lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (11/02/90)
HENRY & JUNE
A film review by Laurie Mann
Copyright 1990 Laurie Mann
This is the movie that forced the MPAA to create a new rating.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I can't figure out *why*! There is a
fair amount nudity in the movie, but the sex scenes are generally not
all that erotic.
HENRY & JUNE is supposed to be the true story of Anais Nin & Henry
Miller, both famous writers. The "June" in the title is Miller's wife,
June, a woman whose very picture alters the lives of characters in this
movie. Perhaps it's the sort of movie that if you're a fan of either
writer, it works on the level of providing lots of background. Since
I'm not, I didn't like the movie as much as I expected to.
It really doesn't have much of a plot. The movie follows Anais &
her husband Hugo, sort of '30s French yuppies, as they drift from place
to place and discuss that Anais will probably have an affair with an
older man. Enter Henry Miller. The relationships between Anais, Hugo,
and Henry are quite complicated. Anais wants Henry, both as a fellow
writer and as a person who clearly enjoys sexual experimentation. Henry
wants sex wherever he can get it, but he's very cautious around Anais.
Hugo pretty much ignores the situation, though it's clear he knows more
about it than Anais thinks he does.
The performances are okay, but not much to write home about. The
actress portraying Anais Nin is particularly good (a new, young Spanish
actress, playing Anais with a wonderful French accent). The French
accents clash with the strong Brooklynese of both Fred Ward (playing
Henry Miller) and Uma Thurman (playing June). With the exception of
Anais, the characters were in desperate need of charisma transplants to
pull this film off. Kaufman has cast his movies very successfully in the
past, and I'm not sure why he didn't succeed this time (though Alec
Baldwin was originally supposed to have played Miller).
The photography in this movie is lovely. The point of view in this
movie wanders---many scenes are shot in mirrors, so it's a little
disconcerting at times. The distinctions between dreams and reality are
not very well defined, which made reality a little difficult to follow.
The dialogue is fine, but the plot is *very* slow-going, and would have
benefited by a little tightening. There are some good scenes, and
whenever June confronts someone, you know she often speaks the truth.
There are also a few lovely observations during the course of the movie
about sex and desire, and these observations are often quite subtle.
On the whole, I can only give this movie a 6 on the Chuck scale.
The movie promises a lot but fails to deliver. If you want to see a
truly erotic movie, go back and rent THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING.
Kaufman did it right that time....
While I don't think there are particular spoilers in this movie, I
suppose I ought to warn you just in case...
Perhaps the main reasons for the new rating relate more to the
treatment of morality in the movie. There is quite a bit of nudity in
the movie, both in a long parade of under-costumed art students, and in
several scenes in a brothel. When Hugo tells Anais he'll do anything
sexual for her, she takes him to a brothel and they watch female
prostitutes perform sexually for each other. When the prostitutes ask
them to join in, they decline. While the lesbian aspect of the film has
been discussed quite a bit, the most explicit material is in the
afore-mentioned scene in the brothel. And it really wasn't all that
erotic---the scene in LIGHTNESS when one woman photographs the other
was much more charged.
While Anais spends most of the movie lusting after June, it's clear
nothing ever would have worked out between them. Anais is a cultured
European, and June is a Brooklyn taxi dancer. Anais is generally very
controlled, and June is just explosive. June is portrayed as an
unbelievably manipulative bitch in this movie. Henry is a somewhat
softer version of June, but he has the ability to be an artist,
something that June, even though she supports him, just doesn't
understand.
*** Laurie Mann ** lmann@jjmhome.UUCP ** lmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com ***frankm@microsoft.UUCP (Frank Maloney) (11/02/90)
HENRY & JUNE
A film review by Frank Maloney
Copyright 1990 Frank Maloney
This is the first NC17 movie, a fact which will no doubt put you in
good stead in some future trivia game. The movie is considered too much
for kids, but too good not to be rated and given entree to the world's
multiplexes.
The most "unconventional" thing about HENRY & JUNE is the lavish
scenes of sex between women. As a gay man, I have to say that I grew a
trifle restive at so much of it, even if the photography was uniformly
excellent and the actors attractive and interesting people. All I'm
saying is that the sex, the eroticism is not, for me, the reason to see
HENRY & JUNE.
