MovieChat Forums > Oasiseu (2004) Discussion > Parallels between 'Tideland' and 'Oasis'

Parallels between 'Tideland' and 'Oasis'


I just saw Terry Gilliam's "Tideland", and I'm still digesting it. On one hand, I think it's a masterpiece. It's unconventional, surreal, and has an amazing lead and perfect supporting characters. On the other hand, it's creepy and feels exploitative, even though objectively it is not. I see a lot of parallels between this movie and "Oasis", which is one of my top 10 favorite films.

Off the top of my head:
1) Both movies deal with unconventional romantic or semi-romantic relationships between the leads.
2) Both have a retarded male love interest.
3) Both have an abusive and neglectful sister as a primary caregiver (In "Oasis" it's the girl's sister, in Tideland it's the boy's sister).
4) Both movies incorporate fantasy and surrealism.
5) Both have female leads who are extremely and literally isolated, both physically and mentally.
6) Both female leads have serious health problems (In "Oasis", Gong-ju has CP, in "Tideland", Jeliza-Rose spits blood and is severely malnourished).
7) In both films, "nothing" happens for large amounts of time. This can be disconcerting to Western audiences; due to the way they interpret genre clues and the pacing they expect.

I'm sure there are more. Whether that counts for or against "Tideland", I can't decide. And, they are also very different movies as well! At this point I would I rate "Tideland" a very VERY interesting failure, but also a fine addition to the Canon of Gilliam (perfect infallibility and artistic inerrancy!).

I understand "Tideland" did well in Japan, especially with female audiences. This is not surprising, as Japanese girls are well known in the tech world as being way ahead of the curve.

reply

interesting read. Compared to Tideland I find Oasis much more realistic. (Tideland is really surrealistic, as far as I remember, like a modern fairytale)

In "Oasis" it's the girl's sister, in Tideland it's the boy's sister


I think the disabled girl had a brother, the sister was his girlfriend (or wife) But I see your point.

reply

A VERY intriguing comparison! I enjoyed both films. I've never understood why Tideland failed so miserably when it was released. I'm guessing its because it was released to Western audiences. In the connections you make above, it seems as though Tideland might have been well received had it have been made in Japan or Korea.

~The man is a liar and murderer, and I say that with all due respect.~

reply

A really bad choice for comparison. Tideland is a walk out title and Oasis is a masterpiece for all time. It's like comparing Ice Crawlers to The Thing.

Tideland failed at the box office because it was awful, not because Western audiences aren't capable of appreciating it.

reply

Tideland is only a walk out title for the impatient.

reply

Yes, clearly someone who's a fan of Oasis wanted explosions, nudity and gore. Don't be silly. Tideland is garbage. Again, it's like comparing Transformers to The Terminator.


"I'm - I'm hurt real bad. I think I'm dying"

"Continue dying"

reply

I'd disagree here mostly on personal taste. I'll explain.

While Western audiences may enjoy offbeat fare, I think it's too dismissive to say, "Tideland is awful...that's why no one liked it." For starters, Tideland is inaccessible. To appreciate something like Tideland, you first have to appreciate Terry Gilliam's oeuvre. At the least, Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Time Bandits, and Baron Munchausen would be a good start given Tideland's subject matter. It's like dealing with Hitchcock or Woody Allen: They are essentially rehashing the same themes in all their movies. Are some movies better than others? Yes! Annie Hall is better than Anything Else. Psycho is better than The Trouble with Harry. However, as you become "fluent" with the director, you start to enjoy their lesser works. For instance, I enjoy both The Trouble with Harry and Anything Else. (And I'm extremely fond of Everyone Says I Love You, and feel it's sorely overlooked!)

While it is true that Tideland was panned by critics -- A.O. Scott was scathing -- it's not uncommon for critics to get it wrong. For instance, let's remember that it was the French who eventually made Hitchcock a legend. The US was happy to consider him an entertainer for the masses. Vertigo did poorly upon release. I'm not trying to say Tideland is on par with Vertigo, I'm simply arguing that maybe it's not as bad as the critics say. I'm also happy to disagree with critics on a range of movies that I feel were done injustice such as the bitingly dark comedy Death to Smoochy.

So why do I like Tideland? I would say that Gilliam is known for creating characters who are resilient but damaged by the world around them. They tend to live in alternate universes whether made up or real. Their weakness or strength is that they cope by "checking out". Tideland to me continues that tradition. We see the movie from the eyes of a little girl that does not understand the world around her. We see it from an alternate universe. Tideland is probably the best realized example of Gilliam telling a story subjectively from the perspective of one of his characters. (One could probably argue that award goes to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.) This subjectivity is what I appreciated about Gilliam. I love the worlds he creates. I love his characters that either have rejected the "real world" or never entered it in the first place. This is why I don't find Tideland creepy. Seen from the eyes of the main character, a kiss -- or romance for that matter -- does not mean the same thing for a child as it does for an adult. And in that sense, both characters that share that kiss are children...if one is not a child in body.

Just like I love Woody Allen for his neurosis. I love Gilliam for his unflinching imagination.

~The man is a liar and murderer, and I say that with all due respect.~

reply