Why I feel this movie didn't work

This was basically the same movie as "Searching for Bobby Fisher" (2 years later) which I felt was done better with more enthusiasms and a much more likable kid.


It wasn't a bad movie, but like you, I felt it didn't really have anything to say.

I refuse to change my position just because you use logic

reply share

add reply

formatting help

1) I wasn't impressed with the kid. I'm sorry, I know lots of you will hate me because you think he was cute, and at least one person said his performance was nuanced, but I found him unconvincing and one-dimensional. There have been many child actors over the years who have mightily impressed me with their intelligence, talent, insight, maturity, wisdom, and subtlety. It's actually quite a long list, so I'm not that hard to please. But this kid just didn't excite me. I love nothing more than 'discovering' an outstandingly talented child actor, and thinking, "Wow! That kid's gonna go far!" I didn't have that reaction while watching Little Man Tate.

I can see your point, its a matter of personal taste, I found his performance interesting. He plays a stoic, sensitive, but realistic child. He's not Haley Joel Osment stoic, which I think just comes off as creepy and over the top. However, he's also not dewey eyed or cutesy wutesy like most kid actors. He kind of reminded me of myself when I was that young, minus the genius part. I was pretty unremarkable and quiet at that age, so I found his "spiritual" performance very realistic of most 6-8 year olds.

2) The whole mood of the film seemed flat and uninspired. Surprising for a directorial debut. I would have thought a first-time director would be a little more excited about their movie, and that it would show on the screen.

Interesting point. What exactly was it about the production techniques that bothered you? Sometimes I find that people put great expectations on directorial debuts, but many of them end up being underwhelmed because they don't realize that directors evolve over time. If one starts out great, then where is there to go? Take Orson Welles, look at the expectations people had of him? He made a great movie at the start of his career and nothing he made afterward has been as lauded since.

3) The story itself is somewhat uninspired, predictable, and pedestrian. It seems to hang its entire success on the notion that a child being unusually gifted is story enough; that being a 'genius' is enough dimensionality for the central character. The conflict between the 'mother' and the 'teacher' plays out in an entirely predictable way too - even to the extent that they are not one-dimensionally good or bad. I know it seems like I'm criticising these characters for not being one-dimensional, and I suppose in a way I am. But only because the extra dimensions to each character were such obvious choices. And it gave the feeling that the film was almost self-consciously saying, "look, these characters are multidimensional. Aren't we clever!" Well, sure. They had two whole dimensions each. Big deal. I wanted at least three!

What's wrong with pedestrian? I find this concept often is used in low key, artistic films. I prefer it to the bombastic and obnoxious storytelling we often get with Hollywood films.

The character of Fred Tate is lonely, it has nothing to do with his "genius" and more to do with the fact that he just doesn't fit in anywhere he goes. He doesn't do or say the right thing, he's easily distracted and walks into things/knocks things over/nearly walks into the street.

5) I was a kid much like Fred Tate. Initially people thought I was retarded. Then autistic. Then they realised I was just bored. I got sent to a school for gifted kids, and spent some time entertaining adults with my superior intellect and talents. I had no friends, either at my 'normal' school, or at the 'special' school. All I wanted was to fit in and be liked. Like Fred, I had a mother who loved me and provided emotional support. Unlike Fred, I had parents who were also intelligent, cultured, and highly literate. So I was luckier than him. However, because of my difficulties with social interaction, I was bullied mercilessly at school and ended up dropping out at age 14.

The parallels between my own experiences and those depicted in the movie should have helped me to enjoy it. But, and here is the ultimate point of this rather overwritten post...

It didn't seem to come from anyone's own personal experiences. It felt like someone said, "Hey, let's make a movie about a genius kid. He'll do complicated sums really fast, and play the piano, and write poetry and stuff. It'll be neat!"

I'd have preferred an honest portrait of a real kid who went through life knowing that his 'gift' was more of a 'curse'. This movie failed because it kind of promised that, but didn't deliver.

You do make some valid points and I can see that your personal experience has very much influenced your opinion of this film. That's fine, your experience is a valid one that deserves to be told. I don't think I need to point out that not everyone goes through the same thing you did, but the film did portray a sense of loneliness that many child prodigies experience. It seemed that as soon as Fred encountered people more like himself, he made friends more easily.

I think you had expectations for this film that it just couldn't live up to. But I personally think it did a decent job of portraying the trials and tribulations of being a child genius. Even if it doesn't go as deep as you wanted it to, at least it explores the subject instead of glorifying it like most Hollywood films tend to do.

I thought a really interesting aspect of the film was how Fred Tate dumbed himself down as a way to rebel. I've noticed many intellectual people end up doing this in public as a way of reconciling their genius with their real world. Fred does eventually enroll at Jane's institute, but he keeps a reality check about himself. I have to wonder if this type of behavior helps or hurts an intellectual. I guess it shows that intelligent people know that happiness comes from something other than the pursuit of excellence, but the support and love of others. So I believe it does portray the message you were looking for, just not in the way you experienced.

Maybe you should make your own movie or novel based on the experience. There's so little on this subject.

I didn't care for Searching for Bobby Fischer, I just found it a bit cliche. Little Man Tate had a subtlety to it that I appreciate from my cinema.

Of course, that's just my personal view. Hey, I loved Kick-Ass, so what the hell do I know?!

Well, as you said earlier, you were a child genius so clearly you know a lot. Don't sell yourself short.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Agreed. I also saw it when it came out, and I just saw it again now, almost 25 years later. I didn't care too much about the kid. In fact, I cared more about the kid in the cape than the main character. The kid in the cape was at least giving us something to care about. But Fred? There was no there there. He was just a blank. Even when he was calling his mother a lepton, there was nothing going on.

As someone else mentioned, Searching for Bobby Fischer was a story very much like this one, and it was much, much better. Mostly because I cared about, and liked, the kid. And the struggle over the kid's "soul", as it was, was much better portrayed by the conflict between Joan Allen and Joe Mantegna there than it was between Jodi Foster and Dianne Wiest here. This movie just didn't get there.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply share

add reply

formatting help