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.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews