Henry & June (1990) gave me mixed feelings from the very beginning. It seemed to drag unnecessarily without doing justice to their writing. The Miller character also struck me as too old and not as charismatic as I imagined. It turns out that the actor playing Miller (Fred Ward) was indeed a bit older (47-48 vs. 40-42), but Miller himself wasn’t actually much of a looker! I did believe Anaïs’s characterization, though. Her apparent innocence is quickly exposed as a setup for character development, as she pushes her boundaries and experiences the sexual liberation she and Henry talk about. This path of self-discovery is what loosely drives the plot.
Film does seem too long, especially by modern standards. It was nominated for an Oscar for its cinematography, and there are definitely enough beautiful moments in it. I was surprised to see similarities with The Hunger (1983) and Blade Runner (1982) in what I now think was the film aesthetic of the eighties, perhaps influenced by Tarkovsky. I felt nostalgic, in this era of extremely short cuts and little extraneous material that works simply to establish the mood. (Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)) is the only recent example of a film following that measured, heavily visual approach I could think of.)
In the end, to get a true sense of these two, I would recommend just reading their books. However, Henry & June, for which the MPAA “NC-17” rating was reportedly invented, fits as a legacy of Miller and Nin’s work; artfully portraying obsessive, messy, passionate human relationships and the intimacies that come with them. It makes a statement against the notions of sex and nudity as shameful, countering also the mainstream easily-defined, fit-in-boxes or completely screwed up, portrayal of relationships. And that is still as necessary and useful in this day and age as it was in the 1930s.
Also, if you like the idea of young Uma Thurman being a beautiful manipulative bitch, definitely watch it.
No comments:
Post a Comment