Just watched this movie last night for the first time.
I liked it, but I don't think we were supposed to think about the fact that this was a 104 year old man going after a 15 year old girl.
I don't think the fact that his body is physically halted at age 17 forever should make any difference.
He still has the life experiences of a 104 year old man and is moving on a young girl.
It's creepy.
What's creepier is that, in the book, Winnie is 10 lol.
-----------------
I: That's straight up gangsterrrrr!
B: It's gangsta! GANGSTAAAA!!
What's creepier is that, in the book, Winnie is 10 lol.
****BOOK SEMI-SPOILERS...SORT OF...*********
****BOOK SEMI-SPOILERS...SORT OF...*********
Well, it's not a romance in the book at all. He does ask her to drink the water when she turns 17 so maybe they could spend eternity together and marry, but they don't share anything romantic other than that, and her little crush on him. He treats her very respectfully, and they go on no Romantic Dirty-Dancing swims ;-) The age difference makes the story very interesting, actually, since it's a child who has to make such big decisions about her feelings towards life and death and this remarkable family!
"I lose my van to him and Margo to gangster rap. Not a good day." - the Janitor, Scrubs
Hezzer, he doesn't have the life experiences of a 104 year old man. His life is like one long, never ending day. He's stuck at 17, not just physically but also mentally. He lives in a state of permanent 17-ness (poor bugger!)
But even if he'd gained the wisdom and experience of an old man, it's still NOT creepy. You are conditioned to find such things creepy because of the strictures of the society in which you were raised. Age gaps are traditionally frowned upon because of the issue of death. If an 80 year-old man fathers babies with a 20 year-old woman, he won't live long enough to see them grow, and they'll be robbed of a father prematurely. There is some sense and logic to this argument, but some people are willing to sacrifice longevity for a few precious years filled with love and happiness.
In this case, however, death is not an issue - assuming both of them have drunk the water. He may be a hundred years older than her, but they will spend an eternity together locked in the 'ages' of 15 and 17, which is pretty much OK for all concerned.
(SPOILER AHEAD)
As it turns out though, she doesn't drink the water and ends up living to a hundred herself, and then dying, which is something of an inconvenience all round! If he'd stayed with her as her husband - a 17 year-old shacked-up with an old lady - would that have been creepy? Not to some. Probably she'd end up on Oprah being applauded for snagging such a hottie! Double-standards, eh?
Hezzer, he doesn't have the life experiences of a 104 year old man.
His life is like one long, never ending day.
Age gaps are traditionally frowned upon . . .
If he'd stayed with her as her husband - a 17 year-old shacked-up with an old lady - would that have been creepy?
Hezzer, not only have you totally misunderstood the entire gist of my post, but you've also chosen to take offence at it and respond by attacking me!
I was not making any presumptions about youthful bodies inhibiting minds from growth. I was merely assessing what I saw in the film, and attempting to draw some sort of conclusion from it. Yes, the logic is hazy at best - and downright absurd in my opinion - but it is the logic of the FILM, not me!
Of course, by any rational process one must assume that a person living a hundred years will accumulate a hundred years worth of experience, knowledge, and wisdom. I'm not a moron. But this film is a fantasy, and I was attempting to explain the apparent innocence, youthfulness, and naivety of the character AS DEPICTED. Yes, there is mention of a trip to France. I went to France several times before the age of 17. It didn't make me any wiser (unless you count learning not to eat too much chocolate before embarking on a cross-Channel ferry!) So far as we, the audience, are told, the boy spends the vast majority of his unnaturally long life hiding-out in the woods, fishing, and generally playing at being Huck Finn. From this, I concluded that despite his century of life, he hadn't really filled it with very much, apart from a brief trip to Paris. His parents and brother were older and wiser before becoming immortal, and so their adult experience of immortality was somewhat different than his prolonged 'childhood', and no doubt having gone into it from a more mature starting point, they drew more out of it in terms of experience and wisdom.
It seemed clear to me throughout the film, that his mental character seemed a lot more in keeping with his apparent physical age, purely and simply because it's a family film, and thus certain logical conclusions were deliberately ignored or glossed-over by the filmmakers to prevent the exact kind of 'creepy' reaction that you experienced.
Personally, I don't get creeped-out by such things. I'm a hopeless romantic, and believe that love transcends age and gender. Or at least, it bloody well ought to - especially in a ROMANTIC FANTASY FILM.
As to your answer regarding quote #4, you've made my own point for me, about hypocrisy, without apparently even realising you were doing it. Yes, I've seen Highlander. And it's a very good example. A young man sharing his life with an old lady is not creepy, it's romantic. That was my point. And he earned your instant respect and admiration for sticking with her. Yet you were creeped-out by the idea of an old man with a young girl - even though they both had youthful bodies. That is a clear double standard! And based, no doubt, upon the social conditioning that is so hideously prevalent in our present culture. Men are considered predatory and untrustworthy - and if they don't want to be accused of paedophilia, they'd better stick to older women!
If he had looked like a regular 104 year old man and moved in on the 15 year old, then you'd probably be agreeing that it's creepy.No, not at all. In fact, I think it would have been a much more interesting film. The idea of an eternal man searching through the ages for his one true love, never dying, yet continuing to age... and then finally finding her, but she's only 15 - now that is a film I'd like to see! It could explore so many interesting ideas, challenging prejudice and dogma, examining the very nature of love. In the right hands it could be a very moving and romantic, yet also tragic love story. Certainly provocative and (to some) controversial, but worthwhile, I'd say!
Hezzer, not only have you totally misunderstood the entire gist of my post, but you've also chosen to take offence at it and respond by attacking me!
It seemed clear to me throughout the film, that his mental character seemed a lot more in keeping with his apparent physical age, purely and simply because it's a family film, and thus certain logical conclusions were deliberately ignored or glossed-over by the filmmakers to prevent the exact kind of 'creepy' reaction that you experienced.
A young man sharing his life with an old lady is not creepy, it's romantic. That was my point. And he earned your instant respect and admiration for sticking with her. Yet you were creeped-out by the idea of an old man with a young girl - even though they both had youthful bodies. That is a clear double standard!
And based, no doubt, upon the social conditioning that is so hideously prevalent in our present culture. Men are considered predatory and untrustworthy - and if they don't want to be accused of paedophilia, they'd better stick to older women!
I think a story about an old man falling in love with a young girl ought to be just as beautiful, if handled the right way.
In Tuck Everlasting, it was a man of 104 years and a girl of 15. Big difference. And that is where the issue lies with me. Not a girl of 18, 20 or older. But a child of 15.
If he was physically stuck at 17 that would prevent mental development, at least to an extent. The brain is not fully formed until about 25 years of age. That's why people who abused drugs and alcohol at a young age remain immature throughout life. Part of their brain is actually crippled. Furthermore, being physically stuck at 17 means his hormone levels would be radically different from even someone in their mid-twenties much less a 104 year old.
shareWorking in the job that I do, however, I know a considerable number of 17 year olds and younger that are very mature for their age.
However, this is certainly an idea with merit and I appreciate the input.
It's what I'll stick with in helping me accept this movie as it was presented.
Just cause he's 104-years old, immortakl, and has the physicalty and mentalty of a 17-year old, doesn't make him a creep.
Come on now, Twilighters don't complain about this situation, and yet people here, do? I could see how it would be creppy if the guy was mortal, but he's not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"On the contary, the game's not over yet!"
-Basil from The Great Mouse Detective
Come on now, Twilighters don't complain about this situation, and yet people here, do?
I'm almost certain that in the book there is some mention of Jesse also being stuck at 17 mentally.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I find such things creepy because the age disparity creates a power imbalance with enormous potential for abuse. And also because an 80 year old would have so little in common with a 20 year old that it seems doubtful he could want her for her personality.
It was heavily implied that Jesse had the emotional age of a 17 year old; his mannerisms and attitudes were very youthful, and the narrator even said that "time did not exist" for him.
I think it was Jesse himself that made immortality different for him. He didn't have experiences like his brother after drinking the water, and didn't have experiences in life before immortality like his mother and father. He is what is stopping him from growing as a person. He chooses to spend his time like a Huck Finn character. That's why the experience of immortality is different for him, and why he's still very childish.
With Claudia from Interview with the Vampire, she was stuck immortal before puberty, a big difference between her and Jesse. She also had more experience in life, and was able to grow mentally, unlike Jesse. After his adventure with Winnie, though, I have a feeling he was more mature.
He kind of reminds me of Peter Pan, just never wants to grow up. :P
It is not God who kills the children... It’s us. Only us. -Rorschach
Agreed, you said everything I was thinking. "Growing up" comes from life experiences, and it seems Jesse didn't have many of those "growing up" moments, he has the luxury of being a kid and playing in the forest all his (neverending) life. We mortal and growing people have societal pressures, biological clocks, etc. that strongly motivate us to grow up and become (act like) adults. But Jesse doesn't have that. And unlike his brother, he is perfectly content to remain a kid his whole life, both in body and spirit. Hence the "time stands still" idea.
As for the forest being "magical", it's not so much enchanted as it is just removed from society. Winnie goes out there and spends time like Jesse does, and she too loses track of time. Of course, if she continued that way and didn't drink the water, her body would show the signs of age and time passing, maybe eventually she wouldn't be physically able to run and jump like she can when she is 15. But she wouldn't be an "adult" in the same way as if she'd been gaining life experiences other than perpetual childhood the whole time.
I hear this complaint often in series which deal with immortality. What I think is an important point is that what makes a person "old" or "young" is not necessarily the exact number of years they've lived, but where they are in life.
For example, supposing the average human lifespan was 500 years instead of 90 or so. Would we still define 104 as "old"? No, it would probably be considered early adulthood, because one would still have 4/5 of one's life span ahead of oneself (about the aquivalent of 18 in a normal human lifespan). Similarly, age differences would probably be defined differently. With a normal human lifespan, 10 years is about the limit before an age difference becomes comment-worthy. In other words, about 1/9 of our total lifespan. If we lived for 500 years, then, a 40 year age difference would probably be no big deal, and the acceptable limit would probably be more like 50 or 60 years.
This isn't purely mathematical. When a person is "young", it isn't only defined by what they've experienced; it's also defined by what they haven't experienced. A young person is just starting their life; most of their accomplishments are still in the future. The world is still in front of them, which gives them a "young" view of the world.
By contrast, an "old" person isn't simply someone who's lived a long time; it's someone who is mostly done with life. Their accomplishments, for good or for bad, are mostly behind them. They know that they have very limited time left, and that affects their mentality, too.
When you throw immortality into the equation, everything is thrown off balance. Jesse may have lived 104 years, but he certainly isn't at the end of his lifespan. Should he have chosen to build a life with Winnie, he would have had that whole life ahead of him, the same as she. Like a young person, he still has more time in front of him than behind him. His mentality, therefore, could be said to be more "young" than "old".
To further reinforce the point: Suppose Jesse lived for 1000 years, before falling in love with a 100-year-old woman: Would we then call him disgusting for being with a woman 900 years his junior? Of course not, and yet his age difference with Winnie is a mere 10% of that. It's more about where you are in the spectrum of your lifespan than the hard number of years you've lived.
To further reinforce the point: Suppose Jesse lived for 1000 years, before falling in love with a 100-year-old woman: Would we then call him disgusting for being with a woman 900 years his junior? Of course not, and yet his age difference with Winnie is a mere 10% of that. It's more about where you are in the spectrum of your lifespan than the hard number of years you've lived.
Ok so I get that he was 104, but in a sense he too was sheltered. Sure he got to go all over the world, but his immortality forced him to only really interact with his parents and brother. And I've seen many of 15 year olds who have traveled and seen the world that still act like premature peeps...
Maturity comes not only from years of experience, but what you are able to learn from the people around you. One of the things that does come with age and growing up is falling in love and having children which, due to the fact that he had the shelter part of his life, he was never able to do. Also he never had the grown up responsiblities like a job or watching his parents die. He never has to worry with money or dying. He just is and that lack of real world experience can very well keep you young. It's the Peter Pan syndrome working at it's finest.
As for the the Kirsten Dunst reference it's all aobut the authors personal preferences to how they want their characters to develop and a child vampire was a new theory. Vampires also have their own community in which the Tucks were perpetually alone...
^ Exactly. Jesse didn't grow up the way a normal 104-year-old man would have. He didn't go to college, get a job, get married, have children, or deal with diseases that only come with old age. He is still mentally 17 and always will be.
We're not free. Circumstance is what controls me, just like everyone else.
The book goes into a lot of explanation for this and is quite touching and sad when put into perspective. Even though he is 104 years old,, Jesse's mentality is still that of a 17 year old boy who has not yet matured, and has not experienced love. Its his way of being trapped by the consequences, and never able to grow up. His brother having been trapped into watching the woman he loved grow old, and the bitterness that he feels because of it.. Jess is in Kind of a Peter Pan like existance, wanting these kinds of experiences, but not mature enough to have them.. His feelings for the girl are more for companionship than for a romance, This was written as a children's book (and was required reading for my son's class in 6th grade). Jesse wants to travel the world with her once she turns 17. Thats why he asks her to wait till she is 17 to drink the water so they will both be the same age for eternity and able to travel together, but you still have to remember that he would still too young mentally to have an adult type relationship with her even if she were 17 and they could travel together. They obviousely had the girl a few years older in the movie so that Disney Studios could play up this little romantic interlude, but that never took place in the book. It was more just Winnie running away, being lost in the woods and the adventure that followed, for her. And of course her growing up enough to reallize that she would have to hide the fact that the spring exists and protect the Tucks.
shareAnswer this:
Would you have preferred this 17 year old looking kid to be attracted to a 90 year old saggy old woman? Would that not disgust you even more?
I don't find it creepy. He may have lived a long time but he's not actually physically so old, he doesn't look it. The fact that he's stuck at 17 is what I focus on, not all those extra years that he's been 17.
***I loved him more than I will ever love anything in this life.
Maybe you all should watch the original. This is some airy fairy remake by Disney anyways. The original, directed by Frederick King Keller, was beautiful. His father acted the part of Angus Tuck and the rest of the cast never starred in a movie in their entire life. It made for a very sweet innocent movie. I found the Disney version just abit too pretty. Must have been great for the for Twilight fans. In this version Winnie seem TRULY innocent. I almost felt like I was in the movie and that she wasn't acting. In fact the whole family made it seem very real. I will have a version of it uploaded on Youtube this evening should anyone want to give it a watch.
shareMaybe you all should watch the original. This is some airy fairy remake by Disney anyways. The original, directed by Frederick King Keller, was beautiful. His father acted the part of Angus Tuck and the rest of the cast never starred in a movie in their entire life. It made for a very sweet innocent movie. I found the Disney version just abit too pretty. Must have been great for the for Twilight fans. In this version Winnie seem TRULY innocent. I almost felt like I was in the movie and that she wasn't acting. In fact the whole family made it seem very real. I will have a version of it uploaded on Youtube this evening should anyone want to give it a watch.
share[deleted]