When I first saw Tideland , I thought Gilliam was pulling our leg at the beginning, that it was part of the joke. But after a while through the movie, I realize that it is kind of important that he says what he does. It’s difficult to understand Jeliza-Rose’s motivations when you see the story from an adult perspective—you see things that make your mind scream “Run away! Get out of there! This is dangerous and bad!” But if you remember childhood, the part of childhood that had you picking up poisonous snakes without a thought when later even non-poisonous snakes gave you the willies, the part of childhood where you played with anyone even remotely your own age and didn’t understand why parents got upset about the bully-ness of the kid, the part of childhood where you stared at the handicapped not out of judgment, but because you were very curious and wanted to ask questions—and then take that into context with Jeliza-Rose’s history, where drug use, profanity, rock & roll lifestyle, little education, few friends, and just general parental misconduct was the rule of being raised, you get a pretty respectable story going on there.
However, even with that explanation, still people got squeamish and couldn’t see past a suspension of disbelief. I think Gilliam realized as he was making this movie how personal it was, and tried to communicate that, but as I said his introduction makes him sound like he’s putting the audience on, so once again he goes a bit misunderstood. I think Tideland fared very poorly and it’s yet another in a long line of Gilliam’s struggles to explain himself, but it’s one of his finest movies to date and I wish it got more respect. I do not know that many people personally who liked this movie, amongst those who saw it. It saddens me.
It’s interesting to compare this movie to Bridge to Terabithia, as well. Both movies are the closest to how I felt as a child than most of what I’ve seen. Bridge to Terabithia unfortunately got mismarketed as another Narnia, which says something about intent, but nevertheless similarly to Tideland at points the characters are somewhat in danger but completely oblivious because of their fantasy. I’m very attached to these two movies because I sort of remember being the child featured, though in Jeliza-Rose’s case more metaphorically than in personality. Terabithia had an incredibly subtle ominousness about it, whereas Tideland beats that ominousness about the head. However, I think everyone was supposed to have read the book on the former movie first, so the surprising ending to ME was probably much less effective to other people, and I’m sure Tideland disconcerted just about everyone.
—PolarisDiB
…another in a long line of Gilliam’s struggles to explain himself
That was what I was alluding to – it is what his intro + film left me feeling – the guy is trying to explain himself.
But Polaris, he using a book written by another guy to make a film where he sees his ‘child’ through a 9-year-old girl.
IS THAT SO WRONG?
I realize that it is kind of important that he says what he does. It’s difficult to understand Jeliza-Rose’s motivations when you see the story from an adult perspective—you see things that make your mind scream “Run away! Get out of there!
So we have a film where none of that happens – I wasn’t the slightest nit squeamish – that was okay for me, but it didn’t go anywhere. And worse, Dickens takes over the film and does something completely expected – dramatically.
“So we have a film where none of that happens – I wasn’t the slightest nit squeamish – that was okay for me, but it didn’t go anywhere.”
I just completely disagree. However, I do not really know how the film failed to make you uneasy, so I cannot convince you that that was what it was trying to do. To me, it seemed clear.
“Dickens takes over the film and does something completely expected – dramatically.”
It’s sort of one of those death wish sequences. Dickens laid the bullets on the track but really its Jeliza-Rose’s last resource of escape. However, the important thing shown here is the reasons why she wanted to escape: it’s not because she realized how bad off she was on this abandoned farm with crazy people, it’s not because she matured, it’s not because she wanted to all along, it’s because crazy one-eyed psycho lady pissed Jeliza-Rose off and Jeliza-Rose essentially runs away in a hissy fit. It’s sort of brilliant because again, one watches the movie wishing for child services to appear, but actually it’s just the natural tendency of children to get huffy when situations turn out in ways that don’t please them that resolves that conflict. Jeliza-Rose is as childish in her selfishness as she is in her innocence.
—PolarisDiB
Tideland beats that ominousness about the head
And ominousness is something I didn’t get – no real conflict, no uh, tension except for the sexuality between the two, which was there but not compelling. Maybe b/c it was too obvious.
Too much beauty.
