Claire of the Moon (1992) User Reviews

Some Good Content - just skip the 1st 45min!

[susanna_uk · 4/10 · 3 June 2006]

The first 45 min of this movie is straight out of Murder She Wrote style of directing and acting *Rolls Eyes* Hence only a 7 vote for me... However - skip past the first 45 minutes of plain bad acting, directing and script etc etc etc and the remaining hour is actually well worth the watch! The plot will not suffer any for skipping this first 45 min - indeed this would have been better as a short movie.

Directed by a lesbian this movies has some good stuff to say about both hetero and lesbian relationships and the dynamics of each from a woman's perspective. It was all good sound stuff and I found it thought provoking and it held my attention. The romance and seductive scenes are also quite sensuous and 'worked' for me *smile* They show how a lesbian relationship may grow and develop for a hetero woman who has become bored of men being so 'easy' when it comes to sex. She finds that her 'power' simply doesn't work that way when it comes to women. Lesbian relationships being based upon very different dynamics to those of hetero relationships...

Hope you enjoy this movie too. :o))

A Different Kind of Love

[anitalansing-40-581915 · 6/10 · 21 July 2019]

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.

not the best

[michellelocke007 · 4/10 · 12 September 2010]

i had heard all the hype about this movie when it was first released and when i finally got to view it, late one evening, i was far from pleased. i've seen my share of gay/lesbian cinema but this had to be by far the worse one to hit the screen. it was incredibly slow moving and a complete bore. i have to agree with one of the other reviewers when he/she said it was a horrible film. i found Trisha Todd's acting to be so wooden and stiff that i had a difficult time caring about her character. by the end of the film i just wanted someone to kill her off and put an end to her misery. the long-awaited love scene didn't make things any better. there's a lot better lesbian films out there and this isn't one of them. enough said.

reality isn't always pretty

[westpenn49 · 3 July 2009]

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.

A Lesbian Classic? Why?

[d5witkow_99 · 1/10 · 14 January 2001]

With the continual release of GOOD lesbian films, it confuses me why this film is still so highly recommended and touted as a "lesbian classic." To put it bluntly, this movie is terrible in every way. The story line is contrived, the sound is bad, the direction is flat and the characters are unrealistic and unlikeable. Not to mention the film is terribly dated. Although it was released in 1992, it feels more like a film that was made in 1985. Although I am all about lesbian movies, I can not comprehend this addiction to bad film. Try something good: Better Than Chocolate, Fire, or But I'm A Cheerleader are worlds better than Claire of the Moon could ever pretend to be.

two women discover each other and show us that lesbians are boring

[TIALI · 3/10 · 24 January 1999]

Five minutes into this movie about women at a writer's retreat had me reaching for the remote...., but I'm sticking it out and it isn't getting any better. Each character is just posing, as three-dimensional as a life-size cardboard Alice B. Toklas. The pretty one smokes clove cigarettes (or something in a box) and seduces men simply to use their bodies. Each woman is an idiot. I'm watching as they mug their disapproval when they're not given ponderous dialogue to regurgitate (like this line I just wrote). After 45 minutes of this, I'm starting to think that lesbianism is unnatural, the way these characters discuss how "it happened." The acting is mostly bad, the sound makes some of the voices sound like shrill noises, the cinematography is flat, and the writing is really, really sucky.

Happily ever after?

[bbraat · 1/10 · 22 May 2006]

I agree that this movie was pornography without the honesty. The whole point of the movie was that the pretty and sexy blonde sleeps with the tall, manly brunette. It is not enough that the straight (for now) blonde simply wants a romp with the brunette but she must go out of her mind with desire for the tall butch brunette. Then, of course, the butch brunette refuses the blonde's advances until later when for no apparent reason, the butch relents. They have sex. Movie ends. They live happily ever after? Huh? This is porn: the point of the movie is that the leads have sex on camera and all the other problems of life are washed away and everything is great. Are there reprecussions to the sex, is this a one night stand, are their lives changed, once the blonde gets back to New York will she stay with women or "lapse" into dependence on hairy, dirty men? "Who cares, they had sex". Realistically, there was nothing between these two women except that the blonde was ready and the brunette was willing and they were together in a rainstorm. This is a romance novel. Avoid at all costs.

