January 5, 2003 -- Some people think of the 1950s as the good old days. They probably were if you were white, straight, a man, and didn't care about anybody who didn't fit into those categories. It was a time of oppression and stifling conformity and overt racism that was not confined to the south. Conformity and racism dominate the film, "Far From Heaven." Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore star as Frank and Cathy Whitaker, a couple in Hartford, Conn., whose marriage is falling apart because Frank is a homosexual.

Ordinarily, that would be enough plot, not to mention political correctness, for any movie, but this one takes on the race issue, too. The subplot involving Cathy and a black gardner named Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) becomes the main focus of the movie, leaving the homosexuality issue in the dust. Racism becomes the primary focus of the movie. In fact, it makes it look as if Frank has a much easier time of it than either Cathy or Raymond, who are both ostracized because of their friendship. Not only that, but Frank nearly loses his job, not because he is gay, but because of Cathy's friendship with Raymond. There are some surprises along the way and it did not end the way I thought it would. While the story is not terribly compelling, this movie is great to look at and the acting is very good.

The look of the film is luscious. Overt use of colors help establish a time, place and mood. There are lots of browns and primary colors. There is a striking use of lighting in the film. People are often bathed in green or blue light. The costume design by Sandy Powell ("Gangs of New York") is exceptional. Some of the dresses worn by Julianne Moore in the film are stunning. The art design by Peter Rogness ("Pollock") and the set design by Ellen Christiansen ("You've Got Mail") and the production design by Mark Friedberg ("Kate and Leopold"), are also exceptional. I think there is something about that 1940 and 1950-era style that really inspires good artistic design in everything from hair styles to set design in a movie. This film rates a B.

For some reason this film is near the top of many top 10 critics lists for 2002. I suspect that it, like "Bowling for Columbine" attracts liberals like honey attracts bears. Both films are excruciatingly politically correct, pushing all the right left wing buttons. The dialogue for both Haysbert and Moore is extremely carefully crafted so as not to offend anyone. Moore sounds like a politician running for office who needs black votes, and Haysbert sounds more like a college-educated literature major than a gardner from the poor side of the tracks. If he was not so polished, he may have appeared to be the dreaded "super masculine menial" that Eldridge Cleaver talks about in "Soul on Ice." Such care is taken to be politically correct that reality takes a back seat. It becomes a somewhat preachy morality tale. I can take or leave political correctness, and I don't have a problem with the politics of the filmmakers. What I have a problem is when the political correctness becomes so overpowering that it starts compromising the artistic integrity of the film, as it does in this film. Even that wouldn't be much of a problem, except that this is supposed to be an art film. Give me a break. This is not one of the 10 best films of the year, but it is not a bad film, either, mainly because of some good acting and very high production values.

Click here for links to places to buy this movie in video and/or DVD format, the soundtrack, books, even used videos, games and lots of other stuff. I suggest you shop at least two of these places before buying anything. Prices seem to vary continuously. For more information on this film, click on this link to The Internet Movie Database. Type in the name of the movie in the search box and press enter. You will be able to find background information on the film, the actors, and links to much more information.