The train blowing by, screams or are they laughter
Cadavers of the newly dead a closer father figure
Swimming in fields of ripe gold evading sharks
while rot is mistaken as a fart joke
These are characters that should be touching because they help one another survive, except that at any given moment it seems more like they’re likely to get themselves hospitalized, but that the ambulance will never arrive. All of them seem on the brink of insanity—Jeliza-Rose with her overimagination, Dickens with his epilepsy, Dell with just… about everything. Everything Jeliza-Rose stares at with wonder and amazement, as if the movie is The Secret Garden or something, is something that if it walked into your house off the street you’d have a heart attack.
—PolarisDiB
…brilliant because again, one watches the movie wishing for child services to appear…
Okay, so we cycle back to the intro, which I guess took out the tension for me.
I did enjoy the film, but for the wrong reasons.
Well nobody seems to agree with my assessment of it, so maybe I am the one that is wrong. Here is a quote from my original review of it, I remember writing it about five minutes after I left the theatre (it was on campus right next to the computer lab):
“The screening of this film I attended began with an introduction by Terry Gilliam where he urged the audience to forget everything they learned, return to a state of innocence, and laugh. “If this film is shocking,” he said, “it is only because it is innocent.” Usually I don’t like people telling me what to think about something before I see it, instead preferring the film to speak for itself, but in this case it’s acceptable because that’s precisely what anyone watching this movie must do: they must see from the eyes of a child and remove their grudges, else they may miss what is really going on.
The thing is, this film is filled with characters that are modern bugbear’s to contemporary society: heroin addicted rockabilly fathers, fat white trash mothers, the mentally disabled… but these people are family and friends to young Joliza-Rose, who is more afraid of bog people and witches than the people who manage somehow through their dysfunction to habit her life and take care of her. These characters come off as extremely disturbing to the adult mind because they are uncomfortable reminders of the difficult lot of human beings, but from a little girl’s eyes they are just as good people as anyone else, and are worth listening to."
My view of the movie has darkened somewhat over time. At any rate, I haven’t yet met a person who sees it the same way I did, so there ya go.
—PolarisDiB
Well nobody seems to agree with my assessment of it, so maybe I am the one that is wrong.
Ha! you can make any or every film sound good !
You are correct about the central theme and he does accomplish that – especially with use of the dead father figure.
agree with Polaris but i just can’t put a good spin on the ending. she just seems oblivious to the moral and physical chaos around her, like she is in a daze, or on the brick of madness. or something.
i don’t think all the ‘ominous’ moments are in your face though, and i still think the movie is too long.
either way, it’s probably the closest Gilliam has come to making an out and out ‘art film’. i guess.
Yeah, Gilliam sort of drops the ball on the ending because he goes for something that looks like it’s supposed to be meaningful, but would have been more sensible if she had just ran to that woman crying or something.
Gilliam doesn’t do endings well. This is just what is. In Brazil he lucks out because his lack-of-doing-endings-well becomes spectacular and unique in a way that just cannot be argued with even though there’s really no good reason for it.
Poor Gilliam. Honestly its lucky he manages to get the budgets and output the quality he does, because if he had any less of a fan base I’m pretty sure he’d be permanently in the b-movie market. It doesn’t help that he pissed off Joel Silver, but that’s another story.
—PolarisDiB
^^he is lucky he got another chance after Manchuasen i think. That was almost nearly a Heaven’s Gate style fiasco.
Robert W Peabody III
Many threads discuss artist intent as a way to find the meaning of a film.
Gilliam begins Tideland by telling us his intent: the film is the fantasy/reality world seen through the eyes of a young girl.
Obviously, we do not know the world in that manner and we must accept what we see.
Does that make for good cinema?
Yes, if we are shown the rough edges of that fantasy and reality world.
Film as a mix of fantasy and reality, succeeds when fantasy and reality bump up against each other and makes us uncomfortable and provokes us to think – specifically in allegorical terms.
In Tideland much of Jodelle Ferland’s (Jeliza-Rose) fantasy/ reality is taken over by Brendan Fletcher’s (Dickens) fantasy/ reality. The film shifts from the little girl’s perspective to another character’s sense of agency, which carries much more narrative weight.
Perhaps Gilliam’s stated intent gets confused in the film’s intent: God is a camera. (00:02:25)