Todd Haynes

This was fine as far as corporate malfeasance films go, not as gripping as Erin Brockovich or Norma Rae but better than A Civil Action. The cinematography made the lineage between this and Safe explicit.

thread

Haynes turning his eye for the voluptuous towards the grotesque and depressing? That’s how you shore up the conscience of the American movie goer. You make the comfort of wealth look sad and the hell of government mandated poverty un-Romantic

— Scout Tafoya (@Honors_Zombie) December 9, 2019

good stuff. i'm looking forward to seeing this one.

https://www.vulture.com/amp/2020/01/dark-waters-movie-why-didnt-it-get-nominated-for-an-oscar.html

It's a film I love reading about and admire but didn't much like while watching it.

Dark Waters is playing here for a couple of nights next week--looking forward to it. The China Syndrome is my gold standard for mainstream rabble-rousing; also liked Night Moves and The Promised Land more recently.

I should have mentioned Michael Apted's Class Action in the post above. Haynes may acknowledge it in Dark Waters when DuPont buries Ruffalo's lawyer in an avalanche of discovery documents.

I thought DW was pretty good, though less than what I was hoping for. I'm sure I would have liked it more if I hadn't lost 20% of the dialogue--even accounting for my poor hearing, I'm sure they didn't have the sound loud enough. (A kind of makeshift rep theatre.) I was surprised Anne Hathaway took the proverbial suffering-wife role. She was hardly in the film for the first half; she got more screen time after that, but it still seemed like a part for a less established actress. Maybe she just felt strongly about the subject.

her scenes were p strong tho, idk more meat to it than *just* the suffering wife, plus that neglectfulness of his family coming out in the 3rd out really showed his sacrifice, good movie

Watched Safe last night for the first time since it came out. It kind of went past me at the time--I think I got it (being allergic to the 20th century was a great concept), but, I don't know, it just wasn't my kind of film. I was hoping, of course, it would have special resonance right now.

It did, to a degree; thought the last half was strong. So while I still think its placement high on decade-end lists is overstating it, I was a lot more receptive to it.

I've not had a second viewing, but I think minority views are often important to consider

Rewatch of DARK WATERS confirms flat out masterpiece status. Every shot just a deliberate choice of economic filmmaking, didacticism barely apparent, even Hathaway felt necessary and good. God how’d we let this one get away.

— Peter Labuza (@labuzamovies) April 5, 2020

I still have my screener; I may give it another go this week, especially after my parents told me casually on the phone on Friday that they loved it (!).

I've still only seen it once too, but--allowing for an audio issue I mentioned above; I missed some of what she said later in the film--I disagree about Anne Hathaway. I did think it was a good-looking film.

I think it was terrifically shot, at least in the long shots of buildings, cities, offices, etc.

I share the doubts about Hathaway, who seemed to have accepted an oddly minor part.

I like the film overall.

May/December doesn't seem to have a thread...opens here tomorrow. I saw the trailer last week, seems to have some connection to Mary Kay Letourneau?

Netflix Dec. 1, didn't know. (And, after checking, yes to my question.)

I caught a preview that was open to the public earlier this week. Beautiful looking film, Lincoln Center will screen an exclusive 35mm print so it's probably worth seeing it there. I liked it quite a bit. Richard Brody of The New Yorker was kind of tough on the film ("good film by a great director") but it may very well be the best film I've seen that was theatrically released this year. Still early though, there are a few more I'm looking forward to.

Believe I will receive a MUBI GO ticket for it in a week or two which I presume will work at Lincoln Center, just saw the trailer there today in fact.

I saw it at the Chicago film festival and loved it. It's a tonally tricky film, but Haynes pulls it off. It's a lot funnier and campier than I was expecting while still taking its characters seriously. And the music, which is adapted from an 1970s Michel Legrand score, is deliriously great.

Re: the humor, Haynes talked about that during the Q&A at our screening. (His Q&A's are wonderful and he comes off as a wonderful human being - if he ever makes a personal appearance, definitely go see him.) He mentioned it's unpredictable how an audience will react because at Cannes, the audience didn't really laugh even though the reception was enthusiastic, but we did and he was like "you guys, YOU get it."

Speaking of personal appearances, he's got a couple schedule for December 1 at the Museum of the Moving Image, and I would highly recommend this one because the "other films" is very likely just Superstar, which was recently "remastered" per Haynes by the same people credited for the restoration for Dottie.

Good tip, thanks!

the music, which is adapted from an 1970s Michel Legrand score

Is it Summer of '42? Ballsy move if so.

The Go-Between

He mentioned it's unpredictable how an audience will react because at Cannes, the audience didn't really laugh even though the reception was enthusiastic, but we did and he was like "you guys, YOU get it."

I saw some Letterboxd reviews from viewers at my screening who complained that people were laughing inappropriately at things that weren't supposed to be funny, and I thought "no, I think they were supposed to be funny."

It's on my Netflix account today and will watch. Local critics are ecstatic.

xps

thanks bird!

It's on my Netflix account today and will watch. Local critics are ecstatic.

Critic access.

