May December (Todd Haynes, 2023)

[brundlefly]

May December (Todd Haynes) – Haynes does what he does best: queasily complicating the sensational.

Trailer

[Matt]

We don’t have a thread for May December or a catch-all Todd Haynes thread?

Well, I can’t believe they shot this in 23 days with no rehearsal period. Makes me even more impressed by the performances and the convergence of Moore’s and Portman’s characters. You would think they really had a weeks-long Bergman-like seclusion on an island living with each other and developing their characters together. But they just…winged it?

Are the people calling this “camp” (either derogatorily or applaudingly) being misled by the thundering Michel Legrand theme? Or is it just the increasing misapplication and meaninglessness of the term? Of course Haynes throws up barriers and distancing techniques to discourage easy identification with his characters (that’s just what he does), but the film never seems to be winking, overly stylized (except for that theme, which provides an extra-textual commentary via its source from a movie about a boy’s innocence destroyed by adults using him as a tool to facilitate their manipulation of each other), or artificial. It’s certainly less camp than The Killer or Asteroid City. Haynes addresses this (more kindly than I might) in an interview with IndieWire:

Q: A designation that came up in reviews out of Cannes was that “May December” was “camp.” This is a label that’s become almost gay slang, eroded of its meaning. What did you make of that response?

A: It came up, sort of emerged at Cannes when the film first premiered. All of us were like, “What? Camp?” It was never something that entered my mind as a sort of methodology or a reference or a kind of attitude that I would be bringing to this, the telling of the story and interpretation of this script. I was surprised by it, and I felt like it was possibly reductive, but then I thought, you know what? The term is sort of symptomatic of trying to locate a word that means — [pauses] to me, camp is in the eye of the beholder. Camp is an interpretive mode where we revisit material from the past with a lot of history and a lot of distance from it, and we project onto it all kinds of meaning that wasn’t necessarily intended at the time. In that regard, I’m like, yeah, OK. I appreciate where the search for that term is.

What’s driving the search for that term? I don’t know if that’s necessarily where I would land, because that is what this movie is about, is interpretation and reading sort of against the grain of what you’re watching or at least being put into a place of uncertainty about what you think as you watch it. So, sure,, the music is of a completely different function […] the only parallel I can find is the film that originally some of that music comes from, which is “The Go-Between” from 1971, where the score is so aggressive and so in your face that you were immediately put into a state of going, “What is this movie going to be? What am I watching?” And I love that about that score. And I do think that contributes to, and of course, the zoom-in on the refrigerator and all that, but that’s, that’s been my reaction to camp. Although I love camp. I mean, I’m a student of camp.

[swo17]

It certainly deserves its own thread. I guess people are saying "camp" because it's funny? It has a very wise sense of humor though, in addition to being quite insightful in a dramatic regard. Notice I didn't say melodramatic. The film's inciting event was sensationalistic but that's 20 years in the past. What's left at this point all feels very real

[Matt]

After I posted that, I saw that Eric Eidelstein wrote on Twitter: “May December is not a camp film, it uses camp as a device,” and that is probably a good way to address the question.

There is another interview with Haynes by Amy Taubin in the new Sight & Sound that addresses the notion of camp being applied to the film:

AT: After the Cannes premiere, there was a lot of chatter about the movie being camp. I don't find it camp at all.

TH: Me neither. What I think everyone is hinging it on is the sting of music with the zoom into Julianne at the refrigerator [when she says she's worried about not having enough hot dogs], which I'm so sick of reading about as an example of the overall style of the movie. The music starts at the very beginning when there are butterflies laying eggs on milkweed plants, a potentially treacherous kind of metaphor, which needed to be undermined, so that we knew the audience knew we were ahead of this. And that they were being asked to be ahead of the movie, as they watched it. That's what that music does to you right away in The Go-Between. A warning bell is sounded, and you're on alert, you're reading everything in the frame. I would've been thrilled if people were like, "Oh, wow! The movie really kept me at an interesting distance and I love those extended fixed shots and that distance that you imposed. And the direct address, the actors looking into the lens as themselves." Instead, people don't even notice it. But they do notice how uncomfortable they're made to feel watching the movie, and how impossible it is to hold on to the kind of moral grounding that we like to bring to movies, and that these days in particular, we want movies to absolutely, totally affirm for us. I wanted to make this movie, because I liked feeling uncertain and displaced and unnerved. It's the way movies are supposed to make you feel.