Claire of the Soft Port

[guyb · 1/10 · 18 October 2002]

Now I understand the negative reviews of the lesbian community. This is no "lesbian movie," let alone a "classic one." Give me a break! This is pure and simple SOFT PORN. Let me add that it is REALLY BAD SOFT PORN. The pseudo-intellectualizing is just BS and only SLOWS the REALLY BAD SOFT PORN down. Give this one a pass.

Incredible story of one woman's journey to herself

[ebb2001 · 10/10 · 8 July 2003]

Trisha Todd's portrayal of Claire is agonizingly realistic. As the movie opens we see her in turmoil, clearly dissatisfied with her inability to find personal peace. Her life is lived superficially to this point. She reluctantly accepts an invitation to a writer's retreat and is thrown into sharing a room with a psychiatrist. When she later learns that her roommate is a lesbian, Claire begins to explore the possibilities of intimately connecting with others in ways she never imagined before. The interplay between Trisha Todd's Claire and Karen Trumbo's Noel is so much like real life in it's awkwardness. I highly recommend this for anyone that considers themselves a romantic. It is a classic lesbian chic flick.

Lesbianism Is Not The Point

[Cheetah-6 · 7/10 · 11 June 2001]

Forget the lesbian story line. This movie works and is interesting because the two main characters, who at first are repelled by each other, have the maturity, strength and intelligence to stick it out and probe deeper into each others personalities. Certain aspects of each other they will continue to dislike but are able to reach a place of understanding and even intimacy. That's the beauty of what transpires in this film. Watching this process take place, handled with intelligent dialogue, is what makes the movie intriguing.

It's always refreshing to see a low budget film pull it off, proving once again millions of dollars are not necessary to make a captivating film. A good story and writing are and this film has it.

I have to say the blatant stereotyping of a couple of the supporting characters really distracted from the overall effectiveness of this film.

Still a 7/10.

Great if you need a good sleep.

[camcurwood · 3/10 · 5 October 1999]

This one was a real snoozer. The dialogue was silly. I assume it was supposed to be deep and intelligent, but it made little sense, was awkward and made the characters look dumb. The ending was completely predictable. Why I sat through the whole thing knowing what would happen is beyond me. Good thing I watched it on TV and had the commercials to entertain me.

Beautiful, Intelligent (!) movie with thoughtful, true-to-life characters.

[spaynequeen · 10/10 · 6 February 2000]

This is an intelligent movie about two likeable, honest (as much as they can be as their characters evolve) women who meet as roommates at a writers' retreat. One is 'straight,' albeit unsettled, while the other is 'gay,' but hasn't met her match either. The movie consists of believable dialogue, superb acting, and good supporting actresses. I enjoyed the movie and highly recommend it to those who want a true plot, rather than a 'jump in the bed, dyke movie.'

ok movie but not great

[stephangw · 6/10 · 31 March 2022]

I found this movie to be a bit drawn out longer than it needed to be and left me with unanswered questions. What kind of writers retreat was this? There was little about writing incorporated into the plot. Why were all the women anti men? Why were there not any men at the retreat? Why were there an abundance of lesbian women at this retreat? It was interesting enough to watch but was lacking something that made it really good. Perhaps the fact it was made in 1992.

Excruciating - a symbol of gay self-oppression

[svw · 1/10 · 2 January 2006]

A badly written, tacky script. The lowest of low production values. Acting so wooden it defies belief. An utter absence of charm, intelligence or ability at every level. This film is excruciatingly bad, and yet it has been described as 'a lesbian classic' for the sole reason that it was made by, for and about lesbians. Aaarrgh! This film should be seen by every lesbian just once, to illustrate the terrible dangers of low self esteem and isolationism. Hopefully, we'll reach the point where we can look back and laugh at it without cringing, but that day has not yet arrived.

A symbol of gay self-oppression. Should be ritually burned in large piles on Stonewall Day. 0/10

I'm one of the few that likes this movie..

[my2dogezz · 24 December 2002]

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.

The Hook Up Generation

[juliankennedy23 · 2/10 · 5 April 2010]

re of the Moon... The Hook Up Generation Claire of the Moon: 2 out of 10: This is why women's studies majors shouldn't be allowed to write and direct films. Of course woman's studies does not actually study all woman as woman have opinions and accomplishments as varied as men. Woman's studies courses as pointed out by Professors Dapne Patai and Noretta Koertgein 'Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies' are more interested in "the political mission of training feminist cadres to override educational concerns. The strategies of faculty members in these programs have included policing insensitive language, championing research methods deemed congenial to women (such as qualitative over quantitative methods), and conducting classes as if they were therapy sessions." Woman's studies is an exercise in a particular group-think that attacks freedom as a whole and the freedom of woman in particular. Claire of the Moon is full of long anti-woman diatribes basically claiming straight woman are undermining the feminist movement (this is assuming there are any straight feminists left mind you). The movie was directed by a woman, so of course so this anti-woman point of view is okay. This is the Precious rule where as long as you are a member of a group you can make a film that drags out every horrible stereotype about said group and will be praised for it. Now had the exact same film had been written and directed by a straight white male, people would have burned the theater down.

This politically correct nonsense really should not effect the enjoyment of a film as one can be pro nuclear power and still enjoy Godzilla as an example. Claire of the Moon however has much bigger problems than its absolutist point of view.

Claire of the Moon's plot consists of two woman who become roommates at an all woman writer's retreat (one would think a writer's retreat would have individual rooms. This however is never examined.) Our titular protagonist Claire Jabrowski (Trisha Todd) is a drunk woman (Think Sherrybaby) who is sloppy, sleeps with creepy men at the drop of a hat and passes for a writer in the way that Tara Reid is convincing as a brainy anthropologist in Alone in the Dark. Playing Felix to Todd's Oscar is Karen Trumbo who plays a successful lesbian writer who is very butch and a neat freak. They hate each other on sight so it's going to be a long tedious ride before the inevitable hook-up sex.

Claire of The Moon tells this story in the form of three films mashed together: A haranguing lecture, A romantic novel and a soft core porn film.

The haranguing lecture is easily the worst part. The actresses are all amateur and read their overwrought screeds with a talent that varies from awful, to god awful, to good God make it stop I will join your cult and renounce my evil heterosexual ways awful. The romance novel bits consist of endless shots of sunsets and driftwood on various Oregon beaches while a piano tinkers in the background. You remember how seemingly every movie in the early seventies would stop the story outright and go all soft focus while a folk song played in your ears? Claire of the Moon is kind of like that but without the warbling.

The soft-core sex is what hopefully attracts both enlightened females and straight males to the movie. (I say hopefully because if you came for the acting or the story you are in for a world of hurt.) Our hook up sex partners (sorry romantic leads) are as stated above Trisha Todd who never made a another movie, teaches drama at Grant High in Portland, looks a little like Laura Dern, she is easily the best actress of the bunch, and whose nudity is the sole reason the film wasn't rated one out of 10. The other main lead Karen Trumbo has found some roles since Claire, she looks a little like Sigourney Weaver if Sigourney had a breast reduction and a little boy's haircut, and she convincingly plays a butch lesbian.

The sex scene comes in the last ten minutes of the film and it is decent as these things go (though it certainly not worth watching the rest of the film for). It also has the great advantage however of having no dialog, and is more enjoyable if you don't know the characters. In other words this is the reason God created the fast forward button.

the production was more interesting than the result

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 22 March 2021]

I've liked most the LGBT-themed productions that I've seen (The Birdcage, In & Out, Milk, Six Feet Under, etc). Nicole Conn's "Claire of the Moon" doesn't seem to have any purpose. I watched the featurette showing the movie's production. The production was actually more interesting than the movie. Not a terrible movie, but I didn't see much point to it.

This was Trisha Todd's only movie. She's now a teacher in Grant High School in Portland, Oregon. I don't know whether or not Karen Trumbo is related to Dalton Trumbo.

interesting and moving

[kristen_elizabeth3 · 10/10 · 10 January 2005]

I have heard that this is one of those films that you either love or you hate. I personally thought it was a very thought provoking film, especially considering the time and budget. It is sweet and sensual and makes you think. If you are just looking for steamy sex scenes then you're in the wrong place. This is a meaningful story of two women struggling to find themselves. Nicole Conn challenges several difficult issues with intelligence and grace. In my opinion it was well cast and the cinematography is impressive considering its Ind status. I highly recommend this film for a quite night at home. PS The soundtrack is absolutely amazing. One of my favorite classical play lists.

my first gay movie and I enjoyed it!

[gmorrison14 · 8/10 · 12 February 2003]

When I first bought this movie I wasn't sure what to expect. I did find it to be ho hum for the first 20 minutes or so but then I really got into it. I liked the story line and that it wasn't all sex scenes, till the end. Needless to say I fell in love with Trisha Todd. She's gorgeous. For a low budget movie I thought it was made in good taste.

