Customer Reviews

Safe [VHS]

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

This is probably director Todd Haynes's least-known film, and probably his masterpiece. Like JEANNE DIEHLMANN..., the Chantal Ackerman which inspired it, SAFE moves at an incredibly slow pace for its first half to take you into the dreamlike world of its protagonist, a beautiful Los Angeles housewife with almost nothing to do. As you become accustomed to her rhythms, her mounting attacks from (what she believes to be) environmental hazards assume the dimensions of major catastrophes. There is a sequence where Julianne Moore goes into one of these attacks at a shower for a friend--while holding a child on her lap--that is one of the most horrifying scenes I've ever seen in a film, even though it culminates in little more than a nosebleed.

Is the heroine simply hysterical? Are there real environmental poisons at work devastating her body? Or is she reacting against a world that seems to have no place for her even while it pretends to value her highly for her beauty and her wealth? The film offers no easy answers, although it moves to a conclusion of the heroine at a dinner party (and then before a mirror) that will absolutely break your heart. Moore's performance may be the single best before a camera in the Nineties--she's really that good.

My wife whose name is "Carol" the name of the main character (She goes by Lynn and is listed in the credits) got environmentally ill and almost died in the 1980's before anyone even knew what this illness was. She survived by going through a controversial program created by a doctor whose whole famiily was poisoned by a chemical spill. She remained chemically sensitive and started a non profit organization to help people like herself. Todd Haynes came to our house to go over the script to this movie to get imput from her and a Doctor she worked with who treated victims of this medical problem. She even obtained a lot of the furniture an other items used in the movie. We think the movie was well done and accurate but for the ending. We know it is not a documentary but wanted to say to all who see this movie that the people with environmental illness are not crazy and that the healer type of therapy depicted in the movie is not the cure. There are many resources now to help and this is a recognized disability caused by an accute or long term exposure to toxic chemicals which prevades all of our modern lives daily.

Julianne Moore is magnificent in this careful and slow-moving film. The focus of almost every scene -- unusual for a female role -- she never monopolizes the screen. She even lets the furniture compete with her for attention. She thus captures the dislocation and marginalization of the wraithlike housewife "Carol" (or, as she corrects herself to her psychiatrist, "homemaker"), whose life seems central to nobody, even to herself. Although Xander Berkeley plays her sometimes frustrated husband with immense sensitivity, the sex scene between the two, very close to the beginning of the film, makes the act horrifyingly mechanical and manages to show how even the greatest intimacy can be deeply alienating. At the same time, the film is restrained; its ironies are offered so complexly that one is unsure of the point of view.

After Carol becomes seriously ill from exposure to an environment that is increasingly toxic to her, she takes refuge in Wrenwood, a holistic healing camp in the desert. The film remains uncommitted as to what part of Carol's illness is genuinely physical and what part is psychological. The philosophy offered at Wrenwood is also ambiguous, though it remains clear that the sympathy of the film is no more with New Age therapy than it was with the alienating sterility of Carol's lifestyle back in the San Fernando Valley. The film maintains this difficult balance right up to the devastating final scene.

This is not a film that was written to please the Chemical Sensitivity Movement. To read it as a political movie is a mistake.

This isn't a movie where the heroine struggles against all odds to triumph over her illness as the audience learns facts about it. It's a bleak look at how society fails those who are different or have a problem, then tells them it's their own fault and if they would just do some positive thinking then they'll be fine.

Carol's illness is real, and serves as a metaphor for her alienation from society. Our modern world makes her sick on many levels, but no-one will help her, only blame her. I don't think the movie is as ambiguous as some claim: it's clear that we're meant to sympathise with Carol, and not with her bored husband, uncaring doctor, and greedy self-help guru. If we admit that Carol is really sick, then what does that say about the world we live in?

Kubrick fans won't mind the slow pace; fans of dark satire will enjoy Hayne's harsh take on modern life and self-help cults.

Although this movie abounds with symbolism about the bloated materialism of Western society, and its effect on desensitizing(in this case sensitizing)people, this is really a finely drawn portrait of the onset of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity(MCS)- a very real illness- brought on by the disconnecting of the body's enzyme systems,loss of detoxification signalling in the brain, damage to DNA, and brain intoxication, from overexposure to the proliferation of common manufactured chemicals, at average levels of exposure, over time. Some of the causitive agents are shown in the movie- magic markers, vehicle exhaust fumes, new houses(with their formaldehyde, glues, paints, carpets, furniture), household cleaners, and fragrances(most colognes contain formaldehyde). Julianne Moore becomes progressively intoxicated(poisoned), as she encounters average manufactured products of the 20th century. This is called the "spreading factor" and often a person becomes more and more debilitated by typical daily exposures to many different common things. MCS is difficult to diagnose. There is no cure for this chronic disabling disease, and the sick person must be isolated and avoid contact with the substances. In dear America, especially out West, there are caravans of MCS sufferers traveling in small groups, trying to be as far from civilization as possible-they are on the edge of life, can only be near porcelain and stainless steel. Doctors, dentists, bus drivers, roofers, nurses, artists,etc......New Mexico declared a state of emergency for help for MCS victims. This is a great movie which shows a life familiar to some. Gulf War veterans validated this illness,(which some doctors still do not understand and pass off as Depression), because thousands returned with MCS acquired from Sarin gas and burning oil fields. Reviewers who think it is about a psychological illness and comparisons to institutionalization- are flat wrong! If you have MCS- I recommend viewing this with family and friends to help educate them about your illness- the bizarre problems of MCS often lead to disbelief and lack of support, because it is not as easy to relate to as Cancer or Diabetes . There is a tremendous proliferation of toxic chemicals in our world, and their effects on living beings have been poorly evaluated. I am an expert on MCS.

