Little Children

email this story
read comments (11)
post a comment

The first words that came out my mouth this afternoon as I watched the closing credits of Todd Field's Little Children were "very interesting." It's a wee bit cold and a little bit strange, but it's also a very poised (i.e., stylized but not overly so), carefully composed art film -- and as such it has my complete respect.

That sounds like I'm holding back, doesn't it? I'm not trying to. I just don't know how else to put it.

It's less naturalistically moving than Fields' In The Bedroom, but then it's a step up from that film -- Fields isn't trying for similar moods and tones. It's certainly one of the most impressive suburban malaise films I've ever seen, in part because the feelings of dread are constant and unnerving. Every step of the way you're thinking, "Something really bad might happen here."

This is not a film looking to warm anyone's heart -- that's for sure. And yet it brings compassion and insight and exquisite humor to its story, which is based on a novel by Tom Perrotta (who also wrote Election), who co-scripted with Fields. It's a story about characters and situations that I partly recognize and certainly believe in, with almost every one seriously handicapped in one way or another.

Little Children may be better than I'm able to give it credit for right now, three hours after seeing it at the Varsity. I know I haven't seen anything like it in a long, long while. It's immensely satisfying and pleasurable to watch a film as ambitious and precise and high-strung as this, and yet it's not a soother. This said, I'm not sure if it's an Oscar derby movie or not. I can see how some might find it too queer for their tastes, and I can see some being excited --- turned on -- by its apart-ness.

This is a film about emotionally arrested adults -- 30- and 40-somethings who desperately need to live in their own private dreamspaces, and hang the consequences.

I really loved the perfectly phrased narration (read by Will Lyman), which reminds me somewhat of the dry, sardonic narration in Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. The turn-off element, I suspect, will be the sex-offender character (played by Jackie Earle Haley). He's a sad, self-torturing, pathetic, very real person -- a character I'm not likely to forget. Kudos to Earle for bringing something (don't know what exactly) really fascinating to it.

Kate Winslet's performance, it seems to me, is a near-lock for a Best Actress nom, and I was totally knocked out by how good Patrick Wilson is -- it's the best thing he's ever done so far, and I'm including his superb acting in in Mike Nichols' Angels Over America. Jennifer Connelly also, I feel, outdoes herself here.

If nothing else, this is a fascinating things-are-fucked-up-in-surburbia movie. Everyone needs to see it and chew it over. I plan on seeing it at least another couple of times.

James on "Apocalypto"<< previous | next >>Del Toro pix

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 10, 2006 at 1:35 PM

comment #1

rr3333 says ...

JACKIE EARLE HALEY!?!?!?

Where have you been?

27 years since 'Breaking Away'. Welcome Back!

Posted by rr3333 at September 10, 2006 5:18 PM

comment #2

nemo says ...

Hey, don't forget Jackie Earle Haley as that cigarette-smoking beer-drinking motorbike-driving 14-year-old hoodlum pitching for the Bad News Bears in 1976. He was as real as the day is long, and even a crusty old pro like Walter Matthau had his hands full keeping Haley from stealing scenes out from under him.

Posted by nemo at September 10, 2006 5:44 PM

comment #3

jesse says ...

I just finished the novel, and what you've described sounds *very* faithful. There are some novels I've loved yet taken months to read, on and off; though Little Children (the book) is far from perfect, I tore through that bastard in about four days. It's not a thriller, yet keeps you on a weird kind of edge, as you describe about the movie -- the feeling of dread, like something bad is about to happen. One of my concerns is that in the book, who I understand to be the Jennifer Connelly character is supposed to be way prettier than the Kate Winslet character, and Winslet looks gorgeous in the trailer. But maybe that's just me.

Posted by jesse at September 10, 2006 6:55 PM

comment #4

Nate West says ...

"Cold" and "strange"! Well, I'm sold; that's for certain.

Posted by Nate West at September 11, 2006 2:49 AM

comment #5

JohnCope says ...

