Tropic of Cancer

My first reaction to learning of this film's existence was surprise. TROPIC OF CANCER [the book] is largely a rambling, alternately beautiful and vulgar, account of homeless and penniless ex-patriot Henry Miller living off of friends in 1930s Paris. The book does not possess the type of structure upon which one would think an entire film could be based. After watching this film, my first reaction was to think that in the portrayal of Henry and June Miller, Fred Ward and Uma Thurman did much better in the 1990 film "Henry and June" than have Rip Torn and Ellen Burstyn in this 1970 production. Then something odd occurred to me: Torn does not portray Henry Miller, but "Henry Miller" - a fictionalized character based upon the author. Burstyn does not portray June Miller, but "Mona" - a character based on the real June Miller. In addition, the setting for the movie is not 1930s Paris, but 1970s Paris. For these reasons, it is best not to compare the two films. Each bears the markings of the era in which it was made, as well as the markings of the book upon which it was based. (Henry and June, of course, is told from the perspective of Anais Nin, who is not portrayed at all in Tropic of Cancer.) After I got past these hurdles, I could appreciate Tropic of Cancer on its own merits.

Tropic of Cancer does not so much seem like a movie in its own right, but a type of tribute to the book, perhaps even a concept film. The key elements of the novel, the palpable sexuality, Henry's poverty, the beauty of Paris, the poetic quality of Miller's writing (Rip Torn does some wonderful reading from the text, juxtaposed with scenic views of Paris), are strongly evoked, but they are not developed to the point of giving the movie its own life as an independent entity. This is why I recommend Tropic of Cancer to fans of Miller and the book upon which it's based, and no one else.

Andrew Parodi