MovieChat Forums > Tarnation (2004) Discussion > Smoke And Mirrors, He Should Be Ashamed ...

Smoke And Mirrors, He Should Be Ashamed of Himself

posted 19 years ago by johnathan_dempsey
24 replies | jump to latest

First things first the editing is very strong, very creative. Now the movie as a whole is a piece of junk. Why you may ask? Well I'll tell you why.

1) His argument at the begining of the movie is that maybe his mother wasn't crazy, that the shock treatments made her crazy. OK, but at the end the sob story is "I hope I don't end up like my mother." If your arguing that it's not her genetics then how could you be.

2) He was first institutionalized after smoking two joints back-to-back laced with PHP and Shurm. Come on people who wouldn't loose their *beep* after this?

3) By the end of the movie it was clear that all Johnathan wanted to do was become a star from his early teen years. Well you know want, he did it by exploiting his family. Bottom line.

4) Also, maybe if he'd accomplished something with his life before making the docementary it would hold more water, but there are millions of people in the world with a worse situation than his that survive. If I ate 4 double quater pounder with cheese from Micky D's should I make a movie b/c I survived? The answer is no.

[–] outrageous_fortune 19 years ago

In respose to #4...they made that movie, it was called Super Size Me.

[–] patrick_bateman_90056 19 years ago

On #3, he did not exploit his family and said he never would. If you would listen to the commentary, you'd see.

Hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman and Emmy Rossum

[–] RobbBartman 19 years ago

You seem to be sheading a lot of anger as a result of watching this film. If it made you feel so intense and upset why would you spend so much time writing about its folly's? Find a hobby you enjoy and make use of it.

As to your listed comments, very organised, too bad you fill it with random, vague comments. YOU'RE NOT MAKING SENSE.

In reply to your first point. Jonathan was not forgetting or disregarding the fact that his mother's illness was not genetic. The statement he makes about not wanting to turn out like his mother could easily be for other, more personal reasons.

In reply to your second point. Are you implying that Jonathan is psychologically ill? How can you confidently say something like that about someone you have never come into contact with?

He did not exploit his family, you have to look deeper than that. Obviously you can't look further than your nose.

Why does someone have to of made some amazing and plausable accomplishment in order to tell the story of their life? His documentary was real, heartfelt and courageous.

If you think that Jonathan is trying to compare himself to others who you feel have a better story to tell, then why do you feel that your life is wrorth enough to comment on his?

'Like a *beep* up face' - My Own Private Idaho

[–] vincent-27 19 years ago

I agree the editing was brilliant, but that's about the only good thing about this movie. The story was not very well told and was quite unrelentingly disturbing and depressing. I actually thought Jonathan's acting (albeit a female) at age 11 was quite good, although freaky as hell. the narcissism didn't bother me as much as others, but there must have a positive moment at some point? not only that, but we never find out what happened to his mother, did she die? I assume not, but that is glossed over somewhat.

I agree with the exploitation of his family, there is a point where his grandfather gets angry because he knows what Jonathan is trying to do, trying to create some drama for his movie. I know that life doesn't always have a bright side, but I need something in a film, some contrast to show that there is hope.

--
"Surrender Dorothy!"

[–] wynni1 19 years ago

thank you for your opinion. so you didn't like a movie based almost entirely on introspection because the person doing the introspecting didn't find what you wanted him to? great. sometimes there is no hope; looking back on two generations of dysfunction in a family, it's hard to say that any person has a good shot at being functional. he has wit and craft, and there's a fine line between wanting to air your family's dysfunction and exploiting them, and he didn't cross it.

[–] shegrin 19 years ago

Well, apparently, some of you are missing the point of this project, which has been, from the beginning A NEW DIRECTION in film. Period. That is the main objective. Anything beyond that is the beauty that is held in the eye of the person viewing it.

There was no exploitation of any person in the film. We all signed release consent forms, and let me say that Renee was the FIRST one to sign hers. She is fully aware of everything that the film, and her role in it, represents.

Who wouldn't be narcissistic growing up in a household where the television and VHS movies were your babysitter? Suppose those were the things that kept you from killing yourself and your crazy family, and suppose that the kindness of close friends was the only thing that kept your feet on the ground until you were emotionally mature enough to sort it all out for yourself? What kind of film would you make? Tell Jonathan that his childhood was prattle. Let him know in the nicest way possible that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing because he can only see himself. Tell all the people that got something out of the film that they are stupid and know nothing about what pleases them.