For the record, though, my favorite scenes in the movie are those mirror scenes, especially the one where Gracie applies her makeup to Elizabeth’s face. Incredible.

[swo17]

I love the hot dog line being paired with that musical cue. It sets the tone for the film, but it's a difficult one to pin down. Like Haynes says, it puts the audience on alert, but then maybe there's not really any cause for alarm? Or is there? Perhaps this mirrors the sensationalist's eagerness to find a smoking gun or gotcha moment somewhere in this couple's relationship, only for these potential red flags to fizzle out

[Balthazar]

Funny, it was just last night that I went back to look at the Cannes reactions in the Festival Circuit thread this summer, and seeing my use of 'camp' to refer to parts of the film did give me pause - though I wasn't aware yesterday of the debate that's since sprung up.

My rationale was perhaps born out of ignorance, albeit not, I hope, ignorance of the word itself (though this too is up for debate if intentionality is key). I do think the opening is very much in this register if you're coming to it cold. And I was certainly doing that with this film, knowledge of Haynes' work notwithstanding. That was not only due to being unaware of the plot, but also because, embarrassingly, having never used the phrase and rarely encountering it, I'd always assumed 'May December' meant, well, a short relationship. I'd ascribe that to it being an American idiom and my being English but I daresay all other UK posters here would know it regardless. Anyway, it did cause me a few additional minutes of trying to place Charles Melton's role in the family!

So in that somewhat unique context, the initial use of the score, the hot dog line that Haynes mentions, and the TV-movie (or should that just be early 90s) aesthetic did give it a campness for me right at the start as I tried to get a sense of the thing. It very soon becomes apparent Haynes is, as you'd expect, doing much more with all of this. Perhaps that was hard to get past for some, and there are occasional repeated uses - as Eric Eidelstein alludes to.

Specifically I did find the film returned to this note in

SpoilerShow

part of the final scene. It's a rich moment for a number of reasons, and while the take on the original encounter is very much the film within the film's own, the ostentatiousness of the snake almost leaps over that dividing line. Even if Haynes' principal focus is on the repeated takes.

But I wouldn't want to labour this. It is really the seriousness with which Haynes treats his characters, including in that final scene, that's helped the film rise even higher in my estimation in the time between, er, May and December.

[Matt]

SpoilerShow

I’m not certain what the tone of the final scene is, if it is indeed inviting a camp reading or if it’s straightforward. It’s probably both, intentionally. It seems like Elizabeth is giving a performance that is not far removed from the actor in the TV movie, perhaps even “bad.” Maybe more accurate to the real person she’s portraying in one way, but then also an exaggeration of that character and her mannerisms and surely a sensationalized version of the actual event. But you see her striving towards something that is more “real.”

[swo17]

SpoilerShow

I’m not certain what the tone of the final scene is, if it is indeed inviting a camp reading or if it’s straightforward. It’s probably both, intentionally. It seems like Elizabeth is giving a performance that is not far removed from the actor in the TV movie, perhaps even “bad.” Maybe more accurate to the real person she’s portraying in one way, but then also an exaggeration of that character and her mannerisms and surely a sensationalized version of the actual event. But you see her striving towards something that is more “real.”

SpoilerShow

She gave that explanation earlier in the film about love scenes when there's chemistry with your partner. She also protested earlier about the casting options not being sexy enough, and the guy they ended up going with seems to meet her need. I think in that final moment she's lost herself in that gray area where she can't quite discern whether she's pretending to enjoy the role or pretending not to enjoy it

[Matt]

Yes, I think you’re right.

[Matt]

For the record, though, my favorite scenes in the movie are those mirror scenes, especially the one where Gracie applies her makeup to Elizabeth’s face. Incredible.

According to another Haynes interview I read, this scene was filmed on the first day of shooting. The FIRST day, with no prior rehearsal period.

[therewillbeblus]

Makes me even more impressed by the performances and the convergence of Moore’s and Portman’s characters. You would think they really had a weeks-long Bergman-like seclusion on an island living with each other and developing their characters together.

