Tideland 2005. http 366weirdmovies. comВот, страничка дневника совсем, как говорится, «не в тему». Для вас, «англоязычные» и любопытствующие поэты:)) Что-то вроде русского сайта «Другое кино», но на английском. В частности, отличный обзор по фильму «Страна приливов» (Tideland). Фильм сам по себе значительное явление, как на мой взгляд. Желающие могут зарегистрироваться и даже прокомментировать какой-то из фильмов. Естественно, на английском:) Или предложить для комментария какой-то фильм, который вы посчитаете достаточно странным или необычным, либо культовым. 17. TIDELAND (2005) Apr.06, 2009 in Weird Movies “ Jeremy knew would be difficult, particularly because the film is very, very weird. “–Terry Gilliam COMMENTS: Tideland is a misunderstood film, which is not automatically the same thing as a great film. Popular and critical reaction to Terry Gilliam’s movie and the real-world terrors it tosses at it’s 9-year old protagonist was so devastating that the director affixed a defensive disclaimer on the front of the movie stating, “Many of you are not going to like this film…” He goes on to explain what should have been obvious to every viewer: “This film is seen through the eyes of a child. If it’s shocking, it’s because it’s innocent.” It’s a bit surreal that a proper discussion of Tideland must begin by addressing the controversy surrounding the subject matter of the film. Tideland is about a little girl with addicts for parents, who is abandoned to her own devices and who makes sense of the absurd adult world by using her active imagination to transform it into an equally absurd, but far more colorful and romantic, childhood world. This outline reads like the basic building blocks of an Important Work of Art. It’s the kind of story that’s too depressing for massive mainstream consumption, but seems tailor made for the critics. If the same story had been told as a relatively straightforward drama, it might indeed have been lauded as a brave and incisive work of art (as was Mitch Cullin’s source novel). But something happens between that one-line thematic blurb and the film that finally appears. Gilliam places such powerful, grotesque imagery on the screen–although it’s often transformed by Jeliza-Rose’s overwhelming imagination into something innocent and beautiful–that he lost the goodwill of most of the critics. There are two scenes in particular that send audiences rushing to the exits. The first is an early scene where Jeliza-Rose cooks heroin for her rock n’ roller daddy, then injects him. This scene shouldn’t seriously shock anyone, although it should serve notice to those with weak stomachs for human frailties that they may want to select more amiable escapist fare. In a movie with many bizarre and improbable flourishes, this is one note that rings uniquely true; a junkie father might really assign that task to his daughter, and the daughter would probably treat it as a regular chore, like washing the dishes. The girl has no adult knowledge or fear of heroin or syringes; it’s simply something she does for her beloved daddy nightly, and the only effect she notices is that papa drifts off into a dream of his own. Through Jeliza-Rose’s eyes, there’s nothing degraded in her duty; the audience alone supplies that judgment. The other ”offensive” scene, for those who haven’t been chased away yet, occurs at the very end of the film. Jeliza-Rose and the developmentally disabled adult Dickens have been developing a tense but sweet pseudo-romance throughout the third act. This innocent flirtation comes to a deliberately provocative boil near the end of the movie when the ersatz couple’s lovey-dovey kissy-poo games threaten to develop into something unspeakable. Again, Jeliza-Rose is innocent; she knows nothing of adult sexuality, and imagines that babies come from kissing. Dickens, who himself has the mind of a 9-year old, is equally blameless. He has been nothing but playful and chivalrous towards Jeliza-Rose, but we can’t forget that though he’s psychologically a boy, he is biologically an adult male, and he may not be able to control himself or even understand what he is doing if he’s overcome by natural impulses. Gilliam pushes the inherent ironic tension between the innocence of these characters and the horror of what we fear might, and pray not, happen as far as he can, building our apprehension to an almost unbearable pitch. It’s a masterful directorial manipulation in which we are forced to supply the terror the characters cannot, and it’s the one experience that many audiences cannot forgive Gilliam for putting them through. There’s hypocrisy in that judgment, however. The