NOT HONEST!


And I mean Believe, with capital B.

SPOLERS

By watching the first scene, I already hated the movie. His boyfriend
arrives home. He "wakes him up". Why is the cammera there? Why is there
enough light to shoot the situation? Why are there microphones?
Needless to say, if there weren't any of the three, we could simply not
watch the scene. Two minutes had passed and I had enough. The movie is
just not honest (why is he filming himself when he calls to the
hospital?). It is just a cry out loud for indulgence. And they are
making money out of that. Out of that, and out of the hundred of images
of his mother and his grandparents. Just not honest.

I had the chance to ask Gus Van Sant (producer of this film) in a film
festival why he casted non Spanish speaking, US actors to play the role
of non English speaking - just arrived to the States Mexicans in his
first film, Mala Noche. He said he didn't care at the time. Same thing
here, they don't care to mix what it is produced to what it is real (as
if we were in some kind of Truman Show). I am sorry for your life, Mr.
Director, but I don't care for seeing portrayed in such a non honest
way in a movie.

I coulnd't stop thinking about "Capturing the Friedmans". That's a
great movie! And 100% Asia Argento's "The Heart is deceiving..." is
much more brutal, and much more serious as a film than this
made-to-cry- film experiment

reply

[deleted]

I find it funny that you're saying all these things about my brother's movie, and there's just one problem. Before you go off and bad mouth something, at least do some research on the subject you're speaking of. The beginning scened which you seem to despise so much is a reenactment of when he found out our mother had overdosed on lithium. Plain and simple. All of that stuff happened after he had already planned on taking the movie to Sundance. Our mother's overdose situation was the perfect thing to add to the movie, because lithium is what has screwed her up all these years since the shock therapy. I don't know how many times I feared for my life when she drove me somewhere as a child. I would sit there in the back seat watching her hands shake like crazy, praying to God that I wouldn't get into an accident. Anyways, I would just recommened that you try and not jump to conclusions. As for the pictures, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that not being honest. How can you not be honest about a picture? It's not like they were altered.

reply

I am sorry to say you are doing nothing but proving my point. You talk about "my brother", "my mother". A movie is a movie. It cannot be judged like that. I dont know you or your brother or your mother. I went to see a movie, and I found a nice piece to show your friends or family, but me, as public, I wasn´t´touched or moved a single bit.

By the way, I do cry at the movies. A lot. When I find a compelling story, that is...

reply

say what you will...but you still jumped to conclusions

reply

???????????

Do you think you can make a point?

reply

So many years later, I must say you a crass, sewer level *beep* who is most likely a failed filmaker stewing with jealousy. I feel quite sorry for the level of hatred you have for another human being's experience. Disgusting actually. To argue with the filmakers brother. Are you for real? Get a life douchebag.

reply

Can you make any point besides insulting? You have no arguments whatsoever. Or, at least, you haven't expressed them here.
I have never said a word about the human being's experience. I am talking about a movie.

reply

David, your brother played up to the camera so much it was embarrassing to watch.

He came across as manipulative, and actually angered me and those with me in my group. It was hard to believe his final piece to camera after seeing how convincing he was as a schoolboy pretending to be a battered mother (astonishingly gifted for a child... and *chilling* in light of what he'd been through already) it didn't ring true. And touching your mother's filtrum like an "angel"? Oh gimme a break!

I wanted to hear more from your mother and family members about her childhood before the accident. I wanted to hear from her friends from school, her teachers... the neighbour whose stupid idea it was to go for the shock treatment.

I wanted to hear more from Jonathan's father about his life with her - if he *had* been contacted by social service at all when Jonathan was taken into foster care.

I wanted to know the effects and efficacy of shock treatment not just have two flashes of someone being zapped. I want to know what it *did*, and why the damage was continued with repeated treatments.

From the synopsis I thought it was supposed to be about *her*.