I also loved the background detail of the blue pool being serviced by way too many pool-people, that looked very similar to the one featured prominently in 3 Women, no doubt another influence

swo's interpretation of the end is strong, as is the conversation so far. I have many thoughts, but I don't really know where I'd begin, because the film can wonderfully be read so many different ways.. up, down, sideways. It seems to be all about cause-and-effect, yet where asking 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?' is both important and not important at all when faced with gray, murky consequence. This is arguably career-best work for Haynes and Portman, and yet Charles Melton is the MVP, subtly gracing us with the best male performance of the year, ironically (or.. perhaps this only adds greater sincere self-reflexivity) as the only main character not 'performing' through life. Is performing what saves us, and would he be better off falling suit? I think the, "This is what adults do" line seals that - the most moral person does not belong in our world. Speaking of: In a just world, he'd already have a supporting statue locked down, but we don't live in one

As far as its use of 'camp' goes, well, the film strips its camp by framing a would-be melodrama as a procedural, and then cheekily dances closer to it by making that procedural all in the service of method acting - dishing on and shedding that camp as we engage with how appetizing and harrowing that is, particularly the latter in how Haynes slyly implicates the viewer in the indulgences. Portman's performance may be the most fearless because she's the one flying closer to the sun of her real-life truth, another irony given her safe position in a power differential against the stigma for the other principals within the world of the film

[zedz]

This is arguably career-best work for Haynes and Portman, and yet Charles Melton is the MVP, subtly gracing us with the best male performance of the year, ironically (or.. perhaps this only adds greater sincere self-reflexivity) as the only main character not 'performing' through life.

I don't know if I agree with that. I read the tragedy of the character as

SpoilerShow

his need to not be, or not be seen as, a victim of what happened to him. He has thus fully committed himself to the idea that he is fine, his life is fine, and his past decisions were fine, by making the weird situation in which he found himself work. So he has to have a good marriage, he has to be a good father, he has to have a wonderful family, as if the damage never occurred. But it did.

[therewillbeblus]

I read the tragedy the same way - to rephrase, he's absolutely 'performing' to an extent for psychological self-preservation, but he's at least semi-conscious of the damage and the loneliness of his positioning, and he wears this authentically on his disposition wherever he is throughout the film. The two female leads, by contrast, are putting on less self-conscious performances - suppressing and diverting attention away from true empathy for Melton that might disrupt their agendas and preferred narratives. So I didn't mean that he doesn't perform (we all do, to an extent), but that he can't help but acknowledge the pain of his circumstances - even when he's silent and playing along, we can tell something authentic is brewing. But then again, Moore's proclamation of her "sincerity" provides an interesting reading, where she's still sincere in committing to her truth. I dunno, it's a murky film that doesn't want to provide simple differentiations, but I thought it was interesting to watch his disposition in contrast to the others; his 'innocence' in wanting true intimacy, connection, a moment's reprieve of codependency and confusion, all slapped in the face by Portman's "this is what adults do" line and Moore's controlling and manipulative aggressive defenses that leave him powerless and alone.

SpoilerShow

Melton is also objectively emotionally stunted due to childhood sexual abuse, coupled with the thrust of being coerced/ushered into stages of life while he was still developing. He wears that lag, a pervasive and irreversible alienation from adult social skills, which is not a performance - he's incapable of rising beyond that to perform in the ways that Moore can, partially due to his cognitive limitations. That's what I mean.

[barryconvex]

I"This is what adults do"...

I think it's actually "This is what grown ups do", the line itself is devastating enough but Portman throwing in the extra insult of talking down to the most morally present and certainly most mature character in the film as if he were still a child was downright sinister. This comes immediately after she's essentially used him as an unwitting scene partner for a recreation of his own statutory rape so she could...What? Delve further into his character? Further understand Grace's headspace? And then the first thing she does after he leaves is tear into this incredibly intimate love letter? The moment is almost comically icy and I give Portman a lot of credit for going there.

I think this is Haynes' best film (along with Safe) with three brilliant performances from Moore (always great), Portman (I don't always love her choices) and Melton who I'm totally unfamiliar with. One of my favorite (and funniest) moments is on the football field after the graduation with Portman, who really has no business being there and who is also by this point all but running lines as the character of Grace, working on her "aghast" reaction timing after Moore's "I'm secure" comment. And the last sequence, on set during the movie's filming with Portman/Elizabeth/Grace asking for one more take even though the director had what he wanted harkening back to her response to Cameron's question during the theater class Q & A. There's so much more to unpack here, I'm really just skimming the surface. Great movie..

