MUBI

Non sapevo da dove cominciare con Todd Haynes. Amo molto questo regista, e fino all’ultimo la mia penna era divisa tra Safe e I’m Not There. Ogni volta che riguardo uno di questi film lo preferisco all’altro, in un ciclico passaggio di affinità elettive. Avevo abbozzato uno scritto per entrambi, fino al punto in cui è venuto naturale proseguire con Safe. Questo non significa che sia lui ad aggiudicarsi il mio cuore, ci sarà anche un commento per I’m Not There prima o poi.

Safe arriva nel 1995, ben prima che Velvet Goldmine passi da flop commerciale a film culto. Il nome di Todd Haynes è ancora relegato ai circuiti indipendenti, e almeno in patria sarà proprio Safe a far guadagnare a lui e a Julianne Moore un meritato quanto inaspettato successo di critica. Anticipando gran parte delle ossessioni di Haynes che ritroveremo nelle opere successive, prima fra tutte la fragilità psicologica dei suoi personaggi, Safe è l’episodio più ambiguo all’interno di una produzione sempre a cavallo di generi e umori. L’ambiguità è sia negli intenti di Haynes, sia nella vicenda che coinvolge la protagonista Carol White. Ed è, soprattutto, in Carol White stessa, una meravigliosa Julianne Moore che carica ogni sguardo di incomprensione e impotenza. La Moore tiene lontano lo spettatore da una possibile immedesimazione e contemporaneamente lo cattura. Le espressioni sul suo viso sollevano più dubbi di qualsiasi domanda ci poniamo sugli eventi davanti a noi. Incapace di reagire al virus, presunto o tale che sia, subisce passivamente la progressiva alienazione dalla famiglia e dalla società. Haynes la segue a debita distanza, inserendola con occhio distaccato nella geometria soffocante degli spazi urbani e domestici della prima metà di Safe, e nell’altrettanto opprimente verde in cui si ritirerà in cerca di una cura nella seconda metà del film. É la stessa distanza che caratterizza le relazioni interpersonali di Carol. Nella vita di tutti i giorni, si dimostra fredda nel rapporto sessuale con il marito, gentile con le amiche ma senza una vera complicità nei loro discorsi, inadatta nel ruolo di matrigna. Pochi minuti e Safe mette subito in scena qualcosa che non torna. Che cos’ha Carol White? Perché si comporta così? Haynes sembra suggerire allo spettatore gli elementi che indeboliscono la salute di Carol, ma non chiarisce mai quale sia la vera causa del malessere, né la sua gravità. Stress? Inquinamento? Insofferenza alla routine? Haynes non risponde, avanza l’ipotesi che si tratti di sensibilità chimica multipla, una patologia che, riporto da Wikipedia, “sarebbe causata dall’impossibilità di una persona a tollerare un dato ambiente chimico o una classe di sostanze chimiche” ¹. La diagnosi è controversa, è una patologia su cui scienziati di tutto il mondo hanno dibattuto a lungo. Un dato interessante è riportato dalla National Library of Medicine statunitense: “Potrebbe essere l’unico disturbo in natura nel quale il paziente definisce sia i segni che i sintomi della sua condizione” ². Haynes sfrutta questo aspetto combinandolo con il carattere introverso e taciturno di Carol così da rendere inintelligibili la sua salute e i suoi pensieri. Il corpo di Carol si manifesta intollerante a diversi ambienti e circostanze: in automobile colpita dai gas di scarico della macchina che la precede, al mattino in camera da letto, nel salotto con alcune amiche. Accusa forte tosse, asma, vomito, nausea, temporanea amnesia. Finisce per diventare insicura, si muove quasi consapevole che qualcosa da un momento all’altro le accadrà. Respinge continuamente quello che la circonda e si arrende ad una fuga dalla città. Sceglie di affidarsi alla terapia di una comunità stabilitasi a Wrenwood, nel deserto, fino ad emanciparsi completamente dalla vita, chiusa in se stessa. Haynes non giudica codarda o coraggiosa questa decisione, preferisce rimettere a noi la conclusione.

[continua qui: http://gwailoutavern.blogspot.com/2011/04/safe-di-todd-haynes-1995.html]

Title: Safe
Year: 1995
Language: English
Country: UK,USA
Genre: Drama
Director: Todd Haynes
Writers: Todd Haynes
Cast:
Julianne Moore
Xander Berkeley
Jodie Markell
Martha Velez
Chauncey Leopardi
Susan Norman
Steven Gilborn
Beth Grant
Lorna Scott
Kate McGregor-Stewart
James LeGros
Peter Friedman
Sarah Scott Davis
Rating: 8/10

I’m a devoted Moore fan, so how could I miss this highly-acclaimed indie film, which directed by the genius Todd Haynes in 1995 and also bestowed her the crown of Queen of indies.

SAFE is an unorthodox indiewood member who has a unflinching core which dares to chart the mysterious battle between the body and soul through the dubbed “environmental disease". The concept here is an intrepid self-salvation process, in a world without any certainty, it is what we believe decides our fate, any physical phenomenons have lost all its gauges and canons. A striking truth is that nothing can save a troubled soul.

I do find stark pessimism in the film, and which is scarier is that it plunges a tremendous impact on me, which in turn solidifies my brief and proves that certain films could unswervingly employ this sort of manipulative trickery.

Moore is laboriously stunning for her role, a delicate doll with a determined will to pursue the cure of her unknown disease, a subtle yet multi-layered interpretation, which reminds me of a saying that “a lonely person should be disgraceful”, until she eventually found the place where existed her idem genus. In the very end, she just cannot go back to her normal social life and only could survive by shielding herself inside a new egg-shaped “clean” room where she can dwell in forever.

I consider the film as a modern-day allegory, it challenges its audience to face a wretched circumstance – the insecurity of our carnal figure and the lost identity of any classification. In my opinion, the gritty singularity of ourselves is the cradle of the evil side of religion, one of mine catchphrases is that: Don’t be swayed easily by those around you, by what you hear and what they say; adjust yourself in a placid mode, the one who knows you best is yourself, and is yourself only.

Technically speaking, the film deploys a post-apocalypse palette and a brittle score to embody an almost horrorfest-like shtick, Todd Haynes is an authentic auteur who has gut to surprise his devotees.

In ‘Safe’, Todd Haynes gave depth to a character (a ditsy housewife/homemaker) that’s generally portrayed as shallow or simple. Furthermore, without ever using the term; “AIDS” or “HIV” directly, he was able to make one of the greatest films on the subject of AIDS EVER.
Todd Haynes described his 2nd feature as a “horror movie of the soul” (which is probably the best description ever). ‘Safe’ is essentially a “body horror”: a modern-day California housewife (“Carol”, played by Julianne Moore in her best performance next to ‘Boogie Nights’) develops a mysterious illness called “environmental sickness”, which causes her to become allergic to everything around her (sprays, deodorants, hair gel, fumes, processed food, etc). As the movie progresses, she becomes weak, is forced to use an oxygen tank, and develops bruises & legions (wink wink) all over her face. Things become so bad that she eventually has to go off and live in a commune with other people who have the same sickness as her. Even though this commune appears to mean well, Haynes kinda leaves the idea open that it could very well be a cult (everyone wears very similar outfits and the “head”/leader of the organization/commune lives in a big mansion overlooking everyone like he’s L Ron Hubbard or something). Haynes also slightly hints at the fact that this “sickness” could all be in Carol’s head.
As we all know, the “body horror” genre is led by key figures like Cronenberg (‘naked lunch’, ‘crash’, ‘scanners’, ‘the fly, ’dead ringers’), Frank Henenlotter (‘basketcase’ & ‘frankenhooker’) or more recently, ‘Marina De Van’ (‘in my skin’). What these movie all share besides the obvious themes of body mutilation and transformation (which is something that does happen to Julianne Moore in ‘Safe’) is that all these films are pretty graphic and bloody. In ‘Safe’, other than a brief scene where Carol has a nose bleed, there is almost no blood in the film or any violent deaths for that matter, yet its still very creepy and unsettling. You could even go so far as to call ‘Safe’ science fiction as well.
Regarding the comment on AIDS that Todd Haynes makes, its pretty obvious. Up until this film which was made in the mid-90’s, almost every major film regarding AIDS focused on homosexuals, as if it was a gay disease (which as we all know is what many people thought it was back in the 80’s). Todd Haynes, who is openly gay, took the most unlikely person associated with the disease (an upper-middle class, heterosexual, white woman), and tried to say that ANYONE could contract it. One of the 2 best scenes in the film is when Carol goes to visit a friend; “Linda” (another stay-at home housewife) who’s brother has just died. There’s a lot of whispering and quiet talking between the 2, but there’s a casual/brief hint that makes it obvious that Carol’s friend’s brother has died of AIDS. Carol then almost questions whether or not the brother was gay, but her friend quickly corrects her. The 2 biggest indicators are the lines:

-Carol: (inquiring about how her friends brother died) “It…wasn’t…”
-Linda: “That’s what everyone keeps…Not at all. Because he wasn’t married…It’s just so unreal”

‘Safe’ wasn’t the first time Haynes addressed AIDS. In his debut; ‘Poison’, one of the 3 short stories that the movie was made up of involves a scientist who captures the “sex drive” in a test tube, and accidentally drinks it (this story was shot in the style of an old roger corman/vincent price/ black & white B-movie). He slowly turns in to a half man/half monster (with disgusting bumps on his face) who causes other people to look the same when they come in contact with him. Eventually the entire town becomes infected. And just like with ‘Safe’, Haynes addressed the issue of AIDS without any mention of homosexuality or using the actual term at all. Don’t get me wrong, a movie like ‘Philadelphia’ is an important & powerful film, but i like how Haynes took a serious issue in his first 2 films, and addressed them in a more subtle, low key & clever way.
There’s obviously a Kubrick influence. From the creepy soundtrack of ‘Safe’, which is similar to the music in ‘The Shining’ (as well as Lynch’s ‘Mulholland Drive’), to the bold, head-on interior shots and overall cinematography in ‘Safe’, Kubrick echoes all through out the film. There aren’t any “lifted” or stolen scenes from any of Kubrick’s films in ‘Safe’, but its obvious that the cinematography in ‘Safe’ gives a similar vibe to the work of Kubrick.
Whats also so great about ‘Safe’ is that it not only speaks to people dealing with AIDS, but it can also be viewed as a comment on all diseases & sicknesses depending on how you look at it. My 2nd favorite scene, which takes place in the last half of the film when Carol goes off to live in the commune, is the scene when Peter (the leader of the group) preaches down to one of the other environmentally sick residents who’s husband has just died…

-Nell: “First, I got sick, and my husband thought I was crazy. And then he got sick the same way.”
-Peter: “What was happening in your life around the time you first…How were you feeling when you first got sick?”
-Nell: “I just wanted to get a gun…and blow off the heads of everyone who got me like this.”
-Peter: “Nobody out there made you sick. You know that. The only person who can make you get sick is you, right? Whatever the sickness, if our immune system is damaged…it’s because we have allowed it to be…through exactly the kind of anger you’re showing us now. Does that make sense? Does anybody have a problem with that?”

Now that’s a hell of a thing to generalize, but he does have a point. Not everyone can control as to whether they contract a disease or not, but in my case what Peter says hold a lot of truth. The fact that i needed a kidney transplant at such a young age falls completely on me. As a diabetic, i didn’t manage my disease well (knowing what the repercussions would be if i didn’t the whole time), and got kidney disease. There’s no one to blame for that except myself. One major issue that many people have with ‘Safe’, is that people feel that Carol still didn’t “grow” by the end of the movie. In the end, Carol gives a kinda empty speech that doesn’t make much sense, which makes her look like the airhead she was at the beginning. But in my opinion, i think she’s a new person. She made the decision on her own to go investigate and research her illness, and to go off and live with the commune of other sick people like herself. Those kind of decisions take a lot (especially from someone like Carol). So she may not be the smartest person by the end of the movie, but she still changed for the batter. ‘Safe’ is kinda one of those movies that gets a ton of accolades and awards, but i come in contact with so many people who have yet to actually see it. At the moment, the DVD is out of print, but is still easy to access (although it goes for about $40 used on amazon). In fact, the Village Voice (who’s opinion i sometimes trust), voted ‘Safe’ the best movie of the 90’s. That’s something i agree with, but at the same time, ‘Safe’ isn’t for everyone, and even though it has many great unsettling and creepy moments, some people might find it boring.

