MovieChat Forums > Flowers in the Attic (2014) Discussion > Why did they take this approach? Seems l...

Why did they take this approach? Seems like it undermines itself.

posted 9 years ago by blakkdog
15 replies | jump to latest

So this film deals with some very unpalatable topics. And it is, I THINK, meant to be dark and tragic and a little disturbing. But they present it in a way that seems very vanilla and kind of homogenized. There is no edge to it whatsoever. A film like this would really work better if it was made WITH an edge. And a serious edge considering the material. And with more emotion, and more in your face cringe-worthy scenes of tension and instability and psychological breakdown which should be inevitable considering the circumstances. But we dont really get any of that. Even as the most disturbing things are unfolding everything is neat and calm and mild mannered and not really dark. And it does a disservice to the impact of the story. It hijacks its best strength. In fact it only occurred to me at the end that I had been watching a film that actually featured on screen underage incest, horrific child abuse, psychological torture and filicide. I remember thinking why wasnt I more disturbed?

This film sure seems like a huge opportunity wasted.

---
Using words to describe art is like using a screw driver to cut roast beef.

[–] max_demian 9 years ago

Yeah they should have shown the kids actually having sex. And been played by real life brother and sister.

[–] Sunflower007 9 years ago

~ Too be frank; I didn't think that LifetimeTV would have shown the sex scene between Cathy and Christopher. Also the movie seemed quite short and missing other scenes that were in the book, but the movie.😓

*~❇~*

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
🎶
De aquel amor
de musica ligera
nada nos libra
nada mas queda

- Soda Stereo 🎤

Descanse en paz Gustavo Cerati

[–] blakkdog 9 years ago

dude theres porn on the internet of that if thats your thing. just the fact that they had sex was enough but they go nowhere with it. and anyway I was referring to the overall feel of the film considering the circumstances. its too peaches and cream. its too even keel despite everything. they were locked up in a room for YEARS. abandoned by their own parent. i would have gone insane. i would have killed the grandmother. have someone just lose it mentally in a horrific hard to watch scene. have someone start harming themselves or each other. all these are fairly likely scenarios under such circumstances. have the little sister hurl herself to her death off the roof. something... This film should be a rough watch considering the circumstances. instead it comes off as a Disney film featuring torture and child abuse.

---
Using words to describe art is like using a screw driver to cut roast beef.

[–] Pinhead-lament 9 years ago

In all due respect, you had started this topic because you didn't like the staging when it seems obvious you knew the platform it was being made for. So that shouldn't have been that much of a surprise.

Then down here you turn it into a characters didn't act like you so it's not good enough.

Cripes. Are we supposed to want to agree with you or be annoyed?

[–] blakkdog 9 years ago

What exactly do you mean by "platform"? Are you trying to say this was a story strictly designed for kids or young adults and therefore couldnt go in the direction Im talking about and had to present itself in a lifeless boring unrealistic vanilla way that didnt really make sense in the context? If so, why make it at all? The story, at base, is a horrific tale of torture and child abuse and incest and murder. And its ok to sleep walk happily through these events which are, by their very nature, traumatizing and generally horrific? Its like saying we shouldnt be surprised that a movie about Auschwitz would feature only mild tension and well groomed prisoners who, despite their plight, always look great and make a happy little home for themselves in their barracks because, you know, anything else might spook the designed target.

Im not asking for this to be a horror movie, Im saying it should at least be honest and consistant. Or at LEAST feature acting that doesnt seem like they are purposefully trying to wring any emotion out of the story for safety reasons.

If you want to watch a kids movie with a little tension but no real frightening traumatic aspects then go watch Lassie. Otherwise, its perfectly relevant to complain about how incongruous it feels to try to purposefully present story points completely devoid of what should be their natural context. Frankly I feel this had real potential being interpreted in the way I described (youre ok with artistic license, right?). It seems begging for that. Not a white washing of anything tough to watch or emotionally intense (or in fact any real emotion at all). And to ask why they choose to take an approach that lends itself to mediocrity and disjointed inconsistency doesn’t seem like such an outrageous or “annoying” question in the least.

