Henry & June (1990)

Henry & June, directed by Philip Kaufman and released in 1990, is based loosely on Anaïs Nin’s autobiographical account of her affair with Henry Miller. So this is a biopic of sorts and I have never been able to see the point of biopics. If I have an interest in some historical personage I’ll read a book about him. I won’t watch a biopic.

Henry & June has the distinction of being the first movie to be hit with an NC-17 rating.

It is Paris in 1931 and aspiring writer Anaïs Nin (Maria de Medeiros) is married to successful banker Hugo (Richard E. Grant). She meets aspiring American writer Henry Miller (Fred Ward). Henry and Hugo are close friends. His wife June (Uma Thurman) has been left behind in Brooklyn.

Henry aims to shock the literary world with his first novel, Tropic of Cancer. He tells anyone who will listen that it’s about liberation. We soon find out that for Henry liberation means betraying his own wife and screwing his best friend’s wife (Anaïs) and then lying shamelessly about it.

Anaïs is on a voyage of self-discovery. She is discovering herself as a woman. That means betraying her own husband and screwing another woman’s husband. And then lying shamelessly about it. This is such an inspiring movie.

June arrives in Paris and things get messier and messier but whatever their literary talents might be there is no question that Henry and Anaïs have true genius when it comes to lying.

Anaïs takes a deep dive into the most perverse depths of Parisian life. You have to do that when you’re on a voyage of self-discovery.

June starts to fall apart.

Hugo, the eternal cuckold, stays in the background like a loyal good-natured puppy dog.

Maria de Medeiros was cast because she resembles Anaïs Nin. She certainly looks striking but I don’t think she really manages to bring any depth to her characterisation. We don’t really come to understand Anaïs.

Fred Ward gives the best performance of the movie. We know right from the start that Henry is a louse and by the end we realise just how big a louse he is.

Uma Thurman seems to be all at sea. Perhaps she was miscast and perhaps the script just let her down.

Richard E. Grant seems like he’s wandered in from another movie entirely and he’s finding it to be a jolly old lark.

I don’t mind if the characters in a movie are unlikeable and unsympathetic but in this case they’re unlikeable and unsympathetic is such miserable squalid ways.

Visually the movie manages to create a very scuzzy ambience. Perhaps the intention was to make Paris in the early 30s seem like a world of decadence and sleazy glamour but to me it seemed like a descent into Hell.

The sex scenes are not as explicit as you might expect given the film’s NC-17 rating. I didn’t find them offensive (I just don’t find sex scenes offensive) but they are lacking in eroticism. These are people who seem to approach sex as an unpleasant duty. It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it.

If the movie could convince the viewer that Henry and Anaïs really are geniuses pushing the frontiers of literature we might feel inclined to be more sympathetic to their antics. I’ve read both writers. Henry Miller I found to be unreadable. Anaïs Nin’s erotica is quite interesting. The problem is that the movie doesn’t offer any real insights into them as writers so we’re left with the story of two appalling people.

At 136 minutes the film is at least half an hour too long. I found it to be a chore to sit through but if you’re a Henry Miller or an Anaïs Nin fan you might get some enjoyment out of it.

The movie looks OK on Blu-Ray.

I’d suggesting avoiding Henry & June.