He ought to be ashamed for badgering her and your grandfather for the sake of this film. He should have allowed her the dignity her illness, and the consequences it had on all your lives, stole from her.

reply

I don't understand how you can say any of this about this movie. If he hadn't played up to the camera, the movie wouldn't have been interesting to watch. And if you would have listened to the Director's Commentary on the DVD, you would have know that the first scene was reenacted. It was a beautiful movie and he is very talented. And he wasn't badgering his mother and grandparent for the sake of the film, it was for his own sake.

reply

I just saw this film (in London) a few days ago at the cinema. I'm 38 and am a movie fanatic - have my own movie website and have seen most of the great works of cinema that anyone anywhere has ever cared to recommend. Tarnation is one of the most personal and moving films I've ever seen, that's without a doubt. No one has ever made home videos communicate so much to a general audience. The skill with which your brother manipulates them to pull an audience in is wonderful. The criticisms here of the film are so beside the point when you consider the overall effect of the movie- it's so warm, made with so much love and care, and brilliantly achieves what it set out to do. The music in it is especially wonderful. I don't think David that you need worry about a few people who don't get it posting messages here because intelligent film viewers around the world have recognised Tarnation as an extremely special, brave, one of a kind film. Sight and Sound magazine (the best british movie mag by far) had a great piece on the film last month (April 2005). Take what they say to heart not anyone else's opinion.

reply

Here is the link to that Sight and Sound article:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2005_04/tarnation.php

reply

Thanks for the kind words Kevin. I try my best to not pay attention to all the negativity, but ignorance just ticks me off at times. Everyone is entitled to their opinions though, so for the most part I let things slide. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and hope all is well out there in jolly ol' England. I'd love to make my way out there one day to visit or be stationed there in the Navy. I've always had a thing for the British accent. One of my alltime favorite shows is "Are You Being Served?" One ofe these days I'll make my way around to getting the entire series on DVD. Take care!

- David LeBlanc

reply

Agreed. Something that purports to be a documentary should NEVER contain re-enactments. That's not documenting; it's Rescue 911. Granted, if it was introduced as a re-enactment, or even said so anywhere except the commentary, it could be seen as an interesting way for a born performer, desparate to displace himself in light of his truly horrendous childhood, to give a sort of mixed-media account of what it's like to feel and re-feel. Hmm. The guy is obviously ambitious and brave, but yes, no matter the artistic intentions of beginning with a re-enactment, it still felt and looked stagey. Not to mention that it makes his credibility, and hence reliability, look as masked and showy as his persona.

reply

The first scene destroyed the rest of the movie for me. It seemed so hokey that it was tough for me figure out what I should and shouldn't believe during the rest of the film. It was an interesting and sad story but told from way too narrow a viewpoint.

reply

Its hard, really hard for me to find a way to agree with you more

reply

Caouette has never actually called his movie a 'Documentary.' He has made it clear that it contains re-enactments along with real footage. Furthermore, most real 'documentaries' do the same thing; they'll interview someone, then tell them to do it again, what to say differently, etc. The makers will tell people where to stand and what to do a lot of the time. This doesn't make them bad or false. There is a lot of truth in "Tarnation." Complaining because one scene is a re-enactment to make the film make more sense (and be more TRUTHFUL to Caouette's experiences, not dishonest) is being ignorant about the way documentaries are made, and what they do.

reply

I would really appreciate you letting me know when I have wrriten the word "documentary" on my posts...

reply

Well if you don't see it as a documentary, why do you object to its use of reenactments?

reply

im going to see the film tonight so i will report back tomorrow.

tifcasla - whatever you thought of the film, i dont see any need to come onto a public message board where the director may read what you write, and to be quite so vitriolic and hostile. your OP is oozing with negative energy. thats not good for your soul, you know.


> And they are
making money out of that.

your understanding of the filmaking process is obviously extremely limited.

the kind of passion it takes to undergo this sort of personal project could never, ever, be motivated by financial gain. this is a way of life, surely you can see that? jonathan has made this film because he had to.

with regards to some of the shots seeming dishonest - again, this shows your limited understanding of the filmaking process. sometimes, as has already been explained on here, stuff has to be set up. this is an accepted part of the process but does not invalidate the essential honesty or integrity of the project.

im looking forward to seeing this film and being present at the Q and A.


reply

Thank you so much for caring about my soul. But it (the soul, that is, I don´t comfortable enough by calling it he or she) feels much better when it can express itself with passion. I hated this movie with passion, and that´s the way I expressed my feelings towards it. If the director reads my comments (most likely he does) or not, , and gets hurt in his feelings by reading my post (?????), I couldn´t care less. When you make movies (that´s what I do, by the way, and what I have been doing for the last 18 years, which I think makes me quite aware of the filmmaking process) you HAVE to be ready to accept criticism. Otherwise, show the movie just to your friends and family. In my opinion, that´s the audience that this film deserves.

So, Jonathan has made this film because he had to? Great. Great for him and for his soul, I guess. But at the moment that the film is released commercially (and internationally) the object is to make money. So, even if you like it or not, they are making money with his family tragedy. Again... Watch "Capturing the Friedmans". That´s an HONEST film. An interesting film. A well developed film. All qualities that, in my opinion, Tarnation doesn't´t have. Tarnation is, to put it in your own words, a "personal need of expression" or a "medicine for the soul". I insist, show it to your friends and family, then. Now, once it is out there, making money with international releases, accept criticism. It´s not a movie for your friends to watch in your personal VHS any more

reply

I have to say for someone who feels (as you should) that criticism is part and parcel of a film's consumed identity, you don't seem to handle people who criticise your comments very well (even though you have been making films for 18 years and are much more self-important than the rest of us, of whom you have no idea who is really sat behind the pseudonyms).
I saw this film last night, and I have to say that I really liked it. Why shouldn't Jonathan act the way he did in the film? Do we really know so much about Jonathan himself from the film that it could be labelled self-indulgent? In the Q&A, Jonathan was asked who the child with the sickly grandmother way, and answered "my son" - I think that Jonathan leaves a lot more questions to be asked about himself and his story than he is willing to share unprompted. I don't understand what you'd have preferred? Jonathan doesn't seem to be presenting this as a sober documentary on the effects of electric-shock therapy, he's presenting it as a portrait of his family, in all their eccentricities. He's never set out to make the movie you seemed to want to see, so I think it's unfair to judge it solely by your personal tastes in how to correctly handle certain subjects. I loved watching the story unfold, I loved hearing the very real voices of the family members.
Why is it important to you that the actors who played the non-English speaking roles in the GVS movie could actually speak English in real life? That's like saying that only male actors who have a boyfriend at home are allowed to play gay. That seems like a total contradiction of the meaning of the word "act" to me. I expect that's why GSV told you he didn't care - because to not care about these things means to not let your casting decisions become right on, or politically correct for the sake of PC-ness.
Your comment "When you make movies (that´s what I do, by the way, and what I have been doing for the last 18 years, which I think makes me quite aware of the filmmaking process)" makes it quite clear how pompous and self-important you are. I couldn't care less if you've been making movies for the past 180 years, it doesn't mean you are any better placed to criticise a film than anyone else. The only person that thinks your opinion is of any great importance is yourself, and I pity you for that. Why don't you go back and find an answer to the question posed regarding your non-usage of the term 'documentary', rather than irritating us all, and trashing this film's board with your own personal agenda and nasty asides?
And by the way, Capturing The Friedman's wasn't perfect - I would actually far more readily recommend this interesting, offbeat, successful, diverse and harrowing story far more readily than CTF, which left me wanting.

reply

I can perfectly handle criticism. And there is nothing like a good debate, specially with people that think differently that you do. Good, intelligent debate. There is some of that in your post, but there is also a lot of personal attacks.

Let´s get to the personal attacks. I think the other issues have already been taken care of and going back to them will bore the rest of the readers.

When I wrote that I have been making movies for 18 years, I don´t imply for one minute that I am better placed to criticize than anyone else. It was simply a reply to somebody else that said something like "you are probably not aware of the filmmaking process". Period. Think whatever you want, but that´s the reality, and you would see it for yourself if you read the thread.

Regarding Gus Van Sant... you read my post wrongly! (and I am sorry to say, that makes two wrongs in one post. If you want to get personal in your attacks, you should read better). The actors that were supposed to be Mexican, just arrived to the US, spoke an awful Spanish, so bad that some times it made no sense at all. They don´t have to speak Spanish in real life, of course. But they have to act as if they did, as you remarkably state in your post. They don´t. And to me, it took all the credibility away from the film. It has nothing to do with politically correctness. It make me laugh. It made me think the whole thing was ridiculous, when, supposedly, serious things were going in the movie. Now, this is MY view. And again, I don´t consider myself in a better place than anybody else to comment on a movie. But I can express my opinion in a board, can´t I? Why is that "trashing the board with my personal agenda"? I am expressing my point of view, and you are expressing yours. They are obviously different. We obviously like different films. We obviously have a different sensibility towards movies in general. But that doesn't´t mean that that expressing one´s point of view is "trashing a board with a personal agenda", is it?

It seems a bit fascist to me. Any different ideas are taken as (in your words) "trash". Where´s the possibility of exchanging different ideas with intelligence, without meaning an attack, but simply an intellectual debate?

PS Sorry you didn´t like "the Friedmans". I know it is not perfect (I try not to search for perfection in life or movies, but hey! that´s me). but it is a very interesting film, whose subject goes well beyond the walls of a family house. It has thoughts on the role of the media, on how police conducts interrogations, on how society in general reacts to horrendous acts. May I ask... "It left you wanting for what?"

reply



javillol, you're an idiot. There's criticism for you. I would argue with you but there is no use in arguing with you. You make no points to argue with. So what you hated the movie. Keep it to yourself; show it to your friends and family. Are you trying to say that documentarians shouldn't make money? Do you understand that you must make money to make movies, to live? Not everything that makes money is dishonest. I'm glad you don't make money for the movies you make, which means that you are "honest" and that I probably won't have to see any of your movies.

reply

Wow! Obviously Georgie boy did a great job on you. Apparently, there is no possibility of having a different idea about something without being considered an idiot.

Your mind is so blurred about the fact that somebody thinks differently than you that you write "there is no use in arguing with you" and you are doing so in the next sentence.

OK, donkey, let´s argue. I don´t even think this thing (film, sorry) can be called a documentary. It is not!. Video experiment, maybe? I never used the word "documentary" in my posts, something you would have known if you read them.

My saying "Not honest" has nothing to do with the fact that the movie makes money or not. The film in itself is not honest. I find it terrible (but hey, that´s me. Everyone is entitled to a different opinion) that somebody makes money with a its own family tragedy which is also not interesting to anyone but friends and family. Now... I obviously respect yours or anyone else´s right to think differently. And I more than obviously respect his right to make the movie.

You, on the other hand, attack me personally for my ideas. You call me an idiot. Fascism starts just there... Considering an idiot anybody that doesn't´t think the way you do

reply


javillol, I apologize for calling you an idiot. It was an inappropriate remark. However, I was and continue to be irritated by your convoluted arguments concerning dishonesty and fabrication in this film and documentary filmmaking in general.

You said: "...Watch "Capturing the Friedmans". That´s an HONEST film. An interesting film. A well developed film. All qualities that, in my opinion, Tarnation doesn't´t have." but you don't explain why you think Capturing the Friedmans is honest or why it is more honest or better developed than Tarnation. You can't just say something IS honest and something else is NOT honest without saying why you think so. That is not an argument.

You also said