Safe (1995) User Reviews

How not to survive in a crass, contagious, consumer prison...

[RJBurke1942 · 7/10 · 17 December 2006]

Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actresses and that's the reason I decided to watch this one.

This film is labeled as Drama/Thriller. Well, the drama's here, no doubt, as Carol White (Moore) slowly begins to succumb to the multiple effects of all types of pollution that pervade our technocratic consumer societies. There's psychological drama also as her husband, Greg (Xander Berkeley) tries to come to some understanding about Carol and how his marriage seems to be slowly disintegrating. And, there's drama also when Carol reacts violently to various chemicals, such that she is hospitalized and undergoes a battery of tests...

But... Thriller? Not at all, not by a long shot.

This is something better than mere thrills – at one level, it's a modern horror story that we are all living, because we are all part of this petrochemical world that we cannot reasonably escape. At another level, it's also the horror that results when a person decides to dislocate from the polluted world we all live in and construct another world within the mind. The end result of such an act is usually madness... eventually.

Beautifully acted by all the players, so that it seems that they aren't acting; it is, after all, all too real, is it not? The musical background is simply stunning – brooding, dark, menacing, and reminiscent of a David Lynch soundtrack. Visually, for the first half, you are battered with repetitive images of unending lines of traffic, excessive noise, mindless activities, rampant consumerism – all designed to reflect the battered mind and body of Carol as she struggles to determine her future in a world that is increasingly threatening.

How she does that forms the second half. Does she succeed? I could say Yes and No, but I'll leave it up to you to decide when you see it. Enjoy...if you can!

Perhaps too ambiguous, but certainly interesting

[zetes · 8/10 · 16 October 2006]

Safe is perhaps a tad too ambiguous for its own good. The film focuses on a suburban housewife (Julianne Moore) who feels sick for no reason. Her doctor suggests psychological treatment, but she finds more comfort in the idea that her sickness is caused by environmental factors, such as car fumes and the like. Haynes never answers the question of what is really affecting Moore. One moment you're sure it's psychological, then physical symptoms displayed by the woman are undeniable. It's not that I really wanted the questions answered, but the constant toying with the audience does become a strain, especially as the film runs for two hours and not much happens. There's also the possibility that the story isn't meant to represent reality, but instead it might be allegorical. This makes it all the more difficult to unravel. I know I sound sort of negative in this review, but I did like it. I don't think it works completely, but I found it fascinating. One reason it does work at all is that Haynes' major goal seems to want to put us inside Moore's head. It shows us what it would be like to suffer and not know why, and how comfortable it might be to, say, join a cult, which is basically what she does in the end. Not entirely satisfying, but definitely well worth a look.

What would you do if you were allergic to life?

[Zombified_660 · 7/10 · 5 April 2006]

This is the question Safe ponders over its two hours. Julianne Moore plays a disillusioned young housewife who starts to slowly develop allergy after allergy, until she is effectively unable to co-exist with the busy city environment around her. As a result she embarks on a journey both physical and spiritual to come to terms with her crippling allergies.

Right. Plot synopsis out of the way, how does Safe work? Pretty well actually. I don't necessarily agree with the popular summary that Safe is a 'horror movie for the soul' as there's much more to it than that, the summary suggests it's like Ring with allergies, which is selling it short at best. Safe is basically a human drama about someone who has to deal with strange and extreme circumstances, and decides to take equally strange and extreme measures. Via this, director Todd Haynes is able to both examine and partially satirise middle-America's values and accepted environment, and the self-help/new medicine craze of recent years.

He does this with care and emotion, taking a good hard look at Moore's character and the things she surrounds herself with. Moore's character is both obviously unhappy but also too timid to say anything herself, so the allergies seem almost like an internal rebellion from her body, and her journey away from the city an escape for both body and soul. It's a fairly deep movie, and it's nice to see something that grapples with society at large and actually tries to say something as opposed to a movie that seems firmly entertainment.

That said, you need some entertainment. If Safe has a weakness, it is its focus. There is almost no external detail to Moore's life, with even her family painted in giant broad brushstrokes. As a result the movie is a singularly lonely experience although I feel in part this is intentional. It is also a somewhat long film. 2 hours isn't a lot in this age of three-hour blockbusters, but most three hour blockbusters have casts you can't count on your fingers and toes, whereas I'd say a good 75% of screen time is concentrated on Moore and Moore alone. It's an intense, quiet 2 hours and you really feel tired and lonely afterwards.

Thankfully, Moore is both sympathetic and likable, and you want her to do what she feels is right as much as possible. Also, the film's focus on her character enables Haynes to do certain parts of the film in an almost first person fashion. Certain sequences so accurately portray the experience of being really ill that you almost feel ill yourself, and the movie is an artistic triumph, with every shot looking absolutely spot on.

So, I recommend Safe. It's a well-shot, terrifically acted movie, with a genuinely original feel and premise, but be warned that it is a long movie, and one with very few light-hearted moments or external characters.

The most subtle and unsettling of films

[taffy71 · 5 February 2000]

This truly is one of the rarest commodities in the cinema pantheon; a film that conveys multiple plot angles, each as disturbing as the next, yet in a most quiet and understated fashion. Watching the WASPish, vacant, and utterly clueless Carole (played by chameleon beyond compare Julianne Moore) slowly morph from armpiece San Fernando wife to a fragile shell of a person, may not be an experience you will enjoy at first, as a close friend of mine said after viewing "There's no damn way I'd pay eight bucks for that!". Just give it a day or two, for never has there been a film (at least not until The Blair Witch came along) that has a way of seeping into your subconscious as this. That same friend, who so soundly poo-pooed it, later confided to me that the final scenes, which show what Carole had become, were haunting him at work and rest. It is an interesting study in the effectiveness of true psychologically jarring film making, where much is left to the audiences imagination - including the root of this strange affliction, the viability of these help groups, and indeed Carole's perception of all that is happening to and around her.

The soundtrack is perfect - simple eery piano over looming synth. The use of the camera is as economical as it is effective - the less shown the more we think, with broad extreme long shots used primarily in the beginning, showing that Carole doesn't seem to belong in her own home. Yet this film's greatest triumph is, for all that she has been through, and the weak diseased person she became, Carole appears to find happiness and respect for herself. Without a second thought that is the most disturbing possibility I could, or would want to, imagine. Safe may very well be a film that does not lend itself to repeated viewing. But that's fine, because it only takes one dose of this quietly sad and ghostly film to haunt you ever

Fascinating, important film.

[Lleu · 9/10 · 21 June 1999]

I call this an important film because it deals with a very topical social issue in an original and subtle manner. It is also ambiguous (as the previous reviewer pointed out), which is something American audiences and critics often can't handle. Carol, an affluent suburban housewife played by Julianne Moore, is becoming increasingly disturbed and unable to cope with the alleged pollution and impurities in the environment. What could have been a "disease of the week" TV movie, however, is handled with surprising depth by director Todd Haynes. Carol ends up in a new agey community dedicated to healing people like herself. What is fascinating is that Safe, while exploring the pressures and toxicity of modern life, is also a brilliant look at the pathology of fleeing from life and seeking an environment of "purity." For Carol ends up, instead of recovering, more and more alienated and withdrawn. Safe does not provide answers to this dilemma, but it sure makes us look at some difficult questions.

Powerful but understated film with multiple meanings and a bravura performance from Julianne Moore

[colettesplace · 7/10 · 17 December 2004]

Although it's been almost ten years since filmmaker Todd Haynes (Velvet Goldmine, Far From Heaven) made Safe, the film's only secured cinematic release in Australia in 2004. As Safe quietly satirises the 80s, the delayed release improves it, adding another layer of perspective to a heroine who lives life in a series of bubbles.

It's 1987, and timid California housewife Carol (a young Julianne Moore) is immersed in upper-middle class minutiae – ensuring her couch is the right colour, sleepwalking through a tepid aerobics class, and submitting to her husband (Greg White from 24). But gradually cracks appear in this pristine life, tiredness, unexplained illness…until she is diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity. She then moves to Wrenwood, a healing retreat founded by the charismatic Peter (Peter Friedman) – but will this solve her problem? Or is it just another escape? Safe is a very interesting film about a woman so overwhelmed by her environment that she becomes allergic to it. Writer and director Haynes has combined aspects of the disease film (e.g. Love Story) with the psychological thriller – as Carol doesn't know what triggers her symptoms, the audience never knows when she'll have another attack.

While Haymes criticises the New Age belief that illness is psychologically-based, in Carol's case, it's impossible to separate the psychological and physical aspects of her illness. The cinematography shows her dwarfed by her environment and Haymes offers no easy solutions. ***½/***** stars.

Gripping - with a masterful performance from Julianne Moore

[Jen_UK · 9/10 · 24 June 2003]

'Safe' is enigmatic, anxious, bewildering and captivating. It will divide viewers, but I argue that this is the hallmark of all true art. You will either love it or hate it, you will either get it or you won't. But it won't leave you indifferent.

Julianne Moore plays Carol White, the film's childlike protagonist with a phenomenal skill. In the hands of a more showy, ostentatious actress, Carol's 'illness' could have appeared trivial, her character, flighty, whiny and irritating. In the hands of Julianne Moore who is, in my opinion, the most intelligent, thoughtful and captivating actress working today, Carol's predicament is moving amd her character endearing. Her performance truly is astonishing. Never does she feel the need to overact, to emphasise Carol's confusion or her fear. She plays her with a childlike acceptance, a surface simplicity and a sing-songy girlish voice, and she is a master of restraint, implication, understatement. I have yet to see a more impressive performance from an actress whose skill lies in making it appear like she is doing very little, when really there is a huge amount going on underneath the surface. The film would be worth it for Julianne Moore alone, but it also has other things to reccommend it.

There's the excellent direction from the genius, Todd Haynes. His mainstream hit, the wonderful homage to Sirk 'Far From Heaven' catapulted Haynes into the mainstream, but I find this work even more affecting. Haynes is a genius at utilising the mise-en-scene for the maximum effect. He uses his camera as a painter would with colour - each shot is masterfully composed, with the director never allowing us to get too close to Julianne Moore's character, making her predicament all the more confusing and alienating. This is a film which demands thought and concentration, and what you take from it will depend upon individual disposition and experience.

The dialogue is generally sparse and quite functional, meaning that emphasis is placed onto the menacing soundtrack (giving the film a horror/thriller feel), the meticulously orchestrated mise-en-scene and, of course, the amazing nuances and depth of Julianne Moore's artistic gifts. In terms of what the film is trying to say, there is a real sense of satire in the second section of the film (When Carol goes to the commune to be 'cured') but there is no insistence upon one single message. This is reflected with a deeply ambiguous ending which leaves one feeling anxious and confused.

Overall, 'Safe' is a masterful piece of work. The team of Julianne Moore and Todd Haynes is (as we have seen with 'Far From Heaven') a match made ... in heaven. I would urge those who appreciate non maintream, thought provoking and unconventional films to give it try, just don't go in with 'Hollywood' expectations as you will be disappointed. Finally, I'd like to end by reiterating what is possibly the film's main strength - the presence of Julianne Moore. This truly is a captivating performance from her, and certainly one of the most astonishing I am likely ever to see. 'Safe' gives us the chance to watch this gifted actress in one of her most underrated, little seen, yet most remarkable roles.

Ironic view of environmental poisoning

[rosscinema · 7/10 · 22 September 2003]

This was only Todd Haynes second feature and its a very impressive looking film with a solid performance by Julianne Moore. Story is about Carol White (Moore) who is married to Greg (Xander Berkeley) and they live in the San Fernando Valley of California in a very neat and sterile looking home. Carol spends her days going to the gym, functions, dinner parties and shopping. Her life is very organized and clean. Carol does not come across as a deep thinker and at times has difficulty finishing sentences. One day she starts to feel ill and goes to the doctor to get checked. They run tests but they show nothing. As time goes by and Carol gets worse she finally figures out that her immune system is allergic to things in our environment. Car fumes, hairspray, perfume, pollution, ink from newspapers and many other things. She discovers a spa in New Mexico that caters to people that have this affliction and Carol moves there. The spa is run by Peter (Peter Friedman) who acts like a new age, self help guru and preaches that all the patients made themselves sick with their mind. Todd Haynes has always sought out the best cinematographers that he could find and found Alex Nepomniaschy (Narc) for this film. One of the most impressive things about this film is how beautifully shot this is. Their are so many shots that are just stunning to look at and the use of colors is important as to how we respond to certain scenes. Haynes did this also in "Far From Heaven" which is one of the most beautiful films ever shot. This was a very important role for Moore and her performance is so vital to the film. Moore lost about 10 pounds for the role and later in the film she does appear gaunt. This performance was so well received that it launched her career to even better roles.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

The script has many ironic points to it and the one glaring piece of irony is how we see Carol at the beginning and the end of the film. At the beginning we see her in her clean and sterile home in California. Then at the end we see her in her "Safehouse". A totally sterile environment and still not much of a life to live. An interesting point that the film makes is that the condition of these patients is caused by their mental status. Their bodies react in a truly sick manner and can even cause death but its all caused by themselves. In the cast of the film is Jessica Harper who is not in enough scenes and I was happy to see her pop up in a role. I've always been a fan of hers and I wish her role was larger. And Brandon Cruz (The Courtship of Eddie's Father) has a small role also. The pacing of the film is slow and deliberate and some may find this to be a fatal flaw. It is a slow running film, especially when the film shifts to the spa in New Mexico. If your a fan of Haynes (Like me) than you should definitely check out this early feature from him.

brilliant depiction of suburbia and the new age movement

[mandy-23 · 10/10 · 19 March 1999]

This is my very favorite movie, one of the scariest I've ever seen. The alienation and isolation of the suburbs come across beautifully in this film. Car culture and sprawl definitely contribute to the empty feeling one receives from following this story of a rich suburban housewife's allergic reaction to her vapid life. The mood and statement of the film are epitomized by the scene in which Carol is driving alone on the freeway, going into convulsions from "the fumes", all while the scratchy radio produces mundane religious babble. Ironically, she pulls off the road and is "saved" by the confines of a parking garage. How appropriate based upon the pigheaded tendency for urban planners to say, "Boy, this traffic is horrible, what do we do about it? I know! We'll build more parking garages!" The scratchy babble of religious radio in the scene indicates the hypocritical irrelevance of spirituality when it exists as part of a alienated consumer-driven, environmentally-destructive society. Religion, particularly the new-age movement seems to parallel the suburbs in its pretty blandness and emergence as a way for capitalists to try to redeem their souls/family life after destroying society (eg the inner city). New age and suburbia combine when Carol goes to Wrenwood (a place even more sterile and removed from reality than Carol's suburb), a healing retreat for people with environmental illness. Despite a lot of fluffy, positive talk on behalf of an AIDS victim guru, Carol's physical and spiritual condition only decline at Wrenwood--she becomes more and more like Lester, the faceless guy in the white suit (the perfect new age suburbanite) who is afraid of everything and is expected to die based on that fear.

Interesting Perspective

[bloodollie · 6/10 · 12 August 2006]

I was surprised to find that this movie was related to AIDS in most peoples' perspective. I saw this movie just this year (2006) and even though my stepfather died of AIDS I did not see a connection, although it is obvious now.

I saw this movie as being more related to pollution, electronic and technological dependence, and the degradation of mans relationship with earth.

I think it's an insightful and beautiful film, and the variation of our responses to the film show how deeply it appeals to us on an individual level.

Also, I thought Julianne Moore was marvelous in this film, she's an extremely beautiful and talented actress.

Just didn't work for me

[The_Triad · 5/10 · 26 May 2006]

Safe is a very well made film. It was so well made it had me eating out of it's hand and asking "what's going to happen now?" - nothing was the answer. Julianne Moore plays Carol White, a housewife who doesn't seem to be well at all. Is her illness genuine? Is it in her head? and all such questions are thrown at you and a good amount of suspense is built up and just as you're waiting for the big revelation, or at least a clue as to what's really happening the credits start rolling. Needless to say, this is just my opinion, there are some viewers who would enjoy this sort of end to the film and sit chewing over it for an hour or so after, myself, I wanted some answers. As said before the film is very well made and Haynes' directing and the score are used brilliantly, the film holds an internal intensity that was great to watch, but if you were to watch it, be aware of the ambiguity ahead, otherwise you'll just have the "what, that's it?" feeling that I had, which for me, swept the rug out of most of what I had just enjoyed.

Intriguing

[poppyredflux · 9/10 · 27 November 2002]

Not for all tastes, but a superb movie, without doubt. The direction is austere and the character is almost too shallow to care about, but the brilliance of the script and the film as a whole is that it doesn't instruct the viewer what to think, but presents plenty of material to think about. The ending is subtly devastating. Also, the movie contains two or three of the most striking, haunting images I've seen in the past half decade in film.

Someone else compared it to "Dead Ringers", and this is apt in many ways, though the subject matter is less perverse. "Safe" shares a similar aesthetic both in the distance the director takes from the narrative and some matters of style.

Recommended for the daring.

A Portrayal Environmental Illness

[iquine · 7/10 · 24 December 2020]

(Flash Review)

This is a methodically paced film. Elements in the frame communicate a lot about the state of mind on the protagonist female, Carol, played by Julianne Moore. Carol slowly begins to feel frighteningly ill due to the world around her and all the invisible chemicals immersed in our society. As well as the shallowness of her suburban world and needless stresses. After several doctor appointments and her symptoms getting worse she heads to a purity camp where people there live free from urban toxins. Will leaving her world, home, family and lifestyle cure her and if so, at what ultimate cost? Julianne Moore plays this character splendidly and 90s styles are in full form here! The first half was very intriguing while the second half fell flat and uninteresting for me. Perhaps playing off of the direction her life has taken. Certainly a thoughtful and unique story.

Dependency and pointlessness

[paul2001sw-1 · 5/10 · 24 March 2007]

The medical melodrama typically follows one of two well-worn patterns: the patient either battles against medical indifference to find the miracle cure, or dies, stoically and with tears all round. But Todd Haynes' film, 'Safe', certainly has the merit of a distinctive narrative arc. Julianne Moore's character develops a host of allergies to substances in her environment; her condition gets progressively worse; she eventually joins what appears to be a cross between a self-help group and a cult. Is the cult real, or a fraud? Does Moore really believe it is helping her? And does she get better? The film, oddly, chooses not to answer these questions, and in it's final scenes we see Moore's character proclaiming the doctrine of self-love practiced in the commune but without any underlying confidence. Whereupon the film just ends. Clearly, it's meant to be a character study, and Moore is often praised as a fine actress, but the problem here is that her character is uninteresting. A pampered, useless executive wife, she clearly has massive self-esteem problems at the start of the movie, which are not improved by her illness; but without the miracle cure, the overall plot can be summarised as "feeble minded woman gets ill". There's some interesting material in the way that Haynes suggests that society may encourage the development of feeble-mindedness in women, but the early scenes, with their almost stylised portrait of upper-middle class life, are also deadly dull. The later scenes, with the portrait of the cult, are more interesting, although don't look for dramatic resolution. For me, the problem was that at no time did Moore's character ever reveal herself as someone with whom it could be interesting to spend any time; "pull yourself together!" may not be a fair response, but it's hard to be fair to someone so bland. I'd be interested to know exactly what Haynes was trying to do in this movie; for the truth is, I watched it while feeling I was missing the point.

Where Blade Runner feared to tread

[DannyBoy-17 · 21 April 1999]

I watched Safe for our coverage of 1980s's health movements and the AIDS virus with a special eye for the conflict between New Age healers and "the medical profession." Safe connects so well with both; although there's no real homosexuality anxieties in the film, AIDS seem the unconquerable illness penetrating the lives of happy suburban people.

First of all, Julianne Moore is absent in the film. Her character, Carol White, is a model, rich California suburban housewife. We notice how absent she is from the moment that sex with her husband produces nothing in her, but she goes through the motions of kissing him and petting him afterwards. She has mechanical conversations with friends, with mother, with cleaning lady in her ultramodern, lush, carpeted, fashionably lit house with gardens surrounding it and police patrol by night. She goes to her workouts, cleaners, and arranges furniture.

This is a really tragic film. It's also brilliantly shot, edited, acted, and its sets are so appropriate. The use of teal and sky blue becomes numbing, anesthetizing in Carol's home, as does the harsh lighting of the doctor's office and the hospital. The Wrenwood Center itself resembles where Deckard would have gone at the end of Blade Runner as the orig. end credits seemed to indicate: mountains and nature as an antidote to the city.

However, it's not URBAN life that seems to be killing Carol- it's SUBURBAN life, it's Northern California, it's fruit diets, mini-malls, 80s music playing in health clubs, housewifes, gardens, pools, teal green couches, endless lines of cars, power lines, and street lights. It's dismal, and her family life is no big help having no real life to it.

At one point, in a really wrenching scene, Carol cries, looks at Greg from the bed and asks "Where am I? Right now?" He responds flatly but tenderly, "You're in Carol and Greg's house." She only cries more.

The question is: what is really wrong with Carol White? Did she succumb to depression and make herself a psychosomatic illness? Is she really sick and dying? Is she just afraid of living? It seems to me the more that Carol is told that she is the only one with the power to cure herself, the less power she seems to have. The final monologue where she stands in front of the group and discusses how far she's come is inarticulate, random, unthought, and not a good sign.

The acting is done well for its purposes, especially by Peter Dunn, the leader. He creates an interesting portrait of a man who is so determined to be a victim that he's created people who are dependent on him. Peter is the only dynamic presence in the film, but even he wants peace, love, and tranquility in our hearts. That doesn't seem to feed Carol.

This film reminded me of Koyaanisqatsi, visions of emptiness and life out of balance. Carol looks out her car window at the highways and powerlines and headlights, and she reminded me of someone watching that film, fearing technology. Yet even retreating from technology is not an ALTERNATIVE: it's a sign of defeat, isn't it?

The film doesn't offer solutions- only one of the most frightening, eerie, and numbing indictments of suburbia and the New Age that I have ever seen. It puts its images, sets, sounds, actors into a collective vision of decay, expressed through the decline of the model suburban housewife. See it, but don't look for answers or happy endings.

Antonioni would be proud...

[doctec · 9/10 · 10 September 2003]

Having seen the movie and read the viewer comments on IMDb, I think I understand why this film seems to elicit such a broad range of reactions: it is a movie that presents a story from multiple points of view without specifically directing the viewer as to which view takes precedence. Moreover, the multiple points of view are intertwined and, in some cases, at odds with one another. As such, this film demands a lot more from its audience than most are accustomed to. The beauty of the film lies in the deceptively simple, almost transparent manner in which a complex story with no easy answers is presented.

The main theme of the movie is reflected in the title: what is it that constitutes a feeling of "safety" in our lives? What do we require in order to feel safe? What are the conditions and situations that threaten our idea of feeling safe? Is it possible to construct a world of perfect safety around our lives and if it is, what are the consequences and side effects? The answers to all these questions are more often than not subject to the ideas and opinions of each individual rather than being universal in nature. In the case of Carol White, the focus of the movie, these are questions she is forced (or possibly forces herself?) to confront, with the odds of success being 50-50 at best.

"Safe" explores some of the themes Haynes tackled in "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story." (This movie is hard to find, though you might want to check out the illegal-art dot org web site.) There are a number of similarities between the two films: the view-from-a-car shots of bland suburban streets and the power lines to which they are tethered; the consumer-driven lifestyle of most Americans; the depiction of people as mannequins; the focus on one's external life to the detriment of one's inner life. But while "Superstar" takes a more militant stance, "Safe" is far less judgmental, which in turn makes it a far more subversive film.

Dual Diagnosis

[jeroduptown · 6/10 · 13 May 2021]

You'd think "safe" was headed towards a message of environmental responsibility, but then it takes a turn at the end that seems to blame cult-like groups for preying on weak people. Moore is good...and young.

Self-absorption turns to self-evaporation

[Andor · 10/10 · 27 February 1999]

For some inexplicable and troubling reason I with furrowed brow and mild anxiety loved this film.

I believed every moment. I approved of every shot and camera angle. It's rare for the writer/director combination in one so young as Tod Haynes not to lead to at least some degree of self indulgence. Not here.

I could write more but instead I'll rewind and watch again.

Sincere to the point of absurdity, Andor Ventorpent

Accurate References but Could Have Been Delivered Better

[aaronjasper · 7/10 · 28 September 2007]

I watched "Safe" purely because my Mother suffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which is the illness that Carol suffers in the movie. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a real and extremely debilitating illness that causes the sufferers to react to even the smallest exposures to perfumes, pesticides, car fumes and many other chemicals found in modern life. I watched the movie with an intimate knowledge of the condition and direct experience of the isolation, pain and suffering is causes.

Overall the movie did present many of the key components of the condition such as the confusion that Carol felt when she first started feeling unwell, the reactions that gradually got worse with repeated exposures, the misunderstanding and intolerance of family, friends and medical community; and the need to find a safe haven. However, I realized that whilst the symptoms and problems associated were quite clear to me, they would have probably been almost completely lost on some viewers (especially in the first thirty minutes of the film which was slow going).

That said, "Safe" is the only movie I know that does address MCS and was obviously well researched as the details in the movie were very close to the mark right down to the fact that people were using reading boxes at the retreat.

I found that the emotional side of the characters were brushed over and not really accurately portrayed. The emotions were represented in a cold way and while this might have been the intension of the director, I feel that the movie could have had much more impact than it otherwise did. The isolation, the physical pain and the confusion that MCS causes the sufferer and the family is much more dramatic than what is portrayed.

In summary, the movie is quite accurate in the detail and it was easy for me to identify with the many different circumstances presented. I found myself saying "yes" and nodding knowingly a lot during the film. It really did follow the journey of someone suffering from MCS and gave a sense of hopelessness that does unfortunately often result.

Vapid queen, suburban nightmare

[gmac6 · 8/10 · 10 September 1998]

in this gripping tale of suburban inertia we find Carol White, who is also a "milkaholic", at the center of an insidious attack by her self. You see, Carol is the 80's nightmare wife of a free spending, typically self -centered businessman. Her life revolves around a routine of pampering and shopping that somehow causes a great deal of stress to be foisted upon her uncapable self. She seemingly has never spent more than a few seconds examining her "reality", and that could be an over-exaggeration, until the emptiness of her life finally overcomes her. The manifestation of this inability to cope with her own blandness is a severe reaction to milk, how wry, and chemicals. We are taken on a journey through doctor and psychiatrist until she takes her salvation into her own hands and retreats to the new mexico desert. Here she encounters more empty souls suffering from her condition and replacing it with a tepid new-age outlook. Here she in confronted with somethings that seem to be completely new to her, specifically self-responsibility and emotion. Yet wouldn't you know that even these seemingly worthwhile notions are as empty as her soul. In this tragedy/satire/comedy, we are both repelled by carol's lack of substance yet drawn to her out of pity. Her salvation ends up being thwarted, only she is too blind to notice, by a charlatan priest of all that is new-age. The final scene in the movie is perhaps the most hauting in recent memory as we see a completely lost Carol chanting to herself, "I love you". The tragedy here is twofold in that she is incapable of loving and has no conception to whom she is speaking. The performances are so subtle and brilliant that I would recommend "Safe" without reservation.

