jubis

04-26-2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
We can grant that the 'human potential movement' may have yielded positive results. The question is what that has to do with Todd Haynes's Safe.

Within the universe of Safe, Wrenwood represents the human potential movement. Aspects of Wrenwood, including the characterization of its leader, are presented satirically. I don't think this presentation negates that some participants are benefitting from its low-stress, chemical-free environment, a sense of belonging within a supportive and manageable community, and possibly from coping skills training.

Haynes is working as a cinematic artist to say something quite allegorical and metaphorical about the modern world and, on a more literal level, about the destruction of the environment and how that causes human beings to suffer. I watch with a growing sinking feeling. Todd Haynes has created a disturbing, oppressive world in 'Safe.' The experience doesn't seem quite like that provided by any other movie.

Yet a single peripheral aspect can ruin this rare experience for a given person. We sometimes react to films in ways that are uniquely our own. The difference between Howard and a lot of media critics is that he is self-aware, honest and open, thus making this rewarding exchange possible.

Perhaps in some cases psychiatrists may have felt threatened in this way

Like any other establishment, the medical one will fight for their turf zealously.

But I suspect that psychiatrists have been more concerned that offers of a quick fix will do damage not to their professional reputation but more importantly to the participants themselves, by giving rise in them to false hopes and leading ultimatedly to disillusion.

Let's consider schizophrenia, a chronic psychotic syndrome estimated to affect one of every 75 Americans (3-4 million), caused by deficiencies in brain chemistry, and characterized by hallucinations and delusions. There is little if anything that the human potential movement can do to reduce a person's symptoms. The treatment of choice is pharmacology and adjunct supportive psychotherapy. Yet many diagnosed with schizophenia and other serious mental illnesses have entered programs within this movement that made false, irresponsible claims. Some programs encouraged participants to summarily discontinue medications, with drastic consequences.

changes don't happen "in the space of one or two weekends." The "one or two weekends" might have jump started an effort at personal development. But the work of changing goes on, if not in a "long treatment program," nonetheless in the fullness of time and indeed "inch by inch"

"One or two weekends" is long enough to help you focus on what's important, to get inspiration and support from others, to help you realize you are not alone with your problem, and to develop better coping skills. But entrenched behavior patterns are resistant to quick fixes, addictions require a long-term rehab "routine", and many psychiatric illnesses require pharmacology and medication management. Some programs within the human potential movement claimed to be able to help individuals with these problems.

Chris Knipp

04-26-2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
He falsely denies the healing potential of health foods, supplements, and movements that stimulate personal awareness.

This is illustrates precisely my point about your writing, Howard, and the place where we differ in this discussion of 'Safe'. Apart from the fact that as Oscar points out, your statement is inaccurate (some of the patients can have been helped by these things; it's just that Carol apparently isn't), the problem is that you write as if you think that Todd Haynes is presenting a tract or a philosophical argument. He's not; it's a movie. Which means that you can't easily extract the director/writer's assertions from the complex content. And even if you can, they may be irrelevant because the movie as a whole is not 'about' Haynes's possible ideas about the human potential movement. Nevertheless, as I've told you in another context, your reviews impress me for their high moral standard and your seriousness in applying it to the movies you see. But in the case of 'Safe' you seem to have used your approach rather narrowly.

Perhaps Oscar Jubis is somewhere in between you and me in the way he approaches and writes about movies:

Originally posted by Oscar Jubis
Yet a single peripheral aspect can ruin this rare experience for a given person. We sometimes react to films in ways that are uniquely our own. The difference between Howard and a lot of media critics is that he is self-aware, honest and open, thus making this rewarding exchange possible.

I'm not sure exactly what or who Oscar means by a lot of media critics, but I would hesitate to assume they all lack self-awareness, honesty or openness -- or that Howard uniquely possesses these qualities. However it certainly is quite possible that a single peripheral aspect can ruin this rare experience [enjoyment and approval of a movie] for a given person. Indeed in judging a movie you've got to trust your gut reaction in the sense that no matter how politically correct or philosophically satisfying a movie is or how great the actors or director or cinematographer is or how wild about it the critics are, if it doesn't float your boat, you can't go around praising it.*

However, when you are talking about it in print for public consumption, you need to do a more thorough assessment of the movie, pro or con, and not focus almost exclusively on that single peripheral aspect which has 'ruined' the movie for you. Just as you wouldn't praise it for one small virtue, you can't condemn it for one flaw. You must present an argument and an analysis that takes the whole movie into account.

