MovieChat Forums > Far from Heaven (2003) Discussion > Dennis Quaid is the villian of the movie...

Dennis Quaid is the villian of the movie...(Major Spoilers Ahead)

posted 21 years ago by ironbutterfly
44 replies | jump to latest

In "Far From Heaven" Dennis Quaid is the villain. Not because of his homosexuality, but because he destroyed three lives: his wife, his daughter, and his son because he is selfish. Was Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) just a cheap slut to Frank Whitaker (Dennis Quaid); someone that he can use so he could look at himself in the mirror and not see a gay man? All through the movie, the script was trying to make him look like the victim, however he was "Far from it". If he was a gay man in the 1950's, who lives alone, is about to come out of the closet and all he faced was rejection THEN he would be the victim and the hero because it was an incredibly difficult thing to do in that time to come out of the closet, but not here. Cathy should had been angry at the end of the movie. She should had been angry that he used her for all those years, she should had been angry that he destroyed three lives because he couldn't come to terms to who he was, and even if he couldn't, and I understand why he couldn't, he shouldn't have dragged her into it and ruin her life. That was beyond selfish. I think the movie is good. It has good direction, acting, and setting but I will not allow myself to sympathize for that inhuman monster that hurt his wife so bad by stringing her along all those years just to leave her at the end for his own happiness.

[–] yousonuva 21 years ago

eee wrong! The villain is the era/social conformity. True Dennis is an ugly character, but mainly due to the social prison he and the other characters are in (just finished seeing btw) I argue that he saw his wife as a slut, the movie portrayed the fact that he had just discovered that he himself was feeling homo tendancies, by the way he decided one day to enter a gay bar. The movie showed that he tried to change for the better of his family, but her acceptance and ignorance of his affliction didn't help his case any. She was angry at the end in their last conversation, but anger was new to her too, being a tagalong house wife. Sure, he was an unpleasant person here, but only due to the abnormal circumstances (he had problems as a child, which I assume was sexual abuse, though it doesn't identify what 'problem' is) That's all I gotta say 'bout that.

you better watch out, buddy, or I'm gonna say yeah to you

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IThwartThee 21 years ago

why does his backstory consist of sexual abuse?

[–] lomachrome 18 years ago

Ding ding ding ding ding!!! It's all about social control and the deamnd that the men of that era conform. Such in most movies where the gay man comes out and the family is ruined, the gay man is made to be demonized because of his coming out when in all actuality, it is the social climate that has caused the devesation. Such as in Brokeback Mountain, many concluded that they were selfish and that, because of the facade they created with their wives, they aimed ot use them simply as a cover or a "cure" for their homosexuality. The true villian, (thank you, yousonuva) is social climate.

[insert something witty and philosophical here]

[–] HinaElena 18 years ago

"He had problems as a child, which I assume was sexual abuse, though it doesn't identify what 'problem' is."

I thought it was clear that his "problems" were that he had homosexual feelings, not that he was abused. He uses this euphemism because he is so uncomfortable with the fact thaqt he's gay.

"Who's gonna move Wayne?" - Richard Simmons

[–] sanjuro-31 21 years ago

I think the movie was more complex than labeling Dennis Quaid either a victim or a villain. I myself- I was happy for him, because his soul was being destroyed, pretending to be heterosexual. I got the sense that he wasn't sure about his homosexuality when they had children, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe he married her as a "beard" so he could have a better career. In any case, I think Julianne Moore's character is better off without him. Instead of her life being destroyed, I think that she is finally starting to get a glimpse of life as it really is, rather than her June Cleaver image of life that she'd carried around her whole life.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xavrush89 21 years ago

The original post has a right idea, but I believe the explanation was way off. Here's why he's scum in my book:

HE HAS THE NERVE TO JUDGE HIS WIFE FOR ASSOCIATING WITH RAYMOND AFTER WHAT HE"S BEEN UP TO!

What an a**hole!

AND, the way he cries when he tells her he's met someone gives me the impression that he's crying for himself at having failed, NOT out of compassion for her. He does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to assure her that it is not about her, says nothing to comfort HER, he simply pleads his sorry case.

Again, what an...(you get my drift)!

I say 'somewhat' because I also believe that the ERA (meaning time period, not the Equal Rights Amendment) shares the blame for this. Frank Whitaker is a product of his generation who believes men should never show any emotion, and incapable of overcoming the prejudices with with he was raised. I should know, I was raised by a product of that generation myself.

Anyway, suffice to say I had very little sympathy for him, and even less for his blonde tart.

[–] Nagime 20 years ago

I agree with some of all you have said, but lets keep the "hero" and "villains" labels to the action movies...

[–] DannX68 20 years ago

Exactly, Nagime, this movie deals with real people and true emotions. My whole body hurt when I saw it!!
Great, great movie, one of the best...

Is that your two cents? Cause I'd be looking for change - Fishism

[–] eve_arden 20 years ago

I feel so sorry for both of them, because they are totally trapped in the fifties misconception that there is something wrong with gay or interracial relationships. They try to force themselves to lie to themselves but finally both give in to their true feelings, but he will still be incapable of explaining to the kids or anyone else that he's gay, and she doesn't get the man she loves because he needs to protect his kid first and foremost, even if he wants her. You end up hoping the film's kids can sense how miserable their parents all are and that they may grow up not making the same mistakes. As indeed a lot of them did.

As some previous posters pointed out, talking about heroes and villains is ridiculous in the context of this film, which is a drama for and about grown people. If you crave heroes and villains, they can be found in westerns, action films and so on, where the main purpose is entertainment(nothing wrong with that at all, in it's place).

[–] HinaElena 18 years ago

Hmm...
I agree that he was a jerk for treating her that way when he heard the rumours about his wife, but I think his anger was more that, by doing what he'd heard she was doing, his image as the perfect citizen would be undermined, in spite of all his efforts to keep his homosexuality under the radar.

Also, when he's crying, it's because he knows that he'll never be able to "beat this thing" and so his whole life will be turned upside-down. I believe he did have feelings for his wife, not sexually but emotionally, because of the support she gave him, so there would also be a case of sorrow at having to leave her, though this would play a minor part.

My sympathy for him is limited by his actions towards Cathy while their marriage falls apart - I could never forgive him for striking her while she tried to comfort him - but I feel sympathy none-the-less. He was obviously in anguish over living a lie, and couldn't go on. Yes, he used Cathy as a facade to cover up his true orientation, but were it not for the society that condemned his sexuality, he would not have entered into the marriage in the first place. His leaving was ultimately the best thing for both of them, though the film is rather ambiguous with regards to their respective futures. (Frank running off with a man that young probably wouldn't have lasted, and there's no way of knowing whether Cathy ever found happiness after Raymond left; indeed the fact that the entire town, even her best friend, turned its back on her seems to imply that she'll be left with the stigma of having spent time with a black man for the rest of her life in that town, and the only way to escape that would be to leave permanently.) Point is, I don't think that Frank is the villain of the film.

"Who's gonna move Wayne?" - Richard Simmons

[–] crazytwinks13 15 years ago

Yeah, when he demeans her for associating with Raymond, I wanted her to scream: "Bitch, what have You been up to!?!"

I'm all gay rights, but she should have whipped his ass with a frying pan.

No good deed goes unpunished

[–] ijonesiii 19 years ago

It was tragic watching Cathy's world come tumbling around her when she walked into that office and saw Frank with that man, but I think the whole thing coming out into the open was the best thing for both of them. No longer living lies, there is no way their lives cannot eventually improve.

[–] charlie_donald 20 years ago

I just remember watching the end of this movie, feeling completely devastated...and then I thought, "The Sixties are coming! The Sixties are coming!"

Thank God for the Sixties.