Intriguing and beautiful, but ultimately as hollow as the life it depicts.

[andrew73249 · 6/10 · 21 September 2015]

Safe is about Carol, a woman struggling with her hollow existence as a wealthy suburban housewife. Although the movie, which was made in 1995, is set in 1987, there doesn't appear to be any significance to this. The central concern of the film is Carol's mysterious, possibly psychosomatic illness, which serves as a wonderfully ambiguous metaphor for her emotional and intellectual malaise; nobody, including Carol, can quite put her finger on what's wrong. She just knows that something isn't right.

While "best film of the decade" is a fairly ludicrous pronouncement (does anyone really think Safe is better than, for example, Schindler's List?), the film is indeed a hauntingly beautiful portrait of spiritual bankruptcy in contemporary America. Despite this, I found that Safe was, perhaps intentionally, itself hollow at the core. It simply didn't have anything interesting to say about such a big, important topic. One could argue that it is not the job of the film to supply answers or even an easily-digestible plot, but the almost complete lack of narrative drive, dramatic tension, and penetrating insight ultimately left me cold, and quite honestly, bored stiff. By contrast, American Beauty (1999), a roughly contemporaneous film with a roughly similar subject, also has nothing to say, but at least does so in an entertaining, over-the-top style.

The latter half of the film depicts Carol's experiences at a New Age retreat called Wrenwood, where she attempts to find the solutions to her problems. Unlike many viewers, I did not interpret Wrenwood as a cure that is worse than the disease. In fact, almost everything said by the guru Peter and his underlings is, as far as I can tell, consistent with widely-accepted, scientifically-validated ideas, such as Mindfulness. The exception is some of the more questionable statements about and practices surrounding "chemicals" and the immune system, but nothing remotely equivalent to "psychological fascism," which is how one high profile review of Safe termed it.

At any rate, the movie does seem to imply that life at Wrenwood for Carol is as empty as life in the suburbs, and her condition does not appear to improve. Particularly painful to watch, due in no small part to Julianne Moore's flawless performance, is a birthday scene at Wrenwood that serves as a climax of sorts. In that scene, Carol struggles to articulate the beliefs of the cabal, with the words as hollow as those in discussions with her vapid friends back in suburbia. The final shot in Safe, reminiscent of the final shot in The Graduate (1967), is a masterpiece of ambiguity, perhaps implying there is hope for Carol if she can find it within herself, but then again, maybe not.

I can't help but notice the similarities of Carol's journey to that of the protagonist in Hermann Hesse's classic novel Siddhartha. The protagonist in the book feels empty, tries various means to fill the void, including materialism and organized religion, and eventually finds peace through the hard-won development of a very personal perspective on himself, his life, and his place in the universe. By analogy, the plot in Safe would be like the novel's plot if it followed the protagonist through his life until it simply stopped in the middle of another failed attempt at finding meaning. It's certainly a journey, and perhaps a realistic one. However, it would be deeply unsatisfying, and would make me question the value in even reading the book in the first place. That's how Safe felt to me. Perhaps there is great value is simply calling attention to the issues, depicting the toll it takes on a woman, and doing so with compassion, honesty, and artistic skill. On that level, Safe certainly succeeds.

Incredibly slow and empty

[delisay_im · 1/10 · 27 August 2006]

I found this insufferable. Perhaps I am missing something and unable to appreciate it for some reason, but depressing movies about the weakness of human nature - fragile, miserable characters who are flailing and failing - never do it for me.

The worst aspect was the pace - slow as s-l-o-w can be, with great expanses of whiteness when I found myself urging something - anything - to happen. It has a disquietingly insipid tone. In the end I set my DVD player to 2x speed...but I STILL found myself perpetually 'waiting'.

I don't like misery movies any more than I like being scared by horror, jarred by violence or brought down by exaltations of mediocrity. If you, like me, prefer substance and inspiration in your movies, you are very unlikely to enjoy this one.

A gripping near-masterpiece by Todd Haynes about realization and awakening from society's "safe" lines

[superduperspit · 10/10 · 13 August 2008]

In 1995's Safe, Todd Haynes creates a world that is so completely mundane, vapid, that it both literally and figuratively suffocates its main character, Claire. This world? Suburbia.

On the surface, Safe is centered around Claire battling a mysterious "environmental sickness" and the emotional breakdown it wrecks on her soul. But past that, Claire's arc and sickness symbolizes realization and awakening. Claire's dialog is rare, but when she does speak, she often envisions people "waking up" to the toxicity of the world, much as her disease allowed her to wake out of her existence as a meaningless drone of a housewife. When she checks into a rehab for her illness in the last act of the film and hopes to find answers and companionship, she only encounters more exploitation and wrong, and her condition worsens. The more she feels "awake" in relation to the sheepish mentality and falseness in the world around her, the sicker she gets, and the more in condition she separates from the regular, blind humans. In one of the film's most defining sequences, Claire sees a man wandering across the grazed land outside her rehab cabin. He is the most separated from regular human societal conditions and borders, and thus looks like a walking mummy, beautifully inhuman, stoic, and removed from any other being. He is removed from the blind, "safe" world, Claire's original world.