The description "horror film of the soul" sums it up well. This is a film full of the despair of Carol White (Julianne Moore), a lost angel of Los Angeles. The whole 1st half seems to be setting the scenario that she's allergic not simply to the chemical biproducts of society, but to society itself, or possibly to her own soul's emptiness (another biproduct of society). The whole empty LA lifestyle atmosphere was created--the disco gym, the upper-middle class house chores, the freeway, the nadir husband, the vacuous baby shower guests--it all hints that Safe is going to blow the whole thing wide open and make a gigantic statement about the individual lost in society. It makes the statement alright, but in such a subtle way--even too subtle.

To the unperceptive viewer Safe may seem to end on a somewhat positive note, because of the subtlety. Actually the ending bears resemblance to that of Orwell's 1984, even using the same final words, "I love you". But instead of directing it to Big Brother (who doesn't really exist) she directs it toward herself (does SHE really exist?)

Carol feels an ominous dread accentuated by a deep-tone humming soundtrack to her attacks ostensibly brought on by milk, deodorant spray, exhaust fumes, bug spray, citrus, etc. The story hints at not merely toxic chemicals, but toxic people, thoughts. Now the reason for the 4 stars: what it does NOT even HINT at is toxic society. I.e. it does not in essence condemn society, but the biproducts...kind of like comdemning the Holocaust without condemning Nazis (and everything behind them).

The "solution" to Carol seems to be to go to a New Age Retreat. The best way to sum up this retreat is: the road to Oblivion is paved with good intentions. In the end no difference exists between her vacuous suburban mentality and the vacuous new age mentality (summed up in the "I like myself" void). It's better to see this film at least twice to figure out exactly what Safe means from your perspective...because it leaves so much open for interpretation.

Julianne Moore does another fabulous job as an LA housewife exposed to the hazards of suburbia. The film is dark and stale adding to the creepiness of its message.

Moore's housewife is lifeless, she exists in LA going from post office to dry cleaners to aerobics class. She sips milk while her Spanish housecleaner does all the actual work of keeping up a home. She does her "wifely duties" with the same boredom with which she lives. Her world is protected and safe but she somehow ends up ill (is it real toxic poisoning or just a cry for attention?) and it all gets chalked up to stress.....what stress could she be having? The creepiness lies in how easily she gets programmed by all the others in her life. With no direction of her own she exists as a mere robotic representation of what she is supposed to be. How many of those do you see in a day?

Moore soon becomes so strangely ill that she can't even perform her meaniless tasks. This eventially lands her in a cultish type retreat where she is supposed to get well. Without her own backbone she flounders around influenced by everything external and open to all sorts of advice except what works. So we learn two messages in one movie, first be your own person and second that our environment may in fact be causing more undiagnosed illness than we imagine. Find your own influences before the Jones' get you down and above all stay SAFE!

This movie isn't for everyone. Some of the reviews below show that there are many folks who simply are unable to see or don't want to see the inherent spiritual void in our current so called 'civilization'. But back to the movie...
I was and am completely unfamiliar with this director's body of work. I rented the movie because I liked Julianne Moore in the movie "Hannibal". At first I thought it was some kind of weird satire on the stepford wife like existence of 1980's suburbia. Then, as the movie progressed, I thought it was a quasi documentary on environmental illness. Then a documentary on a new age type retreat as a solution to this illness. Boy was I wrong on all counts! For me the movie is showing us what is underneath our 'civilization', our technological 'advances' (some of which are killing us), our affluence. And what is that? A deep and profound spiritual void. An emptiness that is truly horrifying. Yes, our environment may be killing us, but worse we may have no spiritual foundation to address the issue. The new age center depicted in the movie certainly couldn't come up with a solution. And the irony of only the affluent being able to afford to go there (I would assume)!
This is by far the most deeply disturbing film I have ever viewed. Beating out "Requiem for a Dream" (a disquieting film about the ravages of drug addiction). However, it is worth it's difficult and tragic moments for the payoff: IT MAKES YOU THINK! What a concept for those who hated the movie!! And, as some reviewers pointed out, the director doesn't bludgeon you over the head with any particular idea. He leaves it to the viewer to suss it out for themselves. In this I have to agree with some of the feeling that this film is a masterpiece, and is worth the angst to begin thinking about the issues, which at bottom include: where are we going folks?

The first part of the movie is very realistic on how it feels to become ill with chemical sensitivities, though I doubt healthy people will get a lot of the subtleties, that is masterfully played by Moore. The second part looses it, by suggesting this is all in our head, and we just need to go to a spiritual retreat in the desert to heal. I reality, there are real medical centers (like EHC-D in Dallas) that treats this disease. Or maybe the movie really means to say that there is little hope for the ill, as the world successfully imposes the view that it is psychosomatic. I can't figure that out.

Safe is one of those uncategorizable films. Nominally a drama (I suppose), it lacks the heavy-handed sledge-hammer effect of most dramas in the mass market (hence Maltin's description of the second half as "slow"). Instead, it is more a brooding, contemplative film, struggling with and accepting, the inevitability of entropy, decay, and death. No matter how Moore tries to fight it, it keeps stalking her.

Maltin got one thing absolutely right, though - Moore's performance is excellent (and this was what she did just before "Lost World").