![]() The result is a movie that's constantly bursting at its seams: it looks and feels like a Sirk picture, but the ideas seem disconnected from the form. , Haynes takes Sirk's model a step further, treating racial issues in a more volatile way that Sirk could have gotten away with, and dealing with homosexuality, an issue that was never broached in a mainstream '50s film, period. Even Sirk's dialogue is distancing the lines are so perfect that you have to step back and think about what they mean. Sirk deliberately calls attention to the fakery of his filmmaking: the sets are absurdly overdecorated, the streets uncommonly clean, and when it snows, you can bet a deer will be prancing outside the front window. But watch closely, and you'll see that the movies are really about Hollywood's glossy, idealized conception of the suburban middle class. At first glance, his films appear to be hideously overwrought melodramas about the picayune problems of the suburban middle class. Sirk is at once regarded as one of the finest directors of soap operas and as the best satirist of the genre. The clash between the technique and the content is jarring, but it might be why Far from Heaven is finally so resonant. even the scenes set in the present - had been shot in the style of a '50s sitcom, and you'll sort of get the idea. Seamlessly re-invents the "women's picture" and then uses the form to make a modern social statement. Shot in the style of the 1950s Universal Technicolor weepies of Douglas Sirk, Todd Haynes's
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |