a conspiracy of adults to corrupt children - Tideland (2006) Discussion

[–] m_robb 17 years ago

Beleive it or not, There is NO conspiracy here!
Just because some actress prepares smack for her
dad in a movie does not mean that there doing it
in real life!? I'm almost 100% sure Jodelle does
not prepare smack for her dad.....Not saying the
movie was not disturbing or uncomfortable at times,
But Jodelle is a very mature young actress and I
think you will see that it(making the movie) did not
harm her in anyway. I would protest anything that
would harm any child in any movie....There are some
movies out there that I could not stand to watch
"Bastard out of Carolina" was one.....But Tideland
is NOT one of them, GREAT movie!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

schots, its people like you that cause american cinema to be, through and through, one of the most coward type of cinema made today.

TIDELAND is a movie that has something that the vast majority of american movies doesn't have anymore: balls.

If you can't see the movie past what you define as pervertion, then the problem is you,not the movie's. Obviously, you didn't get the movie, to say the very least. But you felt disturbed, then you are giving it the highest praise the movie could ever get, for that was the intention of the movie, but you misunderstood why the movie was disturbing. your's is a typical case of misunderstanding the messenger for the message.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] dave-829 17 years ago

Is it "balls" for the director to warn us that most of us won't like the film we're about to see, or is it a cop-out? I vote for "cop-out" because he knows we won't like the film and uses that as an excuse. If you know we won't like the film, then make one people will like.

reply

[–] jonly30 17 years ago

Uh...oddly enough he told me the same thing, too, Dave. And, as opposed to you, I liked the flick. So he wasn't lying when said most won't like it but some will. But I don't think it's either balls or a cop-out for him to make an introduction to Tideland. If nothing else, I believe he was trying to address those issues that had led to a lot of misunderstandings/confusion about the film, with tongue firmly in cheek. Personally, I don't care if he makes films that people like, because it's nearly impossible to make a single piece of art that absolutely everyone will love. Anyway, I just care that he makes films I like, and in this case he did.

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

dave, it is balls TO MAKE a movie like this, knowing most the viewing public are pussies like you that can't handle anything harsher then Transformers. So you bet it takes a lot of big balls for a filmmaker to make a movie like this, knowing fully well the idiots and the pussies will trash it to kingdom come.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] dave-829 17 years ago

"dave, it is balls TO MAKE a movie like this, knowing most the viewing public are pussies like you that can't handle anything harsher then Transformers."

So much for trying to have an intelligent conversation.

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

You cannot have an intelligent conversation with people who mistake the forest for the trees,a nd do it so with the most obvious of subjects. This one is one suich extremely obvious subject that you failed to see the forest for the trees, and did so utterly miserably. I know this from years of experience in dealing and reading posts of people like yourself.

So, go back watch TRANSFORMERS, more your kind of movie.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 9 years ago

Rarely do I see people as stupid as you, and that's saying something considering there are a lot of stupid d*bags commenting on imdb. So much stupidity in just a few posts.

reply

[–] tragedieandy 17 years ago

i thought gilliam's introduction was perfect. he knew for a fact that most people were not going to like his film, and he was right, but he went ahead and made it anyway. gilliam's one of the few american filmmakers today who still cares about what film should be: ART. yes, tideland is extreme, but life's that way sometimes.

plus, look at his roster: fear and loathing in las vegas, brazil, 12 monkeys, baron munchausen, the fisher king.. have ANY of these movies been huge, blockbuster hits? no, absolutely not. but that's never stopped him from making the films that HE wants to make. i for one give him credit for that.

i'm sure he doesn't care about your opinion, either.

reply

[–] funkyfry 17 years ago

12 Monkeys was a big blockbuster hit, absolutely.

As for the introduction, I don't really like it. I feel it is kind of a cop out and definitely un-necessary. But it's attitudes like the one the OP expressed that made it probably financially necessary to do the introduction. I don't think Gilliam really personally feels he needs to apologize for or explain his movie, that was probably the distributors' idea. Thinkfilms are a bunch of complete jokers.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] funkyfry 17 years ago

"Thinkfilms are a bunch of complete jokers"

By the way, I just wanted to add that since April when I posted this, Thinkfilm has gone into receivership and is being sued by several different producers who made films for them. Thinkfilm damaged this movie in a lot of ways, first of all with that introduction but also by putting it in the wrong aspect ratio on the DVD and by not promoting it whatsoever.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] mimosveta 17 years ago

Is it "balls" for the director to warn us that most of us won't like the film we're about to see, or is it a cop-out? I vote for "cop-out" because he knows we won't like the film and uses that as an excuse. If you know we won't like the film, then make one people will like.

I'm ppl and I like it. You really think it's possible to make a movie everyone will like? I doubt it. i.e. everyone I know loves "Dancer in the Dark", but I can't stand that movie, and often claim it was directed by Mel Gibson.

----------------------------
Pardon my weak spelling, English is not my native language.

reply

[–] arealgideon 16 years ago

Does a great film, by definition, have to be likeable? Or is there more to it? Must it make you think? Must it effectively portray what the director was trying to convey?

Gilliam has a lot of films under his belt, and he probably has always done what he wanted. He probably doesn't make films for the masses. He likely makes them because it's what he always wanted to do. If this is the sort of film he wanted to make--one that examines the way in which an innocent child responds to horror and stress with resilience and creativity--then that is his prerogative. I personally loved this film and love it more still the more I contemplate it. I was entranced by JR's reality and dreams of grandeur that she created to make a better life for herself, and *SPOILER* it wasn't until I saw the faces of those involved in the train wreck *END SPOILER* that I was brought out of the make believe. I hadn't felt so creative since I was a little girl!

I may not necessarily like all the twists and turns of the plot or what happened to the poor child, but the way in which Gilliam made the film, and the feelings the film brought up within me... this is beginning to climb the list of my favorites.

reply

[–] johnpollo 16 years ago

I actualy liked the film because of how disurbe it is.
sometimes i couldn't watch, but thats hat makes it appealing

reply

[–] scrypt-548-878609 15 years ago

Your complaint would be valid if Gilliam had tried to make a likable film. Clearly, he didn't. He isn't making excuses because he's failed on your terms, he's warning audiences because he's succeeded on his own.

You'd have better luck arguing audience disappointment = failure against a film actually intended to delight audiences. Time has shown that Gillian sometimes knows how to make such a film. Most of the time, he just doesn't want to.

Orson Welles once described himself as a difficult filmmaker. "I love popular art," he said. "Shakespeare is popular art. I'm just not made that way." Welles was born to make films like Chimes at Midnight and Touch of Evil as well as Citizen Kane; Gilliam, to make Brazil, Baron Munchausen and Tideland as well as The Fisher King. That such films by Welles usually met with failure and derision in their own time should alert you to the untrustworthiness of present reactions to Gilliam's. Only time -- not exit polls -- will tell.

reply

[–] Sean_Haze 13 years ago

Haven't seen the movie yet, though I like Gilliam and will probably end up watching it soon. However, I would say it DOES take balls to do this. IMDB is full of threads about directors who've sold out/pander/are only in it for the money. They're the ones who make movies that are made for mass-consumption. I would say making a movie you want to make, knowing it won't be marketable to the masses, takes balls and integrity.

He's making this movie as much for him as he is for us, and your description of the introduction sounds, to me at least, like he's just warning people of that. Watch it, hate it, love it, doesn't matter to him; He made what he wanted to make.

reply

[–] jontonian 15 years ago

Well, Well said Memories-of-Murder!!!

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

So, how about we only make movies about happy children playing in the yard, because we all know there are no children in the entire world that are unhappy or living in conditions that are far from ideal. How about we ignore anything and everything unpleasant and pretend it doesn't exist. Just don't come crying to me when something bad does happen, m'kay?

Seriously though, life is what it is. It's filled with atrocities and unfairness, and portraying that is important. There ARE children preparing junk for their doped-up parents, there ARE children living in their own, scary fantasy world. Would you rather we ignore them and pretend they don't exist, or acknowledge that not everything is sunshine and happiness?

Terry Gilliam should be applauded for what he is: a genius of filmmaking. He has a very unique style and he makes movies that are unlike anything you've ever seen. If you think this film felt "wrong", then it's probably the biggest complement you could give Gilliam himself, because I really doubt he was aiming for anything else.

I'm sorry you didn't like it, and I'm sorry you think you matter. Films like these are obviously not for closed minded people like yourself.

It will be a sad day when Terry Gilliam does retire, because there are far too few filmmakers around like him.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] BeatriceBlue 17 years ago

endemoniada-1... I couldn't have said it better myself!! Exactly my thoughts on the topic at hand! I applaud you... and, of course, Terry Gilliam for making such a great film!!

"Damaged people are dangerous, they know they can survive."

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

Bravo! Excelent post. You said it as it is.

And i'm not sorry the guy above didn't liked the movie. It's his loss, and he brough it on himself by his own very narrow worldview on things. It's his own doing, and he's the onlyone responsible for his mistaken and narrow-minded delusions. It's for people like him that we still have to endure crap pudrid movies like BAYFORMERS... i mean, TRANSFORMERS and talentless hacks like Michael Bay get rich rewards by insulting the audiences intelligence with their pudridity masquarading as movies, while true talented filmmakers like Terry Gilliam have to scrap for crums to make their next movie, never in sure if it will ever see a silver screen.

So to all the people who can't see the true merit of a movie like TIDELAND, all i can say is: you are wrong, and go watch BAYFORMERS-like crap movies instead.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

Ok, one thing at a time. Yes, Tideland is a great movie, but I can honestly and proudly say that I like many Michael Bay movies as well. The one doesn't exclude the other.

Sometimes I'm just in the mood for easy entertainment, I don't want to be moved or have to think, I just want to escape reality. Other times I want to think, I want difficult movies that challenge me and that make my brain work hard.

The person I responded to is, in my opinion, quite narrow minde. However, crapping on anything big-budget "just because" is just as narrow minded, so I distance myself from both.

There is a fine difference between EASY movies and BAD movies. I really wouldn't say most Bay movies fall into the latter category.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

If you like Michael "Miserable Talentless Piece Of Crap" Bay's movies, then you are due into self-flagelation as contriction. Because you cannot love both TIDELAND and one of both miserable crap pieces of stupidity Bay "movies". You have to chose one or the other. And if it's all because of "i want some fun movies" argument, there's LOADS, TONNES of fun entertaining movies that are actually good movies on their own right, without you have to soil yourself in the mud of Bay's pieces of piss movies.

Michael "Talentless Piece Of Piss Of An Useless Hack" Bay movies don't fall into the cathegory of bad movies because they are so very much, much worst then bad. Horrid barely even began to describe them.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

One of my main principles is that no opinion is a bad opinion. I won't criticize anyone for liking a movie, no matter what I personally think about it. I would respect you a whole lot more if you stopped over-using all those negative adjectives and started respecting people even when they don't agree 100% with you.

I really like The Rock, I found Transformers mildly entertaining, The Island is really cool and Bad Boys is, of course, a classic. I take no shame in this. I also enjoyed Tideland, and all other Gilliam films I've seen. I love Darren Aronofsky, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, the writing of the Kaufman brothers, Quentin Tarantino and about a million more, really talented, producers, writers and directors.

I'm sorry, but I really can't see you as anything but a snob and an elitist if you really think my opinion somehow doesn't matter simply because I happen to enjoy an easy movie once in a while.

I consider myself to have a pretty good taste in movies, but I don't define my very being by it. I'm above that, unlike you.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

But there are bad opinions,a nd it's a falacy if you there aren't. There's limits to the subjectivity of the issue. hitler wanted to kill all the jews on the face of the Earth. How can that not be described as a bad opinion. Yes, i'm using an extreme as an example, but that«'s to clarify the point.

Listen, there is such a thing as a limit to what one can endure and still call oneself a movie fan, movie lover, cinephile, movie geek, whatever.

Ypou can claim all you want that THE GODFATHER is your most beloved movie of all time. You can say it's an awesome movie (which is), and that you watch it every week without tiring. You can claim your profund love for THE GODFATHER, CITIZEN KANE, 2001, CASABLANCA, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, SUNSET BOULEVARD, and any of the justifiedly major movies ever made. But the thing is, any fool can love a good movie. Any fool.

So, what seperates the real movie lovers form the underserning movie watchers is not the good moives they love, but the bad movies they mistake for good one and are appologetic about them. Movies and filmmakers.

There's a line that seperates both attitudes, and it's not a thin red line, but a frakking Great Wall Of China big thick line you can see from space. It's that obvious. Unless you don 't care and then you don't see it. With all that entails.