Just seen this at the cinema and thought it was fantastic. Beautifully shot, maintains a consistent unsettling undercurrent throughout, and great acting in particular between Julianne Moore and Natalie Portman.

I enjoyed it without being rhapsodic -- my usual approach to Haynes. He has more DO YOU SEE moments than you'd expect from a guy with his resume. I only got the campness when Haynes alluded to Persona.

But, boy, this is Portman's best work, isn't it? I've long distrusted her -- she comes off in other things like an AI version of an actor. She plays a mediocre actress without fuss.

I thought of Tar a lot: the way the vacuum-sealed compositions act as an ironic strategy; the light mockery at the expense of the self-absorbed artist that never turns cruel; the way a couple scenes (the lipstick scene for instance) play with erotic tension without succumbing.

i tend to feel the DO-YOU-SEE moments are literally and consciously a *device* rather than an inadvertent clumsiness of sensibility but i'm not sure what difference this has an effect (e.g on me rolling my eyes)

He's damn skilled in other depts so it's an affect at this point

His Q&A's are wonderful and he comes off as a wonderful human being - if he ever makes a personal appearance, definitely go see him.

I saw a preview screening of Safe and the audience was more-or-less contemptuous. They were all snickering knowingly at the final scenes, which caused Haynes to gently tell them that he didn't think they were supposed to be funny. Meanwhile, the women behind me who had talked through the film also continued to talk through the Q&A itself until I cursed them out. It was nightmarish for me, I can't imagine how he must have felt, yet kept his cool.

Oh wow, so this was back in 1995 (since it was a preview)? I feel bad for him, but he got the last laugh - it topped the Village Voice's critics poll for the best film of the decade, and I know he had to be aware of that.

I actually asked him to sign my Criterion edition of that film not too long ago, and not only did he inscribe it to me (I didn't ask him to, he asked for my name) but he drew a ♡ on it too. A sweet, sweet man.

This thing was a hoot!

Alfred I think you nailed what’s never worked for me about Natalie Portman as an actress

Watch this one, though!

Excellent review, Alfred

Thank you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-xwsIW_otg

...and yes, he makes a closet joke in the first 30 seconds.

Safe is his only 'great' film imo. It's critique and ambiguities are so sharp! Nothing he's done since seems at all convincing. His version of pastiche is so on the nose, like an episode of a kids show where the main character falls asleep while writing a book report and has a dream where all the regular characters are versions of themselves in a Sirk movie/glam band etc. all that heaven allows was a totally pointless movie. Who needed Sirk to be spelled out like that?

I like the adaptations okay, particularly the really vulgar Mildred pierce miniseries, most memorable to me is the nude scene of Veda. A way better part than in the Joan Crawford version.

The new one sounds like nothing.

Sorry, far from heaven I meant

although I think the mistake does underscore something

His version of pastiche is so on the nose

I like Velvet Goldmine a lot, but the problem is that the only viewers who can make all the connections are probably going to be very opinionated about "the meaning of" Bowie, glam, Iggy, etc., and not accept Haynes' interpolation.

I laughed more often with (not at) this one quite a lot. Give it a shot.

Far from Heaven is the only Haynes I’ve seen that, yes, felt basically pointless. I remember Morbs used to say it was better than the Sirk and thinking his addiction to being against the grain led him to a truly bad take on that one

Not even Haynes would say that.

He has a wonderful analytical eye and I'd like someone to just get him to talk about a bunch of his favourite films for hours (like how ppl rightly indulge Scorsese), but Far from Heaven simply didn't come off.

Basically agree with Plax that Safe is his best but he was really great in the 90s and then mostly pretty good since. I always look forward to catching his new one.

I remember Morbs used to say it was better than the Sirk

lol Morbs

I loved Far From Heaven. I actually saw that in its original run, the first time I saw any of Haynes's films in a theater, and it completely blew me away. Easily the most gorgeous looking film I had seen up to that point and a big reason why I started going to the theater more and more. What's miraculous is that every physical element - clothing, scenery, cinematography and lighting whether in composition, detail or color - worked so well in tandem it clearly looked like a director's hand was guiding everything, and yet when I finally saw the DVD extras, I was stunned that Haynes had given plenty of freedom to all the department heads on that film. It's a credit to their combined talents - just look at their filmographies and it's no surprise they were able to do such great work.

This seems to be less the case nowadays, but during the mid-'00s to early 10's, it seemed like every time I caught a vintage Hollywood film in a repertory theater, you'd always have some jackass in their late teens to late '20s snickering and laughing at the film for being of its time. Sirk, Minnelli, Nick Ray, The Night of the Hunter, etc...there'd always be an obnoxious display of historical arrogance. And I always thought of Far From Heaven as responding to that, as if to say that aesthetic and that stylistic vocabulary not only remains vital but can address more things that people continue to face in their own lives in the world today. And the film does a powerful job of getting across the anguish its characters go through - the ending still kills me, the way two people have to deny themselves a kind of happiness that's all too rare for anyone. I still know people who have a lot done to them over interracial relationships or who struggled not too long ago with coming out to their family, and even if the world and the culture isn't what it once was, that pain and those raw emotions haven't gone away for everyone.