There are two kinds of light — the glow that illumines, and the glare that obscures.
James Thurber

No time for a fuller review but, having just watched this wonderful film I wanted to offer a few thoughts that oppose the review by Howard Schumann on this page. Unlike Howard, one of the things that most impressed me about Safe was the way the film avoided easy judgments about the validity of the treatment Carol is offered at the retreat. Haynes, and the performers accurately depict the way such institutions can seem dubious and genuine at the same time. I was especially struck by the way the leader, Peter, sounds like a phony charlatan at the beginning of his first speech (the way most of us do when we try to put a crowd at ease with corny jokes at the beginning of a presentation), but then begins to speak more profoundly as he continues. I was also pleased that Carol’s husband showed great patience in dealing with her issues while at the same time his frustration was visible in the nuances of the actor’s performance. Haynes shows respect for all the characters and never descends into cynical parody mode the way many indie filmmakers would.

There are some dark questions at the roots of this work and yet the film is never completely dark. The early scenes feature incisive views into the banality of Carol, and her friends and family’s existence, but the others aren’t there to simply bring Carol down, they are living breathing humans. In a lesser filmmaker’s hands this whole milieu would be fodder for satire and every character would be a caricature but when one looks at, say, the brilliant baby shower scene, carefully, one sees a group of women who are struggling to maintain their own lives, not an assembly line of middle class types designed to make us understand a sociological thesis about the vacuous bourgeois mentality in this community. Carol’s best friend struggles to understand carol’s explanation of what she is going through and offers up phony words of understanding not because she is a phony, but because she cares and thinks that that is what Carol needs from her. The scene with Carol and the retreat’s director, wherein the latter reveals her initial fears and misgiving upon moving into the retreat, is touching and disturbing at the same time because everything tells us that retreating from the world is bad but the woman, and the actress, is so sincere that we can’t help but see some kind of triumph in her words.

Haynes uses the camera to great effect. He never allows us to only see the world through Carol’s eyes but neither does he turn Carol into a circus freak. There is one amazing shot near the beginning of the film that seems to be a zoom in on Carol as well as a retreat from her, an excellent demonstration of the kind of restraint many mainstream and indie darlings are unable to utilize because they want us to fully sympathize with or despise their characters. Haynes’ use of the widescreen is wittily powerful in a long shot just before the scene with the Carol and the retreat’s director. Carol has come home from her first meeting and we see her from a distance in the middle of her long cabin. As she breaks down into tears we fully expect for the shot to change to a closer perspective. Instead, Carol and we are both surprised to suddenly find the director at her door looking to console her. Do those who try to help us make us feel safer or is the only true safety derived from solitude? This film is wise enough to ask the question, as well as several others, without answering it definitively.

As in the best films, the experiences we and the characters go through in Safe take time. The film felt longer than its running time and that is a good thing because it allows us to live through the multivalent emotions and intellectualizations that Carol goes through. It also, perhaps unintentionally, reminds us that the one thing we can never be safe from is time and it’s inevitably damaging results. While there is no other film, that I’m aware of, quite like Safe, in it’s dedication to open ended questions and dialogues it shares allegiances with the best of truly independent cinema. There is a wonderfully loopy speech from Carol near the end that goes nowhere expect where all of life eventually goes: back to old and new unanswerable questions about who we are, what we want, and where we will end up.

This film also thrills in it’s specificity. Carol’s problem, E.I. (environmental illness), never comes across as a simple metaphor for societies larger ills because Haynes takes time to fill many scenes with other sufferers who have different issues and different understandings of their issues and there origin. One member of the retreat, whose son is a sufferer, is convinced that these problems come from within one minute but then questions her own assertion the next because she can’t reconcile what’s in her head with the other evidence that moves her heart.

Carol’s world cannot be summed up as merely tragic or heroic. She has retreated from normal life but she is trying to battle her way back to her family the only way she knows how. Her solution may be the light at the end of the tunnel or a bottomless pit but only time, the most unforgiving master of our existence, will tell. The final scene, in which Carol takes some advice the retreat’s director gave her earlier by looking in the mirror and providing herself with an answer, true or not, that we all want to believe, is either the saddest or most hopeful moment in recent film and this ambiguity is the films greatest strength. A masterpiece.