I think the people who rag on this film are themselves narcissists. The focus is not on them, they didn't think of it first, and they are jealous and pissed.

The storyline involving me and our son was in the film originally, but was removed because it was too big to be just a subplot. We, along with other untouched relationships in the first film, will be inspirations for other stories later. He can't put all his eggs in one basket because the basket would be overloaded. Eggs would break. There is always tomorrow. What if George Lucas had tried to tell the entire six-part (I know, I know; nine-part) story in only one or two movies? Can you spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R?

[–] jr0742 19 years ago

Can an individual with a diagnosed mental disorder (who, also, appears to be not quite right) really provide informed consent for an individual to use his or her image? Is consent even remotely possible? What about an elderly individual? Few of the characters seem to have the capacity to provide true informed consent.

The characters in the film are exploited (beyond the inherent exploitation of the camera). The director includes footage of an elderly woman who has suffered a stroke and his mother who is clearly mentally disturbed. Not short takes, but longer ones. One of the longest continuous takes in the film is of the mother singing about a pumpkin. It makes the viewer uncomfortable.

A person does not have to "jealous" or "pissed" to have problems with the content of the film. Not everyone is film maker. Not everyone who has a problem with the film is an artist.

The editing works (editing is the film) and the film is aesthetically pleasing. However, the nature of the content brings up ethical questions. Some would state that is not ethical (morally correct) to use the image of an individual who cannot fully understand the power of that image. That it is wrong to show a long take of a woman with mental problems singing to a pumpkin. The mother character is used. The style reminded me of Navajo Talking Picture [1985], especially when the film maker beings to disrespect the subjects by attempting to force them to perform for him (notably the elderly man and the mother.)

It would be different if the characters were actors, but they were not (or possibly if the film had a socially relevant context, like Wiseman's Titicut Follies [1967]). The film was composed of found footage recorded throughout the life of the director, which made it difficult to watch scenes of family members being exploited.

It was still a pretty good film, just not something that I would ever feel comfortable making. The director could have shown the audience how completely *beep* up he was without exploiting the film's subjects to the degree that he did. The film becomes less about the director and how *beep* up he is and more an attempt to lay blame for his mother (and himself) becoming as *beep* up as they are.

[–] jtattaglia 18 years ago

I think this film was made mostly as some form of therapy for himself, I mean, after living that life for 31 years you become a bit *beep* up and if he already had all this footage from when he was a kid, I believe it was a healthy thing for him to do, and it turned out to be a good film, very disturbing, but good.

"What´s coming to you?" "The world chico, and everything in it" TONY MONTANA

[–] acrudele 18 years ago

As for the "bright side" remarks, the part at the end where he touches her on the lip and falls asleep on the floor next to her, according to Jonathan, represents him finally saving her. I spoke with him spring of 06 and she is not only alive, but also adores the film. She sees no exploitation in his making it.

[–] fantaziusmalare 18 years ago

Hiya,

Just wanted to point ou tthat the last scene of the film shows JC on the couch with his mother, who is sleeping quite contentedly and peacefully. (knowing them personally, I am happy to report Renee is alive and well and has never done this well in a very very long time).

It may be impossible to depict the type of resolution audiences have been trained to expect via the crap out in the cineplex within a life journey as complex as JC's. Thats what makes the film exceptional in it's non traditional structure...it is not a traditional life!

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

vincent-27^

I was going along with pretty much most of your post until this:

"I agree with the exploitation of his family..."

Why is filming and making a movie about what happened, happens, and of the person's own perceptions of these experiences necessarily 'exploitation'? After all, it is HIS story and HIS life, which naturally would entail information about other people in his life. Why shouldn't he be allowed to tell his story, warts and all? Or, should none of us be allowed to tell our family 'secrets', no matter how destructive these secrets have been to us? Keeping secrets keeps us sick, as the old saw goes. And, being shamed into keeping sick secrets is actually a form of exploitation.

Is the problem that he made public the 'family secrets' and personal experiences involving others? Let me assure you that people 'inside the circle' thinking that NO ONE ELSE KNOWS usually are wrong about that. Frequently, outside 'witnesses' in the extended family and community who appear clueless to us are in reality generally either too 'nice' or don't care enough to say anything --- or, at least, won't say to our faces! The fact that 3 outsiders know or 300 or 3000 doesn't really matter that much, does it? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all, and if others involved feel they have been incorrectly portrayed, they and/or others are free to tell their own versions.

