The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things

We watch a lot of films, mostly not blockbusters. They tend to go onto our Netflix queue and often stay there until we have forgotten which of us added them or why. About 24 minutes into the 2004 film The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things, we each asked the other where this had come from.

Our phone rang at about this time, and we had a nice chat with Pam's mother. We mentioned we were watching a strange film (which is not really unusual for us) and that we were not sure we were going to finish it.

But after the call, we decided to give it a bit more of a chance -- a dark and tedious film does sometimes take a turn, after all -- and we resumed watching this tale of a young boy whose birth mother wins custody from the foster-care system, only to bring him into a life of neglect and abuse.

Almost immediately upon resuming our viewing, Our Noni was on the screen, though it took both of us a little while to recognize her. She was speaking with an unconvincing Southern accent, playing some sort of social worker "interviewing" the abused child who is at the center of this story. So there was our answer -- as Noni completists, we needed to watch the rest of this film.

Winona's character never returned, and although the interview could have been an important part of the story, no further reference was made to it. It seems that she was just one more in  a long line of characters who let down this child.

Probing the IMDb entry for what we might be missing about this film, we see this claim:

Behind the greatest hoax of our time is the heartbreaking story that started it all.

The poster captured above cites a "true story," but it is only true that this film illustrates the hoax; the story of the hoax is told in the 2016 film Author: The JT Leroy Story. The release of a film about the hoax perpetrated by the author behind The Heart is Deceitful may explain why the 2004 film finally reached video -- it had been on our Netflix "saved" list for years. Dennis Harvey's review in Variety calls the new film a "first-rate documentary about a remarkable literary hoax," but I doubt we will be watching it any time soon.

From the IMDb listing for The Heart is Deceitful, we also learned that Asia Argento has quite a loyal following. She wrote, directed, and starred in this film, and her defenders insist that it is an important and realistic portrayal of the uncomfortable subject of child abuse. The depravity is vivid and convincing, but the story is not well told. We gain little insight into mother or son or even into what connects them, beyond a few poignant indicators of their dependency on each other. There is no interior life, and there is no self-awareness.

Earlier in the evening, we had read an article in Fortune about a recent study of diversity -- or lack thereof -- in Hollywood. Among other things, it found -- not surprisingly -- that lack of diversity behind the camera contributes to lack of diversity in front of the screen. In particular, the inclusion of female writers and directors leads to better inclusion of women in films, as indicated by the Bechdel test. The Heart is Deceitful is a counter-example. Writer/director/star Asia Argento does not offer any dialog between female characters that might give the story more nuance.

Final Verdict: One croquet ball. This film employs Ryder only briefly, and does not employ her well.

Autumn in New York

Autumn in New York is not a great movie. I was nominated to write this review because I think it rises to the level of mediocre movie, and Pam does not agree. I'll start with some of the things that are wrong with it.

It does not need Winona Ryder in the way that it needs Richard Gere. In this May-September romance, any number of women could have played the "May" role, though Our Noni did salvage some badly written scenes through sheer effort. (Some lines were beyond hope.)

But the September role requires an actor that almost every character can refer to as exceptionally good-looking for his age. And yes, those constant references and the ease with which Gere's character accepts them are part of what makes this not a great movie.

The other problem is predictability. (Insert half-hearted spoiler alert here, because everything you think it going to happen in this film is going to happen in this film.) IMDb called this a "romantic drama," which apparently means "romantic comedy with all of the usual plot points, except that someone dies."

The attraction between the main characters is, as Rod Stewart would say, purely physical. Because the pretext of their first date is a lie, it is no surprise that the inevitable break-up is also the result of a lie. The "boy gets girl back" moments -- I counted two - happen without even a moment's thought on the part of Noni's character or a hint of an apology. She is not even awake for the first reunion.

Moreover, this movie badly fails the Bechdel test, which required two named, female characters to discuss something other than a man. It would barely pass a modified Bechdel, in which two named, male characters discuss something other than Richard Gere's dimples.

So what, it is fair to ask, raises this film to the level of mediocre? First, it is simply not as bad as I remember it from our first viewing years ago, nor is it as painful to watch as some of the other films we have reviewed recently in the one- and two-croquet-ball category. Second, although many scenes were cringe-worthy, I managed to care just enough about the characters to get a little misty when the surgeon -- played very well by J.K. Simmons -- delivered the bad news we all knew was coming.

Finally, the whole film is easy on the eyes. Beautiful people, beautiful food (Gere plays a big-time chef with an implausibly lax work ethic), and most of all a beautiful autumn in New York. During a recent visit, our New Yorker friend Joe took us to this bridge, made famous by many movies, and clearly the strongest character in this one.

Final verdict: A scant three croquet balls -- good enough (barely) for non-fans