Sensual and Seductive

[diponz42 · 5 February 2000]

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.

Fear and Passion

[aaronjosh888 · 8/10 · 3 April 2009]

At First, the story was boring then I started to understand some behavioral responses associated to such situations. The writer of this film was able to convey the message that these characters portrayed. There was passion and fear to break one's own boundaries. Communication varies in different levels and wavelength. Claire(Trisha Todd) and Noel(Karen Trumbo), were able to find how to deal with their differences out of communication. Claire discovered that she's falling for (lesbian psychiatrist) Noel and so was Noel, who both were scared to get into. Noel refused to break her rule about getting involved with straight women. Claire may just be curious about such kind of relationship initially but the passion got real and strong. Great story. I suggest that you watch it.

Great passion, dragged on, confused women!

[yougoboywi · 8/10 · 20 February 2000]

This was a wonderful film of lesbian passion and the tension it can create. That wonderful tension. I tend not to enjoy the typical straight girl goes gay plot line..but that is me. The movie kind of dragged in the middle, but the end scenes were great.

In a word: yuck

[Vibiana · 29 September 2001]

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.

One of Nicole Conn's best

[dshannon1042 · 8/10 · 12 November 2023]

"Claire of the Moon," a film released in 1992, is a bold and thought-provoking exploration of identity, desire, and the complexities of human relationships. Directed by Nicole Conn, the film stands out as a milestone in queer cinema, offering a nuanced portrayal of same-sex attraction against the backdrop of self-discovery.

At its core, "Claire of the Moon" delves into the evolving connection between two women, Claire and Noel, during a writing retreat. The narrative unfolds with a deliberate pace, allowing the characters' emotional landscapes to unfurl gradually. Conn's directorial finesse shines through as she navigates the intricate dynamics of these characters, providing a refreshing and authentic portrayal of a lesbian relationship.

The strength of the film lies in its well-crafted script, which artfully balances moments of introspection, humor, and sensuality. The dialogue is both witty and poignant, engaging the audience on an intellectual and emotional level. The exploration of the characters' inner worlds adds depth, making "Claire of the Moon" a compelling and relatable cinematic experience.

The lead performances, particularly by Trisha Todd as Claire and Karen Trumbo as Noel, are commendable. Their on-screen chemistry is palpable, bringing authenticity to their characters' journey of self-discovery and mutual understanding. The supporting cast also contributes to the film's success, portraying a diverse range of personalities that enrich the overarching narrative.

Visually, the film captures the picturesque setting of the Pacific Northwest, enhancing the overall aesthetic appeal. The cinematography skillfully mirrors the emotional tone of the story, creating a visual language that complements the unfolding narrative. The use of natural light and scenic landscapes contributes to the film's immersive quality.

"Claire of the Moon" is accompanied by a memorable and evocative soundtrack that complements the emotional beats of the story. The music not only enhances the viewing experience but also serves as a powerful tool in conveying the characters' inner struggles and triumphs.

As a pioneering work in lesbian cinema, "Claire of the Moon" remains a significant and groundbreaking film. Its honest portrayal of same-sex relationships, coupled with strong performances and thoughtful direction, solidifies its place in the canon of queer cinema. Nearly three decades after its release, the film continues to resonate, reminding audiences of the enduring power of storytelling in challenging societal norms and fostering empathy.

Look past the flaws

[bekcat · 24 January 2002]

Set in a women's writing retreat in Oregon, Claire of the Moon begins it's long and tedious journey. The first time I saw the movie, all I could think is, "When are they going to do IT?", but when I saw it for the second time, I got the message Nicole Conn tries to convey. Buried under the rather stiff acting of Trisha Todd and Karen Trumbo (and for that matter, all the other actors in this movie) is the most complicated problem in any relationship: exploring intimacy. The intentions are good for all involved in revealing Clare and Noel's fear of intimacy, but poorly followed throughout the tale. Conn tries too hard to make this view analytical and intelligent but succeeds in making it so intelligent that it becomes tiresome. Not that I did not like this movie; I did. But I endure this movie only for the final scene. The end leaves us wanting for the real story to finally begin, but it is too late...the movie is over. Now for the confession: I really like this movie, but only with a grain of salt, and that is how it should be viewed.