The fact that he made money from telling his story is a problem? Why? That is what a heckuva lot of books (autobiographies, biographies), testimonials, and other movies do. In my mind, taking a dollar or taking nothing from telling your own story makes no difference in regards to that aspect of it.

And, maybe making this movie was one of the few ways that the filmmaker could feel that he could gain some control of, and mastery over, circumstances previously not within his control and that shaped his life, in good ways and in bad. Notice that he started viewing his life experiences and even himself through the viewfinder of a camcorder at a young age. That is one way to try to gain some distance from one's tumultuous experiences, to examine them from a slightly different and less confusing perspective, and to feel some control over the otherwise tortuous binds that can contain us, especially as children.

Experiences foisted upon him by others when he was a child certainly TOOK from him; why not attempt to gain some control and get something BACK from them?

Also to your statement: "I know that life doesn't always have a bright side, but I need something in a film, some contrast to show that there is hope.'

Well, wouldn't we all? But, unfortunately that is not how life always plays out. I would then suggest that you stick to upbeat fiction if that is what you feel you need.

Also, I did not get 'no hope' from this film. The filmmaker managed to reach out to what were portrayed as toxic people in his life (whether they were intentionally toxic to him or not, and whether they were always toxic to him or just sometimes toxic) and he comes across to me as a survivor.

JMHO! denise1234 :)

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] kimberleyanne 18 years ago

There have been a lot of posts in response to this post, however I want to add my 2 cents as well....

First of all, in my opinion, it sounds like you're jealous, which is fine and human, however I personally found this movie to be truly brilliant.

I have my degree in film. In film school, back in the 80's I made many a film on Super 8 myself and wanted to say that filming in Super 8 is not easy. This addresses your #4 point - even making Super 8 flix is an accomplishment in itself. And what did he do before this? He did this!!! Jonathan was doing this, obviously for years and years and years. I would like to ask you Jonathan Dempsey, what have you done? Jonathan Caouette made many Super 8 shorts as well, again not as easy as they look. Those actually had to be hand edited back in the day before online (computer) editing.

I urge you and everyone else to watch the film with the director's commentary on - this seems to answer almost all of the questions and judgements I have read here, including the amount of money spent on the film as well as the original author of this blog's judgement regarding Jonathan exploiting his family, which he does discuss in the commentary - making the point that in his opinion (and I agree) exploitation comes from an outsider's point of view, not an insider's.

Regarding your point #1 - though it seems he is saying the shock treatment and the lithium overdose contributed to his mother's psychosis, anyone in their right mind would worry that perhaps it might be hereditary. That's natural. There is no proof that these things made her the way she is, though it's reasonable to assume they did - in the very least, they contributed heavily. However, who is to say her mother Rosemary was "normal". According to Renee, she was beseiged with psychological problems as well and it certainly seemed that way at times in the film.

Your point #2 is just silly. This was part of Jonathan's life, of course he would document it. He shouldn't document it because why? Because you said so?

Your point #3 - so what?! Is it a crime to want to be a "star"?! Don't most people want to be famous? But at what cost?! I doubt most people would want to sacrafice their parents or family for this, Jonathan included. It did not seem this way to me at all. To me it seemed like Jonathan ALWAYS was a star!! At age 11, he was "acting" - and very well - in front of his camera. If he had plans then, for this movie, and was just getting some footage to produce this masterpiece 20 years later than he is a complete genius. However, we know this is not the case. The truth is much more painful, real, beautiful and cathartic. This did not portray Jonathan in a positive light, he went out on a limb here - showing parts of himself and his personality that most people hide. If he was doing this out of ego he would not have been so raw.

Your point #4 - again so what?! How many of those people have made documentaries? And why minimize what he went through. Was your childhood so much worse that you're super jealous you didn't think to record it?! I know maybe 5 people who didn't have a crappy childhood and out of the dozens I know who did I don't know one who would suffer the pain to make a documentary out of it.

Again, to me, you just sound jealous and contrite.