---
http://letterboxd.com/blakkdog/

[–] Catnip86 9 years ago

That's what some people seem to need to enjoy the movie.

[–] eskimogeisha 9 years ago

Try reading Wes Craven's screenplay for Flowers in the Attic (it's around on the web). He wrote it before the abominable 1987 movie and it reads much darker (and includes a "proper" sex scene, although it's not rape as in the book.

However, like the 1987 movie it has a stupid ending, and it also has a mute/mentally challenged malevolent groundskeeper doing Grandmother's bidding, chasing the kids around with an ax etc. Golly lolly. It was more of a horror scenario, I guess, and went too far in that direction. Lifetime's was mild by comparison. I'm hanging out for a halfway version, preferably a mini-series to give the story more time, with emotions running a bit more raw.

[–] DireWolfCurse 8 years ago

Did you actually read the book? Cathy was NOT raped in the book. The writing is a little terrible, but she "wanted what he wanted". The wording is bad, because she said "he forced" but she was a virgin if you recall. Go back and re-read it. People are really hell-bent on rape these days, SMH

[–] drxcreatures 8 years ago

It was still a rape. She fought him and he forced himself on her.

http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com

[–] Elphie_Tiggular 8 years ago

The rape aspect of FitA has been debated for years...and to be honest, I think Andrews deliberately wrote that scene / experience to be interpreted as you see fit (though obviously, Cathy does at first place the emphasis on Christopher...hence why the rape has always been discussed):

We fell to the floor, both of us. I tried to fight him off. We wrestled, turning over and over, writhing, silent, a frantic struggle of his strength against mine. It wasn't much of a battle. I had the strong dancer's legs; he had the biceps, the greater weight and height...and he had much more determination than I to use something hot, swollen and demanding, so much it stole reasoning and sanity from him.

And then shift to Cathy's submission to Christopher:

And I loved him. I wanted what he wanted - if he wanted it that much, right or wrong.

You cannot deny that she says she had to fight against Christopher, refers to the experience as a battle, and says that he was determined to do so. Personally, I would say that could be essentially read as forced... 😕

ELPHABA: Eleka Nahmen Nahmen Ah Tum Ah Tum Eleka Nahmen.

[–] UpperEastSider 9 years ago

I think you're forgetting that this is a Lifetime movie. Had this been released by Warner Brothers, you probably would have gotten something a little closer to what you were looking for.

Respect what you have 🌌

[–] emmareden 9 years ago

I think it's partially because obviously it's a lifetime film and they have their own style and limits.

I think nobody lost it, because, other than Cathy, they all really believed their mom would come back and everything would be good for them. At least for 3/4 of the movie they all really believed in their mom and that's why none of them totally lost it.

You see the distrust in Cathy more subtly, like counting the days, few arguments with the mom, trying to point out to Christopher that everything is not 'fine' and their mom has been gone for a week, 3 months, etc.

I think sometimes the calmness of it makes it almost even more creepy. They're just so accepting of the situation they're in. It really has to build up before they get any fight into them which is when they finally start sneaking around and running away. Sometimes not seeing everything that happens and leaving it to the imagination can be more disturbing than showing everything!

It's much more a slow-burn kinda film than a full on thriller or anything. It's just a different style of story-telling. Doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, just mmight not be of your taste!

[–] kparis042006 8 years ago

I agree!

[–] Jack_Brock 8 years ago

The movie did seem too homogenized considering the material. The book itself seems rather trashy though.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me!!

[–] kparis042006 8 years ago

If you have read the entire Flowers In the Attic series by VC Andrews you would understand why the movie is the way it is. They followed to book to a tee. I think they did an awesome job!!! The original left so much out, the most important information gotten in this one. Check it out you'll see. The acting sucked though, but they landed it as far as making the movie follow the book.