One from the Heart

Maybe this isn't a masterpiece, but this Las Vegas musical shot entirely on a soundstage was wildly underrated. The film is as daring as any of Coppola's other works. With enjoyable performances and the great Tom Waits/Crystal Gayle songs, slick camera work and colorful neon, there was no reason for this film to get kicked as hard as it did. Who know, maybe it is a masterpiece.

I have never been in the United States, least of all in New York. But through some directors' works I have built up an image of the city that never sleeps that's made of jazz, petty crooks and gangsters, Godard-lovers, intellectual wanna-be socialite... For all I know, New York is what can be seen through the eyes of Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese... and Francis Ford Coppola.

I would pretty much compare ONE FROM THE HEART to Allen's MANHATTAN, in the sense that both are new-yorkers visions of romance and beauty, filtered through a broadway theatrical and glamorous sensibility. This film, however, unlike MANHATTAN, isn't about New York. It's about spining through the spotlights of a city that parties all night long (cabarets, jazz, dance and magical flirts), only to realize that in the end, it's going to be your simple significant other waiting for you in the backstage.

The staging of the whole movie helps a lot, in the sense that's it's all filmed in studio. Magical skies and dawns that make it easy to pass from a store-window directly to a sunset in Bora-Bora; lust and life and music in what I would consider the last great musical. Every once in a while, Coppola gives us a glimpse of his more passionate side. This would then be the sunny side of the melancholic DRACULA.

Add to the magical staging the nightly cabaret-like musical score by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle and one can't help but be amazed with it all. And I thought I was surprised by Woody Allen's EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.

If this is the way new-yorkers see life, that's the city I want to live in.

I'm somewhat surprised at the number of negative reviews for "One From the Heart," and in particular those from people who had seen the film when it was initially released and have, for some reason, gone back to see the film again on DVD. If said persons were so dissatisfied with the film the first time around, then why would they bother with a second screening? Myself, I first saw Coppola's film when I rented it from Blockbuster some ten years ago, and was thoroughly impressed with a warm tale told in a surreal world. After a ten year search for it on VHS I now finally own a copy of it on DVD.

One of the recurring criticisms with people who've critiqued the film is the choice of actors for the two leads. I imagine said folks would've preferred actors with a higher degree of visual appeal or comeliness, but what those people are missing is the fact that it's the idea of ordinary looking people dealing with very profound issues. It's the fact that everyday looking folks can suffer from problems and take the steps through an emotional story that appeals to the audience. The very same audience who say they would've preferred different actors. It just wouldn't work, and it wouldn't be the film that same audience enjoys. And for the record both Garr and Forest are appealing on their own terms. They're not super models, but have a knack for presenting their characters. This is what good actors do.

The plot is thin, as someone observed. But then again the film's story isn't plot driven. It's a love story about two people who've found one another, but are letting their desires get in the way of their feelings, and the paths they take to satiate those desires. The film begs the question of what rules the characters' hearts. It's a question most married couples (or couples who've lived together for a long time) face at some point. The question may come to a couple in passing as they speculate what life would've been like without their partner, or it may be the cause of a rift, possibly divorce. "One from the Heart" takes that premise and presents it in a stylized format. A format that allows the audience to get lost in a world in which it's far easier and more pleasant to explore that question, than say in a "real world" analog, where the film would've lost its stylized impact. Had "One from the Heart" been shot on location, or otherwise rendered more conventionally, then it would've lost its unique visual charm. The various shots, colors, and other aspects of the film would've been lost, and "One from the Heart" would've been tossed into a sea of other relationship films.

There's criticism of the plot, criticism of the style, the actors, and a number of things that people who saw it in its first release (as well as now) find dissatisfactory. My thoughts; typically when a thing, a really good thing, is the subject of nitpicking it typically means that thing, whatever it is, is really good, but, for whatever reason, people feel the need to take it apart because they don't want to acknowledge its total quality (and perhaps out of jealousy). That's unfortunate, because "One From the Heart" isn't meant to be a traditional film, and it would appear the critics are trying to squeeze out conventionality from a truly original piece of art.

"One from the Heart" tells a story of normal couple facing that point of decision in their lives; will they or won't they stay together? Teri Garr's character wonders if there isn't a life of romantic adventure waiting for her beyond Las Vegas. Frederic Forrest's character wonders if there isn't some young beautiful woman out there who'll fall for him. These are typically the two notions that enter couple's thoughts: Couples that hit a rough spot in their relationship. It's a unique film about ordinary people facing ordinary, yet personally profound, questions.

And that's what "One from the Heart" is all about.

There are times a movie's style can overcome it's lack of substance. But not this time. When this movie was released back in the early 80s, it was the eagerly anticipated 'gamechanger' from the maestro himself. Coppola's novel approach to directing and editing using cutting edge technology (at the time) would revolutionize the art of film making. Instead, it was a commercial flop. Audiences found a shallow beauty. A gorgeous girl with clever quips and opening lines, but no real depth or heart.

The biggest problem for me was that the story feels so disjointed. It's a series of beautiful looking vignettes held together by a paper thin plot and flat two dimensional characters. A lot of the scenes feel stilted and over-rehearsed. There's no spontaneity or life.

It's not a complete waste of time, however. It is a beautiful looking movie. Terri Garr and Natasia Kinski look exquisite. There are a lot of interesting and eye catching touches. The set designs are works of art. You might like this if you are in the right mood, and want to see something different. But if you are looking for a coherent narrative, and engaging character development, you might want to pass.

Yes, this movie did absolutely horrible in theaters when it was released in 1982. I saw it about 1984 on disk (CED) and was surprised. Along with the weird lighting (it was filmed on a HUGE sound stage) and strange character reactions....something in this move touched me deeply. Along with all of it I found a kernal....a morsel......some real gem that made this otherwise trite movie quite rich. Rich enough I saw the movie again....and am considering purchase of a copy.

Apparently I am one of the 5% who actually LIKED the movie....who didn't demand their ticket money back.

We DO exist, you know....