Acting, script, character development -- these are the reasons to
see HENRY & JUNE. The three principals -- Fred Ward as Henry Miller,
Uma Thurman (DANGEROUS LIAISONS) as his wife June, and Maria de Madeiros
as Anais Nin -- give magnificently complex performances. Of the three,
Madeiros is the most attractive, but Thurman is the most interesting.
June is in many ways the focus of the film since both Miller and Nin not
only sleep with her (as well as each other) but write books about her.
Nin is the narrative focus of the film, which is about, inter alia,
her relationships with the title characters; she is in every scene; she
is the narrator; it is through her eyes and her diaries that we see the
world. And Madeiros is wonderfully right. She looks like Nin, small,
strong, huge-eyed, unblinking, all-seeing, very private, very open.
Fred Ward's Miller is less successful only by comparison. Miller
is portrayed very much as a traditional man, blind to who the women in
his life were except insofar as they were extensions of himself. As a
man, he is limited in what he can see, feel, or think. These things, I
think, are how Nin sees him, regardless of how he was.
But always I come back to Thurman's June: whore, muse, patrona,
con-woman, strong, intensely afraid of death. Obsessed with finding a
great writer who could portray her as she felt she was; always
disappointed, angry, loving, ungrateful, impossible, manipulating,
independent, clinging. It is as complete a a portrait of a human being
as I have ever seen on film and a stunning achievement for the actor.
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloneydougm@tsnews.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran) (11/05/90)
HENRY & JUNE
A film review by Doug Moran
Copyright 1990 Doug Moran
TITLE: Henry and June
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Moran
DATE: November 2, 1990
SCALE: 1 (Plan 9 from Outer Space) to 10 (Casablanca)
OVERVIEW:
A look at the relationship, erotic and literary, between Anais Nin,
Henry Miller, and their respective spouses Hugo and June.
REVIEW:
I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the hype surrounding the
recent release of HENRY AND JUNE, the first film to receive the MPAA's
newly minted NC-17 rating (which Tom Shales of NPR tells us stands for
"Not in Cincinnati, or a 17 mile radius thereof"). It's been banned in
some cities, and been called "an erotic masterpiece" in others. So
what's the film like?
Well, first and foremost to my eye, it's a Philip Kaufman film
(director of THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING). Every scene positively
drips atmosphere. Everyone smokes, some gracefully. Kaufman has
populated Nin's Paris with a remarkable collection of hookers, thiefs,
and (bizarrely) wandering street magicians, who stiffen and relax ropes,
make stolen wallets become doves, and other strange things that really
have no bearing on anything, as far as I can tell. There are romantic
fogs, poetic rainstorms, and dramatic thunder-and-lightning scenes.
Kaufman's feel runs through the entire film; his thumbprint is on every
scene.
Second, of course, it's about Nin and Miller, two writers of erotic
literature, and players in the erotic lifestyle.
In the first instance, as an atmosphere film, it succeeds. The
film lays it on a bit thick for my tastes, and the elements of drama
lurch a little too much into the arena of melodrama, I think. But the
atmosphere is maintained, and the film is beautiful to look at.
And as a display of acting talents, it's excellent. Fred Ward
certainly makes the most of his role, as does Maria de Madeiros. Uma
Thurman made me actively dislike her and feel uncomfortable when she was
on screen, quite a contrast to my reactions to her previous roles in
BARON MUNCHAUSEN and DANGEROUS LIAISONS. The only character who seems
weak is Hugo, and it is difficult to say whether this is the fault of a
very weak character, or poor acting, although I am inclined to think it
is the former. Certainly as his is played, Hugo is a boring, obtuse
nerd of a man, not what I would call a plum role.
Finally we come to the story. As a story, this film is somewhat
uneven. This is not what you would call a classic conflict/resolution
drama; it is more the story of Anais Nin's coming of age, and Henry
Miller (and his wife June) was the catalyst for that coming of age.
While I found her story interesting, it was certainly less than
fascinating for me, and I left the theatre feeling somewhat unfulfilled.
How did this relationship change her life? How did it change Henry
Miller's life? What happened to the two marriages? The film remains
mute on these subjects, and left me somewhat frustrated.
