May December
A Mary Kay Letourneau type of thing is to become the subject of a movie starring Natalie Portman, providing the opportunity for reflecting on sexual morality, professional ethics and the preoccupation of the media with sensational events that ruin lives. All that provides the basis for some interesting twists and turns, but what it’s all in aid of remains rather unclear.
Richard Brody thinks this film “knows what it thinks”, that is, that Haynes “makes his own perspectives plain from the start”, so that “his own stern judgments suffuse the drama throughout”, meaning that he is “clearly on Team Joe”, even if he does not find him “especially interesting”. Strangely, this viewer tended to feel the exact opposite: that the filmmakers are very far from being sure about what they want to say, or what kind of tone they want to strike about the events depicted, and in their confusion try to dole out to each character a little bit of sympathy and a little bit of judgment, and that it is only at the end that they feel compelled to make “plain” that they want to reaffirm that yes, we do know who the victims are, and yes, we must always be on their side. In other words, even though Armond White mocks what he sees as the director’s fascination with “transgression”, seeing the film in moralistic terms as “a transgressive act of criminal reprieve”, in fact this fascination is only skin deep, and ultimately the filmmaker is afraid of himself being judged, and thus, if the film is wrapped in a veneer of “camp”, this is only to take a distanced position that ultimately reverts to a conformist one.
Also, I have very mixed feelings about the decision to steal very distinctive music from another film (in this case, THE GO-BETWEEN, 1971, which is itself a film ostensibly about a boy’s feelings for an older woman, and about her willingness to take advantage of those feelings for her own needs, but which has a far more unusual and interesting way of approaching the subject).
For all that, it’s not at all a bad movie, even if it cannot compare with the slightly-similarly-themed film by another Todd from the year before. Personally, I tend to feel that Letourneau probably got a pretty raw deal.
Richard Brody thinks this film “knows what it thinks”, that is, that Haynes “makes his own perspectives plain from the start”, so that “his own stern judgments suffuse the drama throughout”, meaning that he is “clearly on Team Joe”, even if he does not find him “especially interesting”. Strangely, this viewer tended to feel the exact opposite: that the filmmakers are very far from being sure about what they want to say, or what kind of tone they want to strike about the events depicted, and in their confusion try to dole out to each character a little bit of sympathy and a little bit of judgment, and that it is only at the end that they feel compelled to make “plain” that they want to reaffirm that yes, we do know who the victims are, and yes, we must always be on their side. In other words, even though Armond White mocks what he sees as the director’s fascination with “transgression”, seeing the film in moralistic terms as “a transgressive act of criminal reprieve”, in fact this fascination is only skin deep, and ultimately the filmmaker is afraid of himself being judged, and thus, if the film is wrapped in a veneer of “camp”, this is only to take a distanced position that ultimately reverts to a conformist one.
Also, I have very mixed feelings about the decision to steal very distinctive music from another film (in this case, THE GO-BETWEEN, 1971, which is itself a film ostensibly about a boy’s feelings for an older woman, and about her willingness to take advantage of those feelings for her own needs, but which has a far more unusual and interesting way of approaching the subject).
For all that, it’s not at all a bad movie, even if it cannot compare with the slightly-similarly-themed film by another Todd from the year before. Personally, I tend to feel that Letourneau probably got a pretty raw deal.
Mini Review: Brody thinks this film “knows what it thinks”, but this viewer felt the filmmakers are not at all sure, doling out to each character a little bit of sympathy and a little bit of judgment, and only at the end feel compelled to make plain that we must always be on the side of victims. Ultimately the filmmaker is afraid of being judged, and the veneer of “camp” reverts to a conformist position. Also, I have very mixed feelings about the decision to steal very distinctive music from another film.
More Reviews of May December
Watch the Trailer