Knowing what a good movie or a bad movie is is not a question of preferences, but a question of reason.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

How about we stick to what I actually said, and not make up arguments based on things no one has even said :)

I never said "any Michael Bay movie is automatically a GOOD movie". In fact, I've gone to great lengths to carefully avoid calling them "good movies". I just like them, that's not the same. I like Plan 9 From Outer Space as well, despite it being thought of as maybe the worlds worst film ever by a whole lot of people. It is the very definition of a "bad movie", and I still like it.

Honestly, I wasn't that fascinated with The Godfather. Sure, it's a classic and the acting is phenomenal, but I still find it quite boring to watch.

Also, you seem to be under the delusion that you somehow get to decide what movies are "good" and which ones are "bad". I don't even know why you are attacking me specifically, I've never claimed that I was a "real movie lover". All I did was defend this particular good movie while also defending my own opinion about Michael Bay movies.

Film IS subjective, Godwin WAS right and I STILL think you are a pretentious, elitist snob.

Thank you, and good day.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

The subjective excuse only goes so far. What's subjective is your preference. But that is not a statement of quality. Quality, which falls into the the styudy of AESTETICS, is a rational discipline. Preferences is just what whichever each of us fancy. Big difference there. And no, that's not intellectual stuff, it's basic stuff you learn by practice if you even want to have a proper discussion about movies, art, kitchen design, whatever.

And if you can't understand why THE GODFATHER is a clasic and can't love it, that's your problem.

And if you think i'm elistict, then you are totally out of the loop. In fact, i find more elitism in the "movies are fun" crown then anywhere else. Which figures. And if that's the only argument, or should i say a basic fallacious cliché pseudo-argument, you can pull, then desist, dude. For it only proves that i drank your milkshake.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

Again, are you even reading the posts I write? I do think The Godfather is a classic and I do realize it's an amazing film... I just don't like it. One is the "subjective excuse", the other is "statement of quality".

Seriously, what is your problem? Who the hell are you to decide which movies are quality movies and which ones aren't? Do you honestly take yourself that seriously? Wow, you must really be fun at parties...

Ok, let's talk art. You brought it up, and it's a great example of why you are wrong. Take modern art, someone painted a red cube on an otherwise empty, white canvas. Is that quality? If so, who decides that it's quality? Who gets to decide if other people should like it or not? What if I don't like it? What if I find it boring and uninspired? After all, it's just a frikkin' cube.

Now, let's apply this to film. I've already mentioned Plan 9 From Outer space as an example. It's been decided, by a majority of the worlds film critics that it is, indeed, one of the worst movies ever made. You must obviously agree with them, since film critics are some of the people who do get to decide if a film is of good quality or not. Still people watch it to this day, amazed and entertained by it. A whole lot of people, film snobs like yourself, would even admit to liking it, perhaps simply because it's so extremely horrible.

So, by reason, I've come to the logical conclusion that you are, indeed, an idiot. A pretentious, hypocrite idiot who thinks he's better than everyone else.

My guess is that even you liked Transformers, but are so ashamed of admitting it that you have to rip on someone else, just because you think you can. Me? I'm humble enough to admit to it. I'm comfortable enough in myself that I can disregard your opinion about the movies I watch, and about me.

Now, take your trolling behind with you and go harass someone else's taste in film. Let the rest of us enjoy whatever films we watch without your judgement and loathing, because we really don't need it.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] spicy_mchaggis-2 17 years ago

I thought this movie blew. it wasn't because I was shocked or disturbed by this movie. I've seen plenty of "disturbing" movies and usually tend to like them. Thats why I rented this in the first place. I just thought it was not engaging.

reply

[–] doviine 16 years ago

The most disturbing thing about this movie is the torturous pace at which it doesn't progress.

Whatever the reason for Gilliam's intro, his last comment that his inner child is a "little girl," is ironic -- if anything the movie is more like the viewpoint of a little boy, a sadly twisted little boy.

As for the artistic quality... about as appealing as a corpse with makeup... (no veiled reference intended).

Yes, there is a world of adult children who will believe they recognize children they mistakenly feel they understand in this film...

reply

[–] endemoniada-1 17 years ago

I just wanted to say that I'm leaving this discussion where it is, and letting those who read it form their own opinion about who's right. You're welcome to as many last words as you want, but I'm done here. I think I've exposed you enough as it is.