Julianne Moore's performance still stands as among the best in her career, and Claire's gradual mental breakdown is among the most intricately and internally well-acted in cinema lore. Haynes is wise to keep everything about Claire subtle and closed in; a lesser filmmaker would've felt the need for "big" crying scenes, but Claire's inner turmoil is portrayed so effectively in Moore's quietness that it creates a completely human character in a world that is not. The film benefits from not feeling the need for over-exposition in either the plot or its messages, Haynes lets the audience put together and interpret the film themselves. In particular the film wisely leaves whether Claire's illness is real or simply mental as ambiguous, but it doesn't matter, the end result of Claire's world making her sick and being forced to awaken from it is the same.

The film is shot beautifully, Haynes as usual has perfect framing in his shots, capturing the slow drawling movement of Claire through her house, driving, or being choked in the rest of her world. Like many great filmmakers he reaches the most effect through images over dialog (which is intentionally useless in most of the film anyway), and again his decisions concerning Claire as a completely internal character and general withholding of exposition, are very wise.

Ironically enough considering the title, Safe is one of the more difficult and daring films I've seen recently, as Claire's bland world is as intoxicating for the viewer as it is for her. But at the very least, the film stands as an extremely ambitious and interesting film, if not near-masterpiece, that certifies Todd Haynes as one of the great present-day directors.

Chemical Malady

[timmy_501 · 7/10 · 11 January 2011]

Todd Haynes' Safe starts off as the chronicle of the life of a bourgeois housewife from the 1980s. She seems a bit repressed by her frequently overbearing husband and her interactions with others never progress beyond rote banalities. She has no personality to speak of, in fact she seems almost incapable of acting of her own accord. Eventually she develops an illness which is so foreign to her doctor that he suggests a psychiatrist. It seems that she has grown so dissatisfied with her empty life at a subconscious level that she begins to physically manifest this dissatisfaction.

The woman begins to search for a way to overcome her new condition, or at the very least to find some way to explain it. She eventually falls in with a group of people who claim to be sick due to an inability to cope with the chemicals that the modern lifestyle has released into the environment. Her condition worsens as she heads to an isolated commune where other rich people with equally enigmatic maladies gather to convalesce. This commune is led by an incredibly wealthy man who claims to be terminally ill and explains that the only way for his clients to improve their condition is to learn to love themselves.

The film doesn't take a stance as to whether the protagonist's condition is caused by her physical environment or her lack of mental stimulation. It is critical of the society that claims to have all the answers for her, however, as everybody she encounters seems to have a plan to heal her but they succeed only in worsening her condition and decreasing the size of her living space. Haynes milks the ambiguity of the situation for his unusual narrative as his languid pace calls to mind the work of Michelangelo Antonioni, that Italian poet of ennui. Although Haynes does an adequate job technically and even manages to create some memorable images, he never manages to capture the zeitgeist the way Antonioni's best work did, nor does he combine that well worn style with any unique personal touches the way other Antonioni-influenced auteurs such as Wong Kar-Wai or Tsai Ming-liang did at around the same time. Safe manages to make its points fairly well in spite of its lack of originality and the sense of narrative bloat toward the end, making it a decent but non-essential film.

A movie that makes people dumber

[kjmurphyjr · 1/10 · 14 October 2005]

I don't mean that the movie makes the people dumber because of misinformation or anything like that; it's because of the brain rot that occurs from sitting through the movie. The pointless meandering, the random subplots, and the pathetically thin two-dimensional characters will cause the death of at least a few braincells. It's almost as if a child was afraid of getting sick and started writing a story that they just got too bored with to bother putting in an ending or draw any correlation between all the events that took place in the movie. Julianne Moore, a great actress, gives a flat performance at best. "Oh, I'm a pathetic little sick housewife who goes to aerobics and hasn't had an original thought in my life." Not a lot of room for depth there! The cult leader is the most interesting character of the lot - but that just ends up as a big, "Huh?" like everything else in the movie. There was a fleeting moment where the whole cult theme, playing with people's minds to make money was about to get interesting. Apparently, everyone had to break for lunch before they could actually make it interesting. I suppose one could say that the movie makes you use your imagination - this makes sense, because no one involved with the movie used their imagination - someone should.