[Finch]

The film is getting a UK Blu-Ray release from Dazzler Media next February so there'll be a physical release somewhere at least. Though I gather Netflix only got the streaming rights for US and Canada so maybe a boutique label will put it out on disc in North America.

[therewillbeblus]

I think it's actually "This is what grown ups do", the line itself is devastating enough but Portman throwing in the extra insult of talking down to the most morally present and certainly most mature character in the film as if he were still a child was downright sinister.

This is exactly the kind of ambiguity Haynes is to attuned to and can execute with such conviction - Melton is at once the "most morally present and most mature character" and also... the most morally-confused and least mature character. He's been deprived of skills to stand on his own two feet to locate confidence and security in his identity as defined by his own intuition - a lot of what he spouts is sparked by others (a narrative he's been coerced into adopting by Moore, or doubts propagated by the zeitgeist). He absolutely taps into his intuition throughout, and that's what I meant by least-"performative," since he's grappling with something real, closer to the surface than Moore or Portman.

You single out Safe as a great example, because that film can also be read as Moore being resilient, taking action towards her own self-actualization and finding community... and also deluded, unskilled to see the potential folly around her. Melton does ultimately follow intuition and simplify his priorities towards his love for his children and yet it's impossible to ignore how the consciousness he's trying to share is suppressed during the fight with Moore. "Maturity" and "Morally-present" can mean a variety of things and he oscillates on the spectrums depending on how you look at the ideas. But both of these indicate a sense of 'self-identified security' to me, and he is at once securely and insecurely engaging with markers of maturity and morality, the former because he feels it and will not disallow himself to feel it (though it can be argued that it's a 'skill' to suppress and adopt certain defenses - as stressed by Portman's acidic line there, or Moore's self-definition of being "secure" in the end) but also has no resources to support him in exercising these to a new level.

The lack of parental aid might be the most tragic element of his life - since they were the resources most responsible for providing him with what he was robbed of. By not acknowledging the incident or giving support, that absence signifies that what happened is okay and that he should readily have the skills to deal with it himself: That he is "mature" when he knows deep-down that this is what he lacks, along with a developed confident morality that's been skewed and clouded by others during his most formative and malleable psychological development.

[Persona]

Not the biggest Haynes fan but, boy oh boy, did I love this.

The tonal and narrative balance here is something else. Mesmerizing. The performances are perfect for what they are supposed to be, and used perfectly by Haynes. He's on another level with this one.

The left-field coda, like Killers of the Flower Moon's, is a brilliant capper that blows up the work's thematic aspect into something knotty and immense.

[WongKarWhy]

I loved this, especially the way the presentation and form of the movie jars against the serious nature of the content. Has a very contemporary potency too, and I appreciated the decision to set this in the pre-Trump era so we can concentrate on the core story without that broader context.

Haynes seems to be exploring how the presentation of serious matters in unserious forms leads to desensitization and a lack of human understanding. The hilarious "hot dogs" line of triviality presented as if it of the utmost importance is our first clue to this tension and the performers sustain this heat throughout. Portman presents herself as a honest hard worker, but slowly her cruelness and self-centeredness comes to the fore. And at the ending when her "hard work" and her belief that she has "cracked the case" are undermined she's lost and seems no longer capable. A wry satire of method acting- very impressed this is Samy Burch's first script.

[RPG]

Has a very contemporary potency too, and I appreciated the decision to set this in the pre-Trump era so we can concentrate on the core story without that broader context.

I think setting this in 2015 is alluded to during a dinner scene, when Portman asks about Moore's relationship with her son now, and Moore snaps back about why that's necessary when the film Portman is researching will be set so much earlier. Portman replies something to the extent that knowing about what happened earlier lays the seeds for outcomes later.

The real life relationship ended in divorce in 2019, not long after the setting of 2015. We see seeds planted in Melton's head about the problematic beginning of his relationship and the way Moore continues to gaslight and control him in the present day, all brought up by Portman's visit and with it bringing up long held-back memories/feelings/emotions. Plus the fact that his children are about to graduate and leave the nest, which has been a grounding force for him to retain this family unit all these years. We see him starting to break away, and knowing what happens in real life (divorce a few years later) helps frame how we see their relationship during the setting of the film.

Of course, this is blurring fiction and reality, but I think Haynes is exploring factors that could have resulted in Melton's character (or the real life Vili Fualaau) recognizing his status as a victim and his relationship as traumatizing.