As for the erotic elements, they have been overadvertised as far as
I can see. There are certainly a lot of breasts and buttocks shown on
the screen, and a number of fairly graphic (but certainly far from
hardcore) lovemaking scenes, but none of them really struck me as
erotic. Most of the sex in this film struck me as more animalistic and
desperate than erotic. Unless you find raw rut erotic, you probably
won't find this film very erotic. There are those that might argue that
what we saw wasn't "raw rut," but it certainly looked that way to me.
Overall, an interesting film that was worth seeing. I think you
absolutely have to suspend your disbelief, and if you can, you will
enjoy this movie. If you can't, the atmosphere and melodrama might get
in your way. Certainly not an erotic masterpiece, but also far from
being a dog. I give it a 6.
--
Doug Moran
pyramid!ctnews!sparky!dougm
dougm@sparky.Convergent.comgiacomet@venus.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic B Giacometti) (11/05/90)
[Moderator's note: This arrived in French. With Mark's help, I determined
that this is in fact a review. However, neither of us are up to translating
this, so in French it runs. Spelling, punctuation, and word choice are exactly
as I received them.]
HENRY & JUNE
le Paris des annees 30 dans l'inconscient americain
A film review by Frederic B. Giacometti
Copyright 1990 Frederic B. Giacometti
Voila le dernier film de Philip Kaufman: Henry et June, ou
l'histoire de la liaison litero-erotico-amoureuse de Henry Miller, Anais
Nin et June Miller a Paris vers 1932.
Philip Kaufman semble se passioner pour les histoires
erotico-intellectuelles europeenes. Apres "l'insoutenable legerete de
l'etre", le voici qui nous delivre "Henri et June". D'abord une
observation: il aime donner aux petites brunes qu'on va decouvrir sous
toutes les coutures durant le film un fort accent francais, au point de
la lourdeur dans la version anglaise.
Tout cela pour dire que ce film est lourd. Mais tres lourd. Bien
que les prises de vue soient techniquement de bonne qualite, et le fil
du scenario (adapte des memoires d'Anais Nin) bien structure', les
dialogues, surtout ceux amoureux, sont d'une platitude a faire peur. Ca
m'a rappele Emanuelle; un des films les plus niais que j'ai vu. Pour
sur, c'est pas du Chanderlos de Laclos ni du Maupassant.
La volonte du realisateur a faire apparaitre Henri Miller comme un
artiste "en recherche", lui attribue en fait le comportement d'un porc
au travers du film; en fait, il parle comme un porc, bouffe comme un
porc, baise comme un porc, et se conduit comme un porc. C'est lourd et
traine dans le cliche boueux.
Mais, finalement, le point le plus remarquable dans ce film est
cette mysterieuse image du Paris et de la France populaire des annees 30
qui nous est revelee. Le pot-au-feu dans la cuisine, le soufflet au
fromage, la madeleine de Proust, les reveillons populo, les gentils
pick-pockets, des putes et des bordels, les flics a velo (ils ont eu
l'outrage de remplacer leur kepi par une casquette !!), il manque
presque les poules dans la cuisine, et le tableau serait complet.
Ahlala, l'inconscient americain nous offre la description du lieu
de perdition ou` les intellectuels americains allaient se perdre dans le
vice au moment de la prohibition en Amerique. Quel pandemonium !! Ca
copule meme dans les rues pendant le bizutage des beaux-arts! Philip
Kaufman ne devrait pas se laisser aller ainsi dans la carte postale.
Frederic Giacomettigiacomet@venus.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic B Giacometti) (11/13/90)
[Moderator's note: This translation to r.a.m.r. #831 was provided
by Mark Brader and approved by the author.]
HENRY AND JUNE
1930's Paris in the American unconscious
A film review by Frederic Giacometti
Translated from French by Mark Brader
(with help from his dictionary and the author)
Copyright 1990 Frederic Giacometti
Here is the latest Philip Kaufman film: HENRY AND JUNE, or the
story of the literary-erotic-love relationship of Henry Miller, Anais
Nin, and June Miller, in Paris about 1932.
Philip Kaufman seems to have a passion for European erotic-
intellectual stories. After THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, now he
delivers us HENRY AND JUNE. First an observation: to the little
brunettes that we'll discover from all possible views and angles during
the film, he loves to give a strong French accent, to the point of
heaviness in the English version.