scene is provocative, but not exploitative. It’s not meant to titillate pedophiles in the audience, or thrown out carelessly to shock. It’s a scene that’s filled with intense human drama (because such a scenario is imaginable) and artistic effect (because of its immiscible blend of purity and sinfulness). By putting two views simultaneously before the viewer, the innocent childish interpretation, and a cynical adult one, the scene is calculated to force the audience to reflect on its own role in creating the drama, not merely to satisfy morbid lust. Were a director to build up the same sort of Hitchcockian tension using a homicidal stalker and a woman who doesn’t know she was being hunted, audiences wouldn’t bat an eyelash, but would instead delight in the deliciously edgy suspense. But place a child in the same position, and put the oblivious victim in danger not of her life but of her virtue, and the reaction flips. We’re jaded to the murder of adults (or sexually mature teenagers), which is standard entertainment in blockbuster thrillers. Gillaim has found one of our few remaining cinematic taboos to milk, and some people simply believe that this part of human existence must be permanently hidden from view, however honorably the subject is approached. I disagree. The one legitimate criticism that arises from this line of thinking is that the child actor’s own innocence might have been compromised by the performance. It’s a reasonable possibility, but one that suggests that we’re still projecting our own knowledge of the filthiness of the adult world onto children. There’s no reason that the actress Jodelle Ferland had to understand the mature aspects of the script any more than the character Jeliza-Rose did: in fact, such an understanding might have jeopardized her ability to project the necessary innocence. It’s doubtful that the director or crew sat her down before scenes and explained to her the horrors of heroin addiction, or the mechanics of adult intercourse, in graphic detail. The fantasy sequences are visually sumptuous, especially the underwater centerpiece. They also are the key to the redemption-through-imagination theme of the film. When Jeliza-Rose imagines three of her lost doll’s heads flying around happily inside the cathedral-like ribcage of her father, we realize how essential her fantasy world is for her to survive her real-life losses. The film as a whole is far from perfect, however. The audacity of Tideland’s vision is strong enough to buoy it above sea level, but the execution is often questionable. The real problem with the film is that it’s fairly clear where Jeliza-Rose’s imaginary world ends, and the real world begins, but there is not enough contrast between the two. Tideland’s reality is too bizarre. Jeliza-Rose’s choice is not between reality and fantasy, but between an irrational dream and an irrational nightmare. There are too many false notes in the “real” world. Jennifer Tilly’s plays the improbably named “Queen Gunhilda” unrealistically as the ultimate trailer-trash parody. But the little girl’s casual acceptance of even such a queer mother’s death, her complete lack of bereavement, is so implausible that it leaves a sour steak on her otherwise lollipop-sweet charm. And the entire character of Dell, who at the same time is every kid’s inner picture of a witch, yet another irresponsible and completely self-absorbed adult, and the single most disturbed exhibit in Tideland’s menagerie of weirdos, goes a step too far. It’s no fault of actress Janet McTeel, who plays the role given her well, but Dell is superfluously weird; it’s just too inconceivable to think that yet another bizarre character could be thrown in our poor waif’s path. Jeliza-Rose deserved at least one real adult to interact with before the credits started to roll. A movie that posits two levels of reality should play fair in at least one; reality should be something relatively recognizable, so the fantasy world can provide a legitimate flipside. The movie also suffers from pacing problems. It meanders about episodically for almost an hour before recognizing that the friendship between Dickens and Jeliza-Rose is the driving force behind the narrative. More importantly, the ending is too abrupt. The heroine is placed in horrible jeopardy, but yanked away to safety at the last possible moment. Although some plot elements come together at the end, the resolution is rushed, and in the end we feel like we’ve suddenly been awakened from a dream by a frantic alarm. http://366weirdmovies.com/17-tideland-2005/ © Copyright: Ирина Гончарова1, 2009.
Другие статьи в литературном дневнике:
|