The examples showing testimonials of people who've been through some program of Werner Erhard as summarized by a group set up by Erhard are little more than advertising and carry no weight as independent evidence. No doubt nonetheless the people did make those statements; but what good is their enthusiasm immediately after the course or program? The real test would be to see an independent evaluation of what had happened to them months or years later, if they'd really turned out to be changed by those 'one or two weekends' you so enthusiastically speak of. Citing these data seems to me naive. But the fundamental point is that this whole issue is totally peripheral to a discussion of Todd Haynes's 'Safe,' a point which you have yet to refute.

_______________________

*And vice versa: this explains why I love -- and praise -- 'City of God' regardless of the ultra-violence. It thrills and exhilerates me; but I also find it to be brilliant filmmaking. Its possible moral flaws don't overwhelm its beauty as a movie. I tend to view movies aesthetically, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a movie that is beautiful morally and expresses strong humanistic values.

Howard Schumann

04-26-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Yet a single peripheral aspect can ruin this rare experience for a given person. We sometimes react to films in ways that are uniquely our own. The difference between Howard and a lot of media critics is that he is self-aware, honest and open, thus making this rewarding exchange possible. Thanks Oscar but I don't think I'm unique at all. It is simply that other discerning critics have not had similar experiences. Also, I do not consider this a "peripheral" aspect of the movie. As Jonathan Rosenbaum stated in his review quoted in a previous post of mine, the film is mostly ideological and a scathing satire on New Age healing.
Let's consider schizophrenia, a chronic psychotic syndrome estimated to affect one of every 75 Americans (3-4 million), caused by deficiencies in brain chemistry, and characterized by hallucinations and delusions. There is little if anything that the human potential movement can do to reduce a person's symptoms. The treatment of choice is pharmacology and adjunct supportive psychotherapy. Yet many diagnosed with schizophenia and other serious mental illnesses have entered programs within this movement that made false, irresponsible claims. Some programs encouraged participants to summarily discontinue medications, with drastic consequences. The programs I have been involved with do not accept individuals in their training who have any serious mental illnesses. In fact, if they are even in therapy they have to have corroborating material from their doctors that they are "winning" in therapy. The programs are not designed to cure mental illness. They mainly help the already successful individuals who may have emotional problems that are blocking them from a breakthrough in their work or relationships. I don't know which programs you are referring to that have made false and irresponsible claims or encouraged participants to discontinue medications. Certainly none of the programs I have mentioned did that.
"One or two weekends" is long enough to help you focus on what's important, to get inspiration and support from others, to help you realize you are not alone with your problem, and to develop better coping skills. But entrenched behavior patterns are resistant to quick fixes, addictions require a long-term rehab "routine", and many psychiatric illnesses require pharmacology and medication management. Some programs within the human potential movement claimed to be able to help individuals with these problems. I think if you were more familiar with the results of these programs you would think differently. I participated in est for seven years and led many seminars. I was involved in pershaps 40 or so weekend trainigs. During that time, I saw a remarkable transformation in hundreds of people. So the conventional thinking is that this is not possible but the truth lies elsewhere. Keep in mind that the programs I am talking about use Zen Buddhism as a basis for their teachings. Actually it doesn't even take an entire weekend. You can spend 20 years not being enlightened but transformation can occur in a second.

Chris Knipp

04-26-2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
Thanks Oscar but I don't think I'm unique at all. It is simply that other discerning critics have not had similar experiences. Also, I do not consider this a "peripheral" aspect of the movie. As Jonathan Rosenbaum stated in his review quoted in a previous post of mine, the film is mostly ideological and a scathing satire on New Age healing.

Even if Jonathan Rosenbaum made this assertion, it wouldn't make it true, nor would it justify only talking about one small aspect of the last half of the movie and basing your judgments all on that. I had to pay two dollars to retrieve Rosenbaum's review from the Chicago Reader's archives. Wading through its typically verbose length (over 2200 words), I find no reference whatever to 'ideology' or 'ideological' nor to programs of the 'human potential movement.' I do find a use of the word 'satire,' and Rosenbaum says that 'certainly the degree to which satire figures in the film is not crystal clear'. Much of Rosenbaum's focus is on the question of 'environmental illness' and what role it plays in the movie. As for the Wrenwood treatment and Haynes's critique of that, what Rosenbaum quotes Haynes as saying is that he was angered by a book about AIDS that said if people had the right attitude they wouldn't have it:

Jonathan Rosenbaum's review:
He also remarks that Safe was partly inspired by his anger at a book by Louise Hay about AIDS published in the mid-80s, saying that it "literally states that if we loved ourselves more we wouldn't get sick with this illness....That's scary."