All this is to say that this film is heavy. Very heavy. Even
though the technical quality is good, and the storyline (adapted from
Anais Nin's memoirs) is well structured, the dialogues, especially those
of love, are frighteningly platitudinous. It reminds me of EMANUELLE:
one of the silliest films I've seen. This is certainly not de Laclos
[author of LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES --trans.], nor Maupassant.
The director's intention for Henry Miller to appear as an artist
"in research" ends up giving him the behavior of a pig throughout the
film; in fact, he talks like a pig, guzzles like a pig, kisses like a
pig, and acts like a pig. It's heavy, and the cliches are muddy.
But, finally, the most remarkable point of this film is this
mysterious image of Paris and the French people of the 1930s that is
revealed to us. The hot-pot in the kitchen, the cheese souffle, the
sponge cake of Proust, the common people's holiday-eve dinners, the
gentle pickpockets, the whores and brothels, the cops on bicycles (with
the kepi replaced, outrageously, with a modern cap!). All that's
missing to complete the tableau is the chickens walking in the kitchen.
The American unconscious offers us a description of the place of
perdition, where American intellectuals would go to lose themselves in
vice at a time of Prohibition in America. What pandemonium! It breeds
in the streets themselves during the hazing at the Beaux-Arts school.
Philip Kaufman should not let himself work on postcards.leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (11/20/90)
HENRY & JUNE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Anais Nin's affair with Henry Miller as
recounted in her diary may well be pretentious enough to have
pleased her. This is a film with a lot of sex and very
little eroticism as Nin demurely and sensitively has sex with
anyone who will stand still and then describes it in perfumed
prose in her diaries. Rating: -1 (-4 to +4).
Take these comments with a grain of salt. Films about people's sex and
love lives somehow just do not appeal to me, even from excellent filmmakers
such as Woody Allen or Philip Kaufman. I rate them much lower than other
people seem to. Not that sex itself cannot be interesting, but even a Woody
Allen agonizing over why he cannot bed Diane Keaton is for me the formula
for a total yawner. Philip Kaufman's last film, THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF
BEING, while much in this genre, did have enough substance besides the
sexual maneuvering that it held my interest. His current HENRY AND JUNE is
a long film, but not nearly as long as it seems. In spite of the title, the
film is mostly about Anais Nin and her early 1930s affair with Henry Miller.
The film is based on the account in her memoir of the same title. She makes
herself out to be small and in some ways strong, but in most ways she is
fragile. She is not entirely satisfied by her banker husband Hugo and is
attracted to virile American writer Henry Miller. Awakened by his presence,
she proceeds in her frail, sensitive way to have sex with everyone in reach
but the housemaid and perhaps the dog (though the dog wasn't talking). She
also has a stimulating intellectual relationship with Miller, who is
straight-laced enough to limit his sexual partners to only the members of
the opposite sex within reach. When one of them is not making love, he or
she is agonizing, writing books, or riding bicycles.
Most of the story is told in Nin's voice, which is an acquired taste
like candied violets. The camera adopts a soft focus to mirror her writing
style. One set, apparently near the house where much of the action happens,
is a long walkway next to a wall in night and fog. It looks very much like
an impressionist painting. I was hoping we would see it in the daytime or
at least without fog, but we never do. I remember no other fog in the film
and it is there apparently mostly for effect.
Kaufman underscores that most of what we are seeing is from Nin's point
of view by having one sequence be a flashback narrated by Miller. The soft
focus is banished and the prose changes to a hard-boiled Raymond Chandler
style. Even in Nin's style Fred War may be trying to affect Miller's
character but it comes out like Humphrey Bogart. Maria de Medeiros' Nin is
a dictionary illustration for "demure" and often also for "naked." Kaufman
has created a tremendous number of nude positions for couples in which the
parts that would be most busy are out of sight, perhaps trying for an R
rating, or perhaps affecting Anais Nin's point of view. (Of course, the
film got first an X rating and then inaugurated the NC-17 rating.) "June"
refers, incidentally, to Miller's wife, played by Uma Thurman, who usually
is not around.
The film is constantly melodramatic, with deep people feeling deep
emotions which we are told about cheaply and superficially. You know you're
in trouble when characters start voicing lines like, "Does she think she can
love anything in you I haven't loved?" Even if these are real people, these
people aren't real. My rating: -1 on the -4 to +4 scale. It might have
been lower but for the peculiar background created of Paris in the 1930s.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com