Todd Haynes

I mean there's a case to be made for a film that revisits the world of Sirk, but it would have to be something that tells us something new about that world, or its politics or its psyche - not just the same things repeated more slowly and enunciated more deliberately.

That was Fear Eats the Soul

As in a proper revisit to Sirk's world.

In one sense, and this is true of Safe also, but I meant more in response to what Alfred said about the 1950s consumer fantasy worlds of Sirk. There are definitely shades of that in Fear Eats the Soul (like the scene the tv getting kicked in) but its fundamentally about the Wirtschaftswunder and its margins rather than the horrible glare of postwar American prosperity.

That's why May-December works: it's the exegesis (and synthesis) of what he'd toyed with on FFH, Mildred Pierce, and Carol. The film offers his usual glassy precision but at the service of a camp approach that constantly interrogates his surfaces.

Natalie Portman is very good here, especially her spot-on (and therefore funny) imitation of Julianne Moore in her long in-character monologue towards the end. Moore has some effective moments--she's as good at Julienne Moore as Portman is--and the kids are all fine; wish the older, more acerbic daughter had shown up sooner in the film. The biggest flaw for me was big enough to be a problem: Charles Melton. He's stolid and bland most of the way--I think we're supposed to see him as having been a credible temptation for Moore 20 years earlier--but when he's called upon to actually act later in the film, I thought he fell woefully short. The film's ending, first the final encounter between Portman and Moore and then the epilogue, was intriguing.

Wow! His was the performance I wasn't expecting -- and he was rather hot with that dad body.

Gonna watch it today or tomorrow but, yeah, all my mutuals led me to believe it was his performance that was the movie’s stealth best

He plays this stunted man with finesse, and Haynes inserts him into this smoke-weed-with-his-kid sequence that's the only time in recent memory such a sequence hasn't mortified me.

Good profile of Charles Melton, who just won the New York Film Critics Circle award for best supporting actor:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/movies/charles-melton-may-december-riverdale.html

I'm delighted Melton's in.

Just watched this one last night and I'm pretty sure that it's my new favorite Haynes, above even Safe.

_I remember Morbs used to say it was better than the Sirk _

lol Morbs

Guess maybe you mean this post

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.

what a film!!!!!!

Still thinking of it today.
”Too smoky!”

def think melton gave an astonishing performance. still thinking about him getting stoned with his son on the rooftop, incredible tension-release dynamic in that scene, or the way he rubs his hands against his legs when he's in bed with natalie portman, still 12 years old

but portman... portman!!! her most natural performance bc she is effortlessly gliding on the line between natural and artificial, a practiced guilelessness

Yeah all good. Believe it is Julianne Moore’s birthday today.

but portman... portman!!! her most natural performance bc she is effortlessly gliding on the line between natural and artificial, a practiced guilelessness

she is amazing.

She plays a mediocre actress so well. I don't mean it condescendingly.

Will watch sometime in the next week.

She plays a mediocre actress so well. I don't mean it condescendingly.

no, exactly. this actress is...not exceptional. she's not terrible either, which would have been a different task. she's not just great. She (the character) almost is great when she does the letter read...but what happens to that spark in the final scene (the retakes)? It's totally gone.

For me, Portman’s best moment was the high school inside the actor’s studio interlude, letting it get off the rails and inappropriate almost immediately

best line delivery of the year may december best writing of the year pic.twitter.com/t7gmNcKDBD

— Moreira (@cinemoreeira) December 1, 2023

The name of the show Portman was on (“Norah’s Ark”) was perfect.

Also, I was very relieved this wasn’t actually much like Persona.

that music cue (with the fridge opening) is hilarious

I liked this, but I thought the moral judgments were rendered a bit woodenly, and for a story about illicit love I thought it could have been even hornier!

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/interviews/todd-haynes-may-december
Haynes interviewed by Amy Taubin

That was great, thanks. Feel like Amy Taubin is the perfect person for him to be discussing this with, especially after seeing her in The Warhol Diaries.

imo this is a real goddamn movie. still thinking about it days later. all the miles-wide negative space extending beneath the tightly-controlled performances

knew i loved it from the moment the camera follows portman into the stockroom

Longtime pal Kelly Reichardt interviewed him (and quite well) for a collection called Todd Haynes: Rapturous Process enclosed with the screener

imo this is a real goddamn movie

Yep, what the film bros have been crowing about endlessly in response to Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon, I'm now happy to report myself and the film gays are happily going overboard with in the very same vein

Something really Chabrol-ian about this film. Good stuff! Portman is indeed excellent.

Good description!

For the first time! Xpost

Watched it tonight, really liked it. I liked that it both was and wasn't Haynes' Mary Kay Letourneau movie. Also his second Citizen Kane nod, right? Like Velvet Goldmine, you have the outsider piecing together the story of the person. Except that the outsider is actually the main character. This one also reminded me a bit tonally of Assayas.

Haynes is such a smart and interesting filmmaker, really one of my favorites.

echoing the chorus of praise for melton in this, love the strange energy field he carries around with him, especially in contrast to the very different stuff portman & moore are doing. he didnt strike me so much as an arrested man-child so much as someone who had just started to develop a personality only to have it slowly disappear over 20 years. its like behind his eyes theres the faintest hint of a pilot light thats just barely flickering but never quite catches.

have to admit i'm not really swayed by the camp readings of this, feel like the "not enough hot dogs" music sting is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for that. the only other time i felt it got close was the retake scene at the end, which looked like something out of mulholland drive

I'm still not sure what to think of the final scene. Because to my eyes...nothing got better from take to take. It's the same thing over and over again. I read one review (or maybe it was here can't recall) that implied that the movie she is making is another TV movie but I don't think that's the case; it's supposed to be an independent film, right? She watches a scene from a TV movie in the film. And at the end...I don't feel like the quality of what they are doing is any better than what was reflected in that TV movie; Haynes seems to be saying that no re-enactment is ever going to be a pure expression. You can reshoot it a thousand times and it will always feel false.

I thought the final scene was a great punchline. After all that high-minded prep, the movie they end up doing is just a junky, sensationalistic thing, The Amy Fisher Story more or less.

It's double underlining that the actress (who is as fragile and susceptible to Elizabeth's influence as Joe was) is no closer to understanding Elizabeth than she was at the beginning ... less close, even. She nailed the take when she thought she had a handle on her background, but Elizabeth cut her off at the knees in the second to last scene.

otm

yeah. to me it almost feels like a final caution to the viewer: if you thought of her as your audience surrogate, a gumshoe peeling back all the layers for you, you look as dumb as she does right now. after that last scene btwn her and moore its basically unnecessary, putting a hat on a hat, but i still liked it.

I thought about that too and, ultimately, I disagree. We do need to see her flail on camera after that moment.

Idk guys. I hoped for better.

and it was!

It reminded me of like the accident or reflections in a golden eye (campy, ponderous, blurry) or something like foxes (that 70s shampoo ad look) also why was it set in 2015? It wasn't an excuse to get people to dress like it was 2015. I'm curious to see what people sincerely trying to do the 2010s in costume will look like because I want to know what type 'office girl in wide legged trousers' will signify