And I'd like to point out that this review by Rosenbaum (who later has stated repeatedly that he prefers 'Safe' to 'Far from Heaven' and all of Haynes's other movies) is favorable: he calls 'Safe' 'a must see'. But his constant theme is that the meaning and focus of 'Safe' are hard to pin down:

Jonathan Rosenbaum again:
the movie is distinctive in part because of its poetics of absence--the clearest sign of its indebtedness to Michelangelo Antonioni and Chantal Akerman.

In other words it works with hints and portents; it isn't specific but vague and elusive in its assertions; it's highly open to interpretation. 'There isn't much agreement about the meanings expressed,' Rosenbaum points out. As for where Rosenbaum comes out about whether the movie satirizes Carol or only her treatment, his logic seems a bit confused in interpreting what Haynes meant in an interview when he said 'Safe is on the side of the disease and not the cure.' That doesn't mean Haynes hates Carol, but Rosenbaum seems to think so.

As to your uniqueness, or anybody's in judging the virtues of a movie, you have only to peruse a list of critics' annual movie 'best' lists to see that no two are ever alike, which is evidence that everybody's tastes are different. To claim that your own judgment has some kind of universal validity is not a good arguing point.

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
The programs I have been involved with do not accept individuals in their training who have any serious mental illnesses. In fact, if they are even in therapy they have to have corroborating material from their doctors that they are "winning" in therapy.

I'm glad you finally are frank in identifying yourself as personally involved in such programs. Such personal biases should be stated at the outset of a debate. You bring up something that I wanted to add myself as a qualification of my own statements, which is that (as Oscar Jubis has stated) people who are in serious emotional or behavioral difficulties are not likely to be significantly helped by your famous 'one or two weekends,' but people who are already doing well and simply want more 'motivation' can certainly get a significant boost just from reading a book or hearing a slogan, if it works for them. So obviously, even if (which I doubt) 'Safe' is alluding specifically to any of the programs you refer to and have participated in, there is no reason to believe that they could help Julianne Moore's character in 'Safe.'

Howard Schumann

04-26-2004, 12:49 PM

I think I have said all I can on this subject so I don't want to keep repeating myself. I don't think the issue I raised is peripheral at all to the subject of the film but as Rosenbaum points out in his review is central to it.

As far as the value of the programs are concerned, since you haven't done any of them, how would you know what is real and what isn't? My suggestion (and this is the last time I will raise the subject) is to take the Landmark Forum and then we won't be whistling dixie. We'll have something concrete to discuss.

Chris Knipp

04-26-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Howard Schumann:
I don't think the issue I raised is peripheral at all to the subject of the film but as Rosenbaum points out in his review is central to it.

I would appreciate your showing me where Rosenbaum 'points out' this. As you can see from my previous posting, I have Rosenbaum's review right in front of me and have been reading it carefully, and I cannot find the assertion you attribute to it.

You have been repeating yourself, but not proving the validity of your claim. Your repetitions don't adequately speak to Oscar's and my points.

I see no obligation to participate in a certain self-help program to refute your claim. We are not talking about the 'human potential movement' but about Todd Haynes's 'Safe.' I've seen it, and I've now read a lot of reviews of it, including Jonathan Rosenbaum's, and I have read all your comments and Oscar's. Why should I have to participate in a Landmark Forum? You have yet to prove that that has anything to do with the movie. Do I have to experience the events depicted in a movie to critique it? But even if that were so, which it is not, there is no evidence that 'Safe' alludes to Landmark Forums or anything like them. We already 'have something concrete to discuss,' and it's Todd Haynes's 'Safe.'

Let me quote Rosenbaum's description of 'Safe' in his first paragraph: 'the most provocative American art film of the year so far--fascinating, troubling, scary, indelible.'

Howard Schumann

04-26-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I would appreciate your showing me where Rosenbaum 'points out' this. As you can see from my previous posting, I have Rosenbaum's review right in front of me and have been reading it carefully, and I cannot find the assertion you attribute to it. I was referring to Mr. Rosenbaum's capsule review of the film:
Safe
Capsule by Jonathan Rosenbaum
From the Chicago Reader