Honestly. I can't imagine life without the Sixties. No Beatles, no Warhol, no Easy Rider, no Hendrix, no MLK, no Rolling Stones, no Graduate, no Dylan, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Doors, no Motown...honestly, what was there to live for?

And a question for scorpio snoozing: What is the "less than 1% of movies" that you would consider "art"? I have a friend that says the same thing, but I don't agree with him exactly.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] do-bye 20 years ago

How can you be gay with a wife like that.

[–] michael-gillanders1 18 years ago

Hee, not politically-correct, but true. She is stunning.

I agree, though, that it was social pressure that prevented him from coming out- he clearly thought there was something WRONG with him, that he could prevent it. And I also agree he is a massive hypocrite for damning her innocent antics with a black man, when he himself was cheating on her! He is incredibly selfish. But there was one set of rules for women and another for men. In a way, there still is, but not in many important ways.

[–] bootblack987 11 years ago

How can you be gay with a wife like that.

It's my understanding that homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to those of the opposite gender if some in society deem them more attractive than other women. I read that somewhere, like a book or something.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samhayler 18 years ago

As someone who has been in a relationship with a girl who turned out to be homosexual, I can tell you that it's far more complex than that. Although when we first split up my first reactions were the sorts of things you are talking about, that she somehow deceived or 'used' me. But after talking to her properly I realised this is not the case at all.

I'd say unless it's something you've had to go through yourself, you really should not be so quick to judge Dennis' cahracter.

[–] Kathleenr88 18 years ago

To Samhayler,

Although you wrote this comment awhile ago, in Sept 2006, I hope you check this message board again from time to time because I so want to understand what you have been through.

When you wrote,"Although when we first split up my first reactions were the sorts of things you are talking about, that she somehow deceived or 'used' me. But after talking to her properly I realized this is not the case at all."

I hope you will elaborate on this. After watching this film I saw Dennis Quaid's character as totally unsympathetic, though I could empathize with how uncomfortable his homosexuality was to him. Even when I put it in context of the 1950's, it seems to me he wasted Cathy's life by not being truthful about his orientation. There really was never a relationship because it was based on lies.

She had two wonderful children with him, but when you realize he is into men, does that mean he hates the sight of her when she is undressed? I just can't understand this even though it is 2007. I mean what does he feel for her?

The only reason I ask is because you wrote, "I'd say unless it's something you've had to go through yourself, you really should not be so quick to judge Dennis' character."

I have no problem with people who are homosexuals, as I understand they are born this way, just as heterosexual people are born with that orientation. But what I do have a problem understanding is why pretend you are heterosexual, and marry a heterosexual, and pretend everything is "fine" but live such a lie? It is totally unfair to the person who loves you that is hetero, but can't ever be truly intimate with someone who "doesn't have feelings in that way" for them.

If you should read this and reply, thank you.

[–] ichimaru 17 years ago

Kathleen: Does this mean you want to date a gay guy, then find out he's gay? :x

Don't worry, Kathleen, I'm just kidding. But I do want to point out that you're looking at Frank's actions with a modern train of thought. Of course it'll seem offensive to you if you look at it that way.

I think quite a few of the posters here have hit the nail on the head. Frank basically says he thought his homosexuality was a phase in his childhood. And although he doesn't specify it, it does seem he truly felt everything would work out with his wife not because he was hiding his homosexuality by marrying her but because he truly thought he loved her and they did manage to have kids together. He probably hadn't even thought about it for a long time. So I doubt it was a betrayal on his part. And yes, it isn't fair. Not by a long shot. But you know what also isn't fair? The attitudes towards homosexuality and african americans in the 50s. Do you sort of understand what I'm saying? Life just isn't fair.

And they must have been intimate at some points in their marriage. They did have kids. Just because he later discovers he really is gay does not mean the intimate moments they shared were any less real to both of them at the time it happened. Although it isn't said, I don't think anyone should jump to the conclusion that because he is gay that he didn't mean it. That's making an assumption without really trying to understand the character.

I think your point is based on an ideal. It's a nice thought, but not necessarily accurate. People marry and fall out of love and divorce all the time nowadays. Thinking of what Frank did as unfair is a bit extreme what with the statistics nowadays.

[–] Kathleenr88 17 years ago

To ichimaru,

You did an excellent job of explaining what I asked about when you wrote, "Just because he later discovers he really is gay does not mean the intimate moments they shared were any less real to both of them at the time it happened." This was very insightful.

Thank you.
Kathleen

[–] peachysam 17 years ago

I don't think Frank was the villain of this film at all. Like some before me have said, the real villian is the opressive society they live in.

Kathleer88, you said "I have no problem with people who are homosexuals, as I understand they are born this way, just as heterosexual people are born with that orientation. But what I do have a problem understanding is why pretend you are heterosexual, and marry a heterosexual, and pretend everything is "fine" but live such a lie? It is totally unfair to the person who loves you that is hetero, but can't ever be truly intimate with someone who "doesn't have feelings in that way" for them."

Fair enough, but I think his behavior has to be examined within the time period. Homosexuality was so unaccepted in the 1950s timeframe in America, not only that, but he didn't even understand what he was feeling. He thought something was actually wrong with his brain, quite demonstrated by the quote "I know this is a sickness because it makes me feel despicable", which he tells to his 'therapist'. Yet even the therapist has to use euphemisms for homosexuality, calling it a 'thing' and so forth and suggesting electroshock therapy...and he is supposed to be learned! It just shows the complete lack of understanding of homosexuality at the time, and if he had 'outed' himself imagine the social stigma!

Unless Frank had gone to live on the fringes of society, leaving behind parents and friends etc, he really had no other choice but to create his own family and live a lie. Today it would be different, but Frank back then really had no choice. He was trapped in his upper middle class, macho man life. It's clear in the film he feels terrible about it, and wants to be cured, but he cannot help what has been done. Society has pinned him down. As for Cathy, he does show genuine devotion to her as in the therapist's office when he explains he has to 'beat this thing' (once again a euphemism for homosexuality through lack of understanding) and when he apolgises to her at different moments during the film. Certainly the fact that he cries towards the end saying he fell in love with a guy and didn't mean for it to happen etc is an indicator he really deep down didn't want to hurt Cathy or the children. He is just the victim of extremely unfortunate circumstance.

Of course this does not justify hitting her or treating her the way he does at times (especially his anger after finding out about Raymond) but he is an extremely trapped man in a very opressive and small minded society and he too deserves sympathy, and the film I think does a good job of creating that for him, although some of you disagree here. I guess in the end it is still subjective.

But despite everything, there's hope for Cathy anyway at the end, which I took especially from the spring blossoms at the end of the film. Frank was able to finally find a new life (good on him, that he could finally set himself free), and Raymond gets a chance of a better life with a daughter. And who knows what happened to Cathy but I take it that she is a strong woman and would have been able to get along with life well again, eventually at least.

[–] JustPassingTime 17 years ago

Even in the post 60's world there are large groups who believe that homosexuality is a perversion that can be treated and cured.

[–] jesus_sanchezz 17 years ago

When a man cheats on his wife with a woman, he's dispicable and vile. When a man cheats on his wife with a man, he's a victim of a cruel society who's finally taking control of his life. If the character Cathy stayed angry with Quiad's character, then no doubt the film would be attacked by gay groups as spreading a bad message...you musn't put gays in a bad light remember...

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

I think calling Quaid's character the villian of the piece might be overstating it a bit. Frank doesn't go out of his way to hurt Cathy deliberately. I agree that he was not a victim. but I find it hard to think of him as a villian either. I don't think he married Cathy so he wouldn't see a gay man in the mirror...I think his coming out process began well into his marriage, not before.