Jesse, I just read the book myself and was very impressed with it as well. It is a startlingly nuanced piece of work with a very real understanding of the vulnerabilities and variables of its characters. Having said that though I would certainly not be opposed to the ending being changed (which, evidently, it has been). The last few pages are where things fell apart for me. Up until that point Perrotta had done an excellent job of developing his characters in hazy shades of ambiguity; our initial sympathies allowed to drain away, replaced by a sense that these are deeply pathetic people who might allow for or accept tragedy if it provided them the opportunities they thought they wanted in the moment. Jeff is dead on when he says "This is a film about emotionally arrested adults -- 30- and 40-somethings who desperately need to live in their own private dreamspaces, and hang the consequences." But this is where Perrotta's novel ultimately falls short. I think he gives his characters too much credit and the reader is let off the hook, pacified and not forced to consider the implications of what has been building all along. Everything returns to a kind of normalcy while all the central characters are allowed to reach a self-understanding and often handed pat emotional resolution. Hopefully Field solves this vexing problem.

Posted by JohnCope at September 11, 2006 11:02 AM

comment #6

JohnCope says ...

Oh, as to your point about Winslet being too beautiful--you're absolutely right. But, I figure this is part of the adjustments made to Perrotta's central narrative, not just some commercial concession. Anyway, as I read the novel I began to see why Field might want to change this aspect of things. Without constantly living in Todd's (excuse me, Brad's) skull we wouldn't fully understand the significance to him of cheating on his wife with a woman who is nowhere near as beautiful (and you are right--this is stressed again and again in the text). The ideas here are part of what Perrotta got so right; the nuances I mentioned. But a film which is likely to exist primarily through surface tension, despite the use of the narrator's satirical asides, may very well have its emphases elsewhere and the careful, quiet delineation of what separates Sarah from Kathy might simply distract from Field's larger purpose.

Posted by JohnCope at September 11, 2006 11:12 AM

comment #7

JD says ...

I think I know where Jeff is coming from (for once). I just saw this movie and it's both extremely impressive and slightly disappointing. Overall, its many strengths make up for its weaknesses, but its structure is kind of sloppy, whole plot threads seem oddly ineffective (the skateboarding stuff, the football stuff) it's extremely heavy-handed at times, too many scenes toward the end reach for big "meaning," and Jennifer Connelly is given absolutely nothing to do. Thinking back on it, I barely even noticed that she's in this movie. Very weird. But great performances are delivered by Wilson (and I despised Wilson's performance in Hard Candy), Winslet, Haley, and the woman who plays his mother. And the narration is amazing. At first, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, as it almost sounds like HAL 9000 is delivering the narration, but it grew on me and eventually evened-out the movie with the kind of comic energy that was lacking in In the Bedroom. Overall, it's a forceful and unique movie.

Posted by JD at September 11, 2006 10:23 PM

comment #8

thatmovieguy says ...

It's a depth-charge film for sure, the kind that doesn't truly hit you until you're on your way home from the theater. And will parts of it ever hit home with certain audiences (quotes from the narration follow): "Brad showered quickly, sensing a rare opportunity to have sex with his wife"; "Her evening fitness walk was the one thing she looked forward to all day"; "Brad waited for his good sense to kick in," etc. Outstanding performances from everyone. Field heightens their impact by shooting most of the toughest emotional moments in lengthy takes, much like Nicole Kidman's big monologue in EYES WIDE SHUT. The movie takes you all over the map and drops you off in a place you don't expect. What a journey.

Posted by thatmovieguy at September 12, 2006 8:53 PM

comment #9

CitizenFilm24fps says ...

Saw the film in Toronto and thought Jeff's comments were spot on. A very weird feeling walking out of that screening. But I must say that having sat with it for a few days, I find the film has haunted me. It was not a comfortable experience, exactly, but the film's power and impact has most definitelty surpised me. I keep thinking about those characters and what they went through and how they survived. The sex offender (Jackie Earle Haley) and the ex-cop (Noah Emmerich) have really stuck with me somehow. While Brad and Sarah's midlife romantic fantasies as an escape from suburban malaise was an effective engine for this story, I am struck by the staying power of those characters. It's rare (and always amazing) for me when characters come off the screen and penetrate my conscience and imagination in a profound way, and this film definitely delivers that experience. Looking forward to seeing it again in October.

Posted by CitizenFilm24fps at September 13, 2006 11:43 PM

comment #10