Philip Kaufman’s “Henry & June” (1990) was the first film given an NC-17 rating.
It remains one of the few studio-backed films to openly, unashamedly explore sexual topics and has lost none of its ability to shock.
For a movie now 30 years old, Kaufman’s film remains a rich portrait of artists in pursuit of literary greatness.
When we meet Anais Nin (Maria de Medeiros), she is playful and uninhibited in some ways but shy and reserved in others. She is a striking, talented writer and the wife to the kindhearted Hugo (Richard A Grant).
When Nin meets the outspoken, rowdy and similarly talented Henry Miller (Fred Ward), their professional collaborations and social encounters eventually become a sexual relationship. Initially a secret from Hugo, the private encounters between Nin and Miller are also something they try to keep a secret from Miller’s wife, the outspoken June (Uma Thurman).
“Henry & June” is a lot to take and not just in the abundance of frequent verbal and visual eroticism. Sometimes the erotic moments feel like proper extensions of the characters, at other times, you can feel Kaufman testing the audience and ratings board in a game of chicken.
To Kaufman’s credit, his film comes across more as classy than the crass, self-consciously sleazy “erotic thrillers” that overwhelmed the decade. Yet, just how many sex scenes one is comfortable watching over the course of two hours will be tested by casual viewers expecting this to be more like Kaufman’s acclaimed but seriously overrated “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” (1988).
Exquisite and self-consciously risk-taking as Kaufman’s film is, “Henry & June” isn’t perfect nor definitive. The lives of Miller and Nin went far beyond the timeline presented here, as Miller’s works post-“Tropic of Cancer” were extensive.
Likewise, Nin’s diary, which she started writing when she was 11 years old, covered decades of her life. To put it mildly, as thorough a character study as they get here, only a documentary could likely do justice to their overall reach and achievements.
As a film about Miller and Nin, “Henry & June” remains the only current, authoritative work. The little remembered “Tropic of Cancer” (1970), starring Rip Torn as Miller, remains out of print.
With characters this larger than life, I suspect a documentary, which wouldn’t test the inhibitions and broader instincts of actors, may be the best way to tell this story. Or, perhaps, if a different time were chosen as the setting – having read Nin’s diary when I was in college, the years of 1937-1947 were among the most surprising and richest in the collection.
Kaufman’s film finally hits a wall in the third act, when June returns as the focus and the story hammers us with melodrama and histrionics. It’s an ironic misdirection that a film about writers would lose its way by suddenly coming across as so blatantly written.
FAST FACT: Director Philip Kaufman’s second film, 1967’s “Fearless Frank,” is notable for the first screen appearance by future Oscar winner Jon Voight.
I find “Henry & June” utterly fascinating, in the way it is so fearless about portraying the personal lives of risk-baiting writers and how it is a prestigious period film that, nevertheless, isn’t afraid of alienating its audience. I’m fascinated that Alec Baldwin was once cast as Miller, then dropped out and was replaced by Ward, who I find perfect for the part.
I’m fascinated that Ward did this movie right after “Tremors” and is such a good actor he doesn’t seem out of place in either movie.
Finally, I’m fascinated that the NC-17 rating had a good run that began with this movie and continued with films like Almodovar’s “Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!” (also 1990) and a handful of others. There was clearly a need for the NC-17.
Look, whether you have an adult guardian or not, there are some movies that kids should not be able to see in a theater, period. The lack of a babysitter or the feeling that a 9-year-old “can take it” doesn’t justify taking a small child to see an R-rated movie.
I love the idea of the NC-17 rating and suspect filmmakers loved it too, as they didn’t have to worry about being censored.
What killed the NC-17 rating? In one word: “Showgirls” (1995), the lavish, envelope-pushing erotic drama that was supposed to be the film that pushed the NC-17 into the mainstream.
Instead, the film was a laughingstock with critics and audiences, who abandoned it after a single weekend. “Showgirls” wasn’t just expensive and “sleazy,” it was an embarrassment. Yes, director Paul Verhoeven recovered from the debacle, and “Showgirls” is a major cult film today, but its high-profile failure is what killed the NC-17 rating.
Did we really need that rating to persist? Yes, absolutely.
The summer of 1999, for example, had “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut,” “American Pie” and “Eyes Wide Shut,” all rated R and reportedly created trouble for theater owners who struggled to keep underage audiences from seeing them. Look, young people will find ways to see cinematic forbidden fruit and now, with the internet allowing dozens of possibilities, guarding underage audiences from movies R and up has become impossible.
Nevertheless, the idea of the NC-17 rating, which wasn’t aligned with “dirty” movies but filmmakers who didn’t want to prune their works down to a more mainstream cut, was a good one.
“Henry & June,” which was successful, critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated, was a solid test case for the rating and, more importantly, a great film on its own.
The post How ‘Henry & June’ Made Most of Its NC-17 Label appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.
from Movies - Hollywood in Toto https://ift.tt/T810HuO
0 Comments: