The timing couldn’t be much better for “Freeheld.” Based on an Oscar-winning short, the film tells the true story of a detective (Julianne Moore) who fights to let her pension be awarded to her life partner (Ellen Page) when she’s diagnosed with terminal cancer. It’s arriving in the year when gay marriage was finally legalized in the U.S, a half year after Moore finally won her Oscar, and a year and a half after Page came out.
Directed by Peter Sollett (“Raising Victor Vargas,” “Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist”), penned by “Philadelphia” writer Ron Nyswaner, and also starring Michael Shannon, Steve Carell, Josh Charles and Luke Grimes, the film’s about to premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, and just debuted its first clip.
The clip seems to concern the first meeting between Moore and Page’s characters, as the latter asks the former out on a date, and certainly seems rather more low-key than the… questionable trailer. The film’s clearly got its sights set on the awards season —can Moore make it two Best Actress wins in a row? We’ll have our review from TIFF up soon, and you can find out for yourself when the movie opens on October 2nd. Watch the clip below, along with the official synopsis.
Based on the Oscar®-winning short documentary and adapted by the writer of Philadelphia, Freeheld is the true love story of Laurel Hester [Julianne Moore] and Stacie Andree [Ellen Page] and their fight for justice. A decorated New Jersey police detective, Laurel is diagnosed with cancer and wants to leave her hard earned pension to her domestic partner, Stacie. However the county officials, Freeholders, conspire to prevent Laurel from doing this. Hard-nosed detective Dane Wells [Michael Shannon], and activist Steven Goldstein [Steve Carell], unite in Laurel and Stacie’s defense, rallying police officers and ordinary citizens to support their struggle for equality.
"Freeheld" debuts at TIFF this weekend, opens in select theaters October 2 and then begins an expanded run October 9. Watch the first clip below.
I agree with what you said. Even though many people are affected daily with all that you stated above, how many people would actually go and see the documentary if it played as a wide theatrical release? People go to the movies to be entertained, as escapism, to enjoy stories and to see to see visual pleasing stunts. Many do not go to the movies to be beat over the head with everyday life.
With all that said, I hope this film plays in my area because I can\’t wait to see it.
I have to ask, is anyone else a little…I don\’t know, uncomfortable with this film? Having seen the original short documentary and discussed its content with the filmmaker, Cynthia Wade, I feel like turning it into a feature length narrative is a tad reductive — if not icky.
What I mean is, when you watch the documentary, you are presented with an unflinching look at real men enforcing truly repugnant and ignorant policies through a real and horrifying discourse. There is no negotiating what you are seeing. There is no denying the pain of a person watching powerlessly as their loved one wastes away before her eyes.
Furthermore, Laurel Hester and Stacie Andree are not Hollywood movie stars. They are not gorgeous, poreless people with light shining magnificently across their faces. And yet the humanity expressed in their relationship, and in their struggle for basic human decency, is so beautiful and heartbreaking — because they are your next door neighbors. They are your friends and colleagues and family members.
And that is the power of the original short documentary. There is no distance between you the subject matter. And the ability to walk away from the film and say, "yeah that was pretty terrible, but how much of it was real and how much of it was dramatized," is practically none. But in a feature film? In a film starring Julianne Moore, Ellen Page, and Michael Shannon? In a film where the entire premise — where the very essence of its stakes — is rooted in the "true story"? Is the threat of dramatized distance not all too present?
I don\’t need to know how Laurel and Stacie met to recognize that they deserved more. That there relationship was just as beautiful and problematic as any other intimate relationship. And it\’s not that a narrative film cannot embody real emotion or conflict — of course it can. But in this particular instance, isn\’t it redundant? And isn\’t that redundancy maybe just a little dangerous?
I guess I just wish that instead of making this film, they re-released the original documentary to a wide theatrical audience. Because it is important content. And in my opinion, too important to dilute with a feature narrative.
Am I alone in thinking this?