An unsettling work (1995) by subversive American independent Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven), his first film in 35-millimeter and best film overall. It's been described as a movie about "environmental illness," but don't let that fool you: the alienation of one suburban housewife in southern California, effectively captured by Julianne Moore, may take physical form, but its sources are clearly spiritual and ideological. Haynes does a powerful job of conveying his hatred for the character's Sherman Oaks milieu (where he himself grew up) through his crafty and at times almost hallucinatory layering of sound and image. (Though Haynes's methodology is his own, you may be reminded at times of Michelangelo Antonioni and Chantal Akerman.) He also offers a scathing (if poker-faced) satire on New Age notions of healing. This creepy art movie will stay with you. 119 min
You have been repeating yourself, but not proving the validity of your claim. Your repetitions don't adequately speak to Oscar's and my points. I see no obligation to participate in a certain self-help program to refute your claim. We are not talking about the 'human potential movement' but about Todd Haynes's 'Safe.' I've seen it, and I've now read a lot of reviews of it, including Jonathan Rosenbaum's, and I have read all your comments and Oscar's. Why should I have to participate in a Landmark Forum? You have yet to prove that that has anything to do with the movie. Do I have to experience the events depicted in a movie to critique it? But even if that were so, which it is not, there is no evidence that 'Safe' alludes to Landmark Forums or anything like them. We already 'have something concrete to discuss,' and it's Todd Haynes's 'Safe.' You are obviously very selective in your reading of what I have to say since I made it clear from the outset that I had been a particpant in these programs. The tone of your posts is becoming increasingly self righteous and strident (very surprisingly I might add) and I see no point in continuing with this discussion.

oscar jubis

04-26-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'm glad you finally are frank in identifying yourself as personally involved in such programs. Such personal biases should be stated at the outset of a debate.

Howard has been frank all along. Let me try to restate my point: too often critics have uniquely personal reasons to like or dislike a movie, which they fail to make explicit due to lack of self-awareness, dishonesty, or unwillingness to disclose. The film criticism I prefer takes into account the subjectivity of art appreciation.

Howard: The links you provided didn't work but I went to landmarkeducation.com and read substantially. I am convinced that it's a good program, likely to be helpful to the majority of participants experiencing problems in relationships and other emotional difficulties. I am obviously not as enthusistic about its long-term effects but I'll keep an open mind.

Howard Schumann

04-26-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Howard has been frank all along. Let me try to restate my point: too often critics have uniquely personal reasons to like or dislike a movie, which they fail to make explicit due to lack of self-awareness, dishonesty, or unwillingness to disclose. The film criticism I prefer takes into account the subjectivity of art appreciation.

Howard: The links you provided didn't work but I went to landmarkeducation.com and read substantially. I am convinced that it's a good program, likely to be helpful to the majority of participants experiencing problems in relationships and other emotional difficulties. I am obviously not as enthusistic about its long-term effects but I'll keep an open mind. Gotta love it! (your comment that is).

Chris Knipp

04-26-2004, 02:19 PM

Needless to say I have no intention of seeming 'self righteous and strident'. I think you misinterpret my tone. I don't feel self righteous and I have no desire to be that way. I am not asserting any superiority to you in saying that I don't need to take a Landmark Forum to discuss the issues brought up by Todd Haynes's 'Safe.' I'm just sticking to my position, which is that that isn't what the movie is about, and Jonathan Rosenbaum supports me. I have the greatest respect for your sincerity and articulateness as a critic of movies. You've been very kind to me in another context, you are a gentleman, and I would not want to offend you. And if you have been helped by the 'human potential movement' and Landmark Forums, that's great, and I am sincerely happy for you. If I am forthright in asserting my points, I don't think that's being 'strident,' and it's not meant to be. I'm just debating the issues we've got on the table here. But unless we have further input from other sources we may indeed have reached the conclusion of our discussion.

Thank you for pointing out the actual source of your Rosenbaum quotes from the capsule review, not the full one. However one has to assume that the capsule summarizes the full one, and therefore, when he says 'ideological,' we know that he is coming from a place of seeing the movie as very ambiguous, and not a specific attack on one kind of program. Rosenbaum develops his ideas very thoroughly in that longer review. There is no question that what he means by the word 'ideological' is nothing specific.

Maybe we need to look further into Todd Haynes's views about what he was doing in 'Safe.' From what I have seen so far, he comes to self-help from a gay perspective and an AIDS perspective, not from the perspective of anyone who has a bone to pick with the 'human potential movement.' And, I must assure you, I have no bone to pick with that movement myself. I come from a long-time involvement in 12-step recovery, and also from a position of being gay. I am not a big fan of Todd Haynes. I strongly disliked 'Far from Heaven,' though I would regard it as a 'must see,' but I didn't enjoy it and I thought it was very much overrated by critics and some of the public. But I am a believer in long-term self-help. The question is, if you're sick from the 20th century, is there a cure?