Claire of the Moon

Yes, the women in this movie are talky, but hey, they are writers and words are their medium. Given also that they are mostly graduates of the 70's and 80's the sexual politics/gender clashing thing makes sense.

Someone in this list of comments says that Todd and Trumbo are wooden. Compared to what? Yes, Trumbo's character is reserved, but we see her relaxing as her clothing relaxes -the long coat gives way to sweater.

There is a scene early in that shows the problems associated with low budget- Claire goes to the motel and is greeted by someone. The greeting came off like a question "Hello?" instead of "hello". But by that time I was in awe of Ms. Todd's presence driving the car, sitting on the rocks. I rather thought that the camera was in love with her, following her every movement. And as for wooden, I would say she was fluid and graceful conveying a character in conflict without histrionics. Different strokes.

A good budget, some retakes and tweaking the dialogue all could help, but for a movie that seemingly came out of nowhere it is rather remarkable.

I must say the first time I saw this movie was way back in 1997. When I saw it then I almost wished I'd not bought it. I was desperate for something to watch one weekend and pulled out the old dusty VHS tape. I watched it again and realized the acting may have not been the best, but i'm sorry Trisha Todd is a very sexy woman. Even w/ 10 years added i'm sure she is still a very sexy woman.

I went out and bought the 10th Anniversary DVD to see what else there was to see. Much to my amazement there were MANY scenes deleted. After I saw the making of the movie somehow a lot of other things made sense. In my personal opinion the producers/directors of this film should have left in much that was removed. I'd personally like to see the WHOLE movie with all scenes that were shot left in.

All in all a good, sensual movie. I know I'm certainly in the minority having this opinion.... Trisha Todd is just too hot to be overlooked.

I saw this movie years ago and really liked it. Neither the acting nor the storyline was the greatest, but it was a sweet and eye-opening love story. Many times we suppress feelings we may have for a person because of societal fears. But we must be true to ourselves. In the end, both of the main characters were. Sweet.

This was a wonderfully done sensual and seductive movie. I first saw it a few years back and was mesmerized by the playfulness of the words of the two main characters, Noel and Claire. Playfulness of course then leading to a wonderful development of their relationship.

I've since bought the video, and musical score.

I find the film hauntingly erotic.

Feb. 5. 2000.

I hate this rule the lesbian community makes up, where if a film featuring lesbians is made and none of the aforementioned lesbians wind up killing themselves or going straight (as if that were possible) before the end credits roll, all of us are supposed to hail it as some masterpiece of filmmaking. Particularly in the case of this train wreck of a borefest, I refuse to join the crowd on this one.

The characters (particularly the woman who owned the lodge, the Southern-belle romance writer, and the nice-little-mom-of-two-in-her-jumper-outfits-writing-her-first-book) were offensive stereotypes, caricatures of what they could have been. It's possible for a straight woman to find the idea of lesbianism repellent without portraying her as some strange replica of Tammy Faye Bakker. And -- surprise! -- it's also possible to portray a lesbian lodge owner as something other than a hard-ridden, raspy-voiced, rough-n-ready bulldagger.

The plot dragged. AND dragged. AND dragged. If I learned a single thing from watching this movie, it's that I have an incredible reservoir of restraint -- I didn't stalk out of the theater in disgust. But then I'd paid $7 to get in, and that was in 1992 at an artsy-fartsy house. LOL

My take? Not a classic. Not even a contender.