I found this film amazing - poignant, zealous, original, heartfelt and educational. I salute Jonathan for stepping up and producing this. The production, the editing, the directing, the soundtrack - all brilliant!!!!!! How refreshing to see a documentary that breaks all boundaries!!!!!! I watch more docs than fiction films and am currently shooting a doc myself, I studied docs in film school - that was my focus - this documentary is one of the best ones I have ever seen. Documentaries are made to tell real people's stories, they are made to teach us things we may not otherwise know. To have this accomplished as well as masterful filmaking and entertaining is nothing short of earth shattering.

Kimberly

[–] sfuller188 18 years ago

I saw this movie last night on IFC when I couldnt sleep. I began to watch it hoping it would help my insomnia and put me to sleep. I was surprised that I was interested until the very end. Cinematography was great, music was great, I had to actually look the movie up on IMDB to make sure Jonathan at 11 was the same as the end of the movie. A very good story. What some seem to forget when they criticize for exploitation is that this is a documentary. Documentaries should not be whitewashed to be either politically or inpolitically correct. If we want all movies to be sunshine and roses then we should eliminate the category of independent docs because the world isn't always a wonderful place.

If we would like to criticize a documentary for its content, I believe Fahrenheit 911 should be the top of the list for exploitation and smoke and mirrors.

Just one straight man, married, living in the central U.S. opinion. I thought it was a great movie, non-exploitive. I believe Mr. Caouette has a long and rewarding film career ahead of him.

[–] aleciaraecairns 18 years ago

I watched the movie last night only because I stumbled on it by accident.....unless one has lived in an environment of mental illness it is extremely hard to define. He has been able to accomplish this by allowing us to see the pain that he and his family have endured and at the same time he displays his love for them. No one, and I mean no one, wants to be like a "mentally ill" person. That is purely a honest statement.

Johnathan was fabulous in the way he has made his film. It was completely and without doubt one of the most honest films I have watched.

The film has been on my mind all day long...but in way that makes me appreciate the courage of this young man. It appears to me that "Smoke and Mirrors" would hardly be the case at all. Honest and Revealing would better describe this film!

Fabulous! Absolutey Fabulous!.....from a "somewhat" psycodelic southern woman in south Mississippi!

[–] ares3513 18 years ago

i also stumbled upon this while trying to get to sleep a couple of nights ago, and unfortunately only got in on the last half. i'd like to go back and watch the whole thing.

i have a friend who is very much like Renee, and raised a daughter who is now grown. my friend had gone through shock treatments during a state hospital stay in the 70's, had overdosed on many behavioral drugs, and is growing increasingly more harmful to herself and others. when we had first met through church, her family asked me to stay with her for a couple of weeks to help her get some things in order at her house and try to get her into a hospital for some help. (i was a young college student working on a degree in social work and i was gifted at finding county resources for those in need). after several weeks there, and then a few more months of being in and out of the hospital with her (her family was so tired and pretty much let her go once i started helping out)... i actually checked myself in to a very nice mental hospital and took a 16-day break..now i don't mean i CHOSE to take 16 days out of work and school to relax in a hospital. MY family and friends asked me to go into the hospital and the hospital didn't let me go for 16 days. i was a nervous wreck after just spending those few months with her. it was exhausting. and i was lucky!imagine how a child must feel growing up in that kind of life!!!
needless to say, i'm now a sales rep, not a social worker. :)

i applaud this movie. i think more people need to see what other families might be going through, as long as those family members being shown have consented, as these had. maybe if we realize that this does go on in families, we'll be more open (and help our kids be more open) to other's differences and what might have gotten them that way.

[–] shegrin 18 years ago

I want you to know that what you are saying really means a lot. Renee's grandson is better able to understand where she's been and how he can and cannot be with her because of his dad's film. He's a little sad, but he also knows how important it is to provide proper care for people like her, and he has even approached Jonathan aout someday opening a center that exclusively cares for people like Renee, who, through no fault of their own, have acquired a huge set of circumstances that they don't know what to do with, and be that solid foundation they would need to help them get through it. Big words from a little guy, but it helps to illustrate your point about educating the kids so they will do the right thing, and not necessarily the most convenient thing.

[–] michele-nunez 18 years ago

If anybody wants to see it on the big screen go to The Rice Media Center in Houston Texas on April 20th. It starts at 7pm. Jonathan will be there to do Q and A.

[–] turrabull 18 years ago

this dempsey character sounds jealous as all hell, haha