Thanks for playing, try harder next time and I hope we never have to make smalltalk at a party.

Good day.

-----
fairuza.net - endemoniada.org

reply

[–] mekootje 17 years ago

Endemoniada? Will you marry me?

_____________________________
Let me tell you a story to chill the bones

reply

[–] radioheadrcm 16 years ago

I was in 100% agreement with every single word you said. Although I didn't find Plan 9 to be as fun as I wanted it to be. /salute

reply

[–] Russian_buttermilk 17 years ago

will you marry me as well?

reply

[–] daniel_galvang 16 years ago

Well played endemoniada, I salute you!

reply

[–] jonly30 17 years ago

This is a really odd debate to read, especially since both involved like TIDELAND. But, frankly, I think it is really presumptuous, not to mention arrogant, to assume that just because someone enjoys Michael Bay's films they are now unqualified to love TIDELAND. What a very Cecil B. Demented thing to do, especially without considering the fact that people like all kinds of different films for all kinds of different reasons, more often than not for very personal reasons that have little to do with me...or you. Now I'm not a fan of Michael Bay, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss someone outright for enjoying his films.

But to be more to the point, if someone can like the fluff of Bay and still find TIDELAND to be a good movie I'd say they are a much more balanced film viewer than, let's say, the people who think Michael Bay is great but think TIDELAND is crap. Or, for that matter, the people who think TIDELAND is fantastic but hate Michael Bay. If only life were so black and white. I mean, it would be as arrogant as me dismissing someone's opinion just because they make a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes in their posts, and then drawing a line in the sand that only people who spell things correctly are entitled to truly like whatever it is I might be advocating. That sort of dogmatic stance is in keeping with the knee-jerk bile that has been spewed on TIDELAND already, a film many people and critics--not all of them Bay fans I'm sure--considered to be the height of pointless, bad filmmaking.

Anyway, the only thing I can think of as being worse than a Michael Bay film is needlessly attacking someone's personal preferences.

reply

[–] dave-829 17 years ago

"So, what seperates the real movie lovers form the underserning movie watchers is not the good moives they love"

And their spelling, I suppose.

reply

[–] adamgillett 16 years ago

Gosh, Memories-Of-Murder, you really are very stupid. You lambast Hitler as a defence for your own Fascism? Interesting. I'm sure you and Noam Chomsky would get along just fine.

More importantly than that though (if that's possible) is your inability to separate commercial blockbusters from art cinema. The former is a consumer good, manufactured to meet demographically measured comfort fittings, with foam-padded celluloid for extra safety. You buy your ticket (and as such are perfectly entitled to watch it and ask for similar to be produced - or do you plan on introducing censors in the Fourth Reich?) and you enjoy something that is tailored for light entertainment, a polished but rarely life-changing two hours out of your afternoon.

Art cinema, however, demands an exploration of form and narrative and adheres (or equally contravenes) myriad rules, to find a lexicon of film that can be manipulated and remarked upon - an academic exercise, essentially.

And yet even that is no longer true because, as your more intelligent conversational counterpart has been trying to bash into that thick skull of yours, we are in the age of Postmodernism, of total subjectivity and alienation. It's a whole new bright world where at least half of the art comes in the appreciation and debate of a work without often demanding much of the work itself.

Anyway, let's avoid getting too involved in explaining what Liberalism and Liberal art are - and I mean real Liberalism here, y'know, Gladstone, not the Democratic Party. You have chosen to codify your enjoyment. Most people just accept their value judgements. Some are able to adjust and adapt to the different purposes and textures of film. You are not. That's fine, but your astounding lack of understanding when it comes to the academic/artistic world (despite what you would have us believe), a world based on nothing concrete but logical debate (oh and no subjective argument has a definite ending, as you have also implied), serves to highlight that your 'code' has no concrete basis and applies just to you. And if you don't agree, there's nothing you can do about it but sulk, which won't win you many friends or film-watching companions.

reply

[–] leedavidodea 16 years ago

memories-of-murder, you said "Knowing what a good movie or a bad movie is is not a question of preferences, but a question of reason. "

load of waffle, first and foremost films are entertainment, escapism. Who are you to say which films achieve that and which don't, for absolutely anyone. You are being pompous.

reply

[–] freddyabba 16 years ago

you are aware that charlie kaufman doesn't actually have a twin, aren't you? that was just in the movie adaptation

which leads to another question: the writing of which of the two kaufman brothers did you like? the mindless action drivel donald wrote, or the sociopatic psychological nerdy stuff charlie tried to put out?

I do realise I am 8 months late, so nobody is going to answer this. too bad, I put a real effort in writing it

reply

[–] leedavidodea 16 years ago

I quote you: "Because you cannot love both TIDELAND and one of both miserable crap pieces of stupidity Bay "movies". You have to chose one or the other."

Load of waffle. You do not dictate the dynamics of taste.

reply

[–] Monknificent 11 years ago

Also, and maybe that's an unintended slip on the part of M-of-M, but he seems to be suggesting that Bay has only ever made two films in the entirety of his career!

reply

[–] Mr Blue-4 17 years ago

You have an incredibly narrow view of this film in particular and filmmaking in general. If you listen to the Terry Gilliam interview on the DVD, you'd perhaps learn how wrong your comment is.

reply

[–] mattlove 17 years ago

Thanks for trying to make a good point - one that was absolutely ignored in the spate of ad hominem and straw men responses. But you might as well try to make a poing in the comments on YouTube. People will never understand what you are trying to say.

reply

[–] dlbearcave-2 17 years ago

If you didn't like the movie or it made you feel uncomfortable turn it off. If you don't like this genre of movies do your research and avoid them. Jodelle Ferland is a talented and mature young lady with a great career ahead of her, I'm sure she would be offended with your 'egocentrical' need to tell her and her parents what to do. Do a little growing up and quit trying to force your narrow-minded moral opinions onto others.

reply

[–] little_mi 17 years ago

When I was little I had a doctor's toy kit which included a fake injection, and it never seemed inappropriate - neither to my parents, obviously - nor to myself, in hindsight. Jodelle Ferland was essentially participating in a grandiose version of play acting here, and it is testament to her formidable precocious talent that you felt so strongly while watching it.

As I understand it (it is shown in the extra features on the DVD) her mother was present throughout the shoot, and the filmmakers were careful as to how they arranged proceedings to make sure they didn't ask too much of her, given her age. As with Mysterious Skin, which similar arguments have been made about, it has been cleverly edited together to give a certain appearance, and it is perhaps also testament to the talent of the editor that you believed everything you saw.

I obviously wouldn't advocate the exploitation of children, or anyone else for that matter, for the sake of an artistic agenda, but I don't think that's what is going on here. Personally, I get more creeped out by the average kid's clothing line than I did watching this film. If you have TJ Hughes where you come from, there's a girls clothing range for ages approx 4-8 in there, whose brand name is "Minx". I don't think I need to point out how inappropriate that is. Kids, and girls especially, are increasingly being sold into an idea of fashion which encourages them to play up to a sexuality that they are simultaneously supposed to know nothing about. In this week's Grazia magazine, there is an advert for Dolce and Gabbana's Kids line (which is ridiculous enough already, let's face it) which features a girl of around 10, airbrushed to within an inch of her life, and wearing leopard print hot pants. In short, I think your concerns regarding this film are gravely misdirected.

It is extreme in some ways, yes, and undoubtedly an uncomfortable watch at times. But I think it is one of the only films I've seen which treats childhood as a real and complex experience that children have to engage and negotiate in, rather than something magical which happens in and around them. It is to Gilliam's credit that he includes all of the murky depths of adolescent imagination, and contrary to the OP's opinion, I think that it actually shows a great deal of respect for childhood and those who live in it.

reply

[–] schmat78 17 years ago

I thought the movie was great because it felt so wrong on the first look.
But then when you think about the movie it opens your eyes to a world that many of us -thanks god- never had to experience as a child but that actualy is part of the reality of many children.

My ex-girlfriend suffered from Borderline Syndrome as a result of her childhood (sexual abuse, violence etc.) therefore i read a lot about how this disease develops and how childrens mind react to these terrible things. A typical self-defense strategy that the childs mind develops is dissociation. The mind splits from the events in the reality and creates something more pleasent in the phantasy. I think this is what the movie was showing. The message of the movie was imo to create emphaty for abused/traumatized childs. This is in no way decadent or perverted because so many people just dont know what they do to the fragile minds of their kids.

Your post shows that you have this empathy for kids but you confused the message with the enemy.

reply