Henry & June

A lot was good here. One of the thing that was "bad" was almost certainly deliberate -- the contrast between the coarse, gross facial features of Fred Ward, in juxtaposition with the extremely delicate visage of Maria de Medeiros. One thing that could have been better: the "baldness" of Fred Ward. I don't know him, and don't know if he's bald, but this looked like a very bad make-up job. Surely they could do better in 1990. Or did Miller shave the top of his head and pretend to be bald? I don't know, but I doubt it. In spite of the title, the movie is really about Anais Nin. This was a fine performance by Miss de Medieros, and is worth watching for that alone. It won't appeal to the car chase-and-explosion crowd, but it's not for them anyway. I don't see what made the difference from an "R" rating.

"Henry & June" (1990) by Philip Kaufman which is based on the book by Anais Nin is a wonderful film, a rare and admirable example of how an art-house erotic film should be made. It tells an interesting story that concerns the famous and scandalous American writer Henry Miller during the period of work on his first major work, "Tropic of Cancer" in 1931 in Paris and two women without whom the book would not have happened. One of them is his wife, June Miller, who is a constant presence under the different names in all Miller's works. The other - Henry's (and June's) close friend, lover, and confidant, Anais Nin. The film is an adaptation or mediation over the Anais Nin's journal which she wrote for 60 years and described in it the intimate details her inner world, including experiences with sexuality, and the meetings and relationships with prominent bohemian personalities of literature and art, who came from around the world to Paris, always known as the Mecca for creative individuals. Nin said about her life long writing in diary, "This diary is my kief, hashish, and opium pipe. This is my drug and my vice." Anais met in Paris provincial but talented non-conformist Miller and his exotic, sensual, and irresistible wife June (Uma Thurman never looked so attractive, as in this movie) and began affairs with both of them that would change their lives and influence enormously both Miller's and Nin's literary work. Anais is also known and praised as one of the first and the finest female writers of erotica. One of the reasons for film's success was director/writer Philip Kaufman's ability to delicately transfer to the screen the erotic intense atmosphere of Nin's writing as well as the spirit of Bohemian Paris in the beginning of the 1930s.

At the of Anais' request, her journal was published only after the death of all the participants in the events. Anais' relationship with Henry and June, which led to her own realization as writer, served as the basis for the Philip Kaufman's film. Kaufman wrote the script together with his wife Rose, and made a brilliant, disturbing, outrageous film, which had made history by having been the first USA film to receive the NR-17 Rating, so called "kiss of death". Henry and June is an adult film in the literal meaning of this word, it is the movie made for adults which explores in the insightful, exiting and artistic way the motivations, inspirations, and desires of the famous figures of Art. The acting is universally good with terrific Maria de Medeiros as Anais Nin. It is impossible to take one's eyes off her face - so charming, lovely, and desirable she is. She possesses the power of commanding the screen and she is the best thing in the movie which belongs to her Anais Nin.

If you're drawn to this film as a Henry Miller fan and expecting the Paris of Tropic of Cancer, you'll be let down. This film is a character-driven drama and therefore it is not intended to reproduce Miller's vision. Instead, the film focuses on (then) newly revealed excerpts from Anais Nin's diary. Four characters: Miller, Anais, June (Miller's wife), and Hugo (Anais' husband) complete the love square within which fairly complex relationships play out.

The film is primarily concerned with Anais' sexual awakening through her relationship with Miller and his wife. And I have to say, de Medeiros exceeds all expectations in this role. Not only does she look remarkably like the young Anais, but she also seems to radiate the writer's deep erotic mystique. If nothing else, watch this film just for this performance-- besides, she's absolutely gorgeous. Thurman's performance is also quite good, her NYC accent believable and her dirty-girl role works well in contrast to Anais' bourgeois exterior. Ward as Miller took some getting used to, but Grant's character seemed wooden and artificial.

Literary and historical references are sparsely sprinkled throughout the film, and although Miller has a few monologues in which he attempts to express the point of his writing, Miller fans will find nothing more than a superficial synopsis. But again, this can't be counted against the film since its focus is Anais. As far as the eroticism of the new "Journals" goes, the film succeeds fairly well- but the images convey more than the dialog.

This brings me to my final point: the NC-17 rating. Historically, this film was the first with that rating-- the MPAA created the rating specifically for this film since they deemed it to risqué for an R. By today's standards, this film is an R. If you're looking for softcore, watch "Emmanuelle" or something.

7/10

So some people described this film as: "great cinema", "absorbing movie", "perfectly acted", "amazing story", "stunningly filmed", and so on. I must have been watching a different movie!!!

Maybe we like movies if we see ourselves reflected in them? I couldn't relate to these characters. Were they really like this? I've been curious about Anais Nin for years and if this her actual portrayal, well I'm very disappointed. Henry, June and Anais are all selfish people who actually need to feel pain to feel alive! What a weird lot! And Hugo, what a fool to love someone like Anais.

None of them seem to know the meaning of true love. Anais particularly. June got it right when she criticised her for using people as food for her writing.

There's nothing in this film that makes it endearing or memorable to me. I lost interest early on but watched to the end in the hope that the film would redeem itself. But if you want an experience of erotica, then maybe this is a good example. And June Miller became a social worker (end credits)... give me a break!

Director Phillip Kaufman stirred up quite a bit of controversy when this film was first being released, most likely because of the intensity of the love scenes, but after watching the DVD I am now thinking that this film could have maybe slipped by with an R rating. The film faired poorly at the box-office, but seemed to have received generally positive reviews. The best element of this film is the atmosphere, which truly resembles the time period in which the film takes place. The story of the romance between the two writers is interesting on its own, but the great acting gives it a boost. Overall, a highly worthwhile film that will come as a pleasant surprise. The 6.3 rating is too low. I would say it deserves at the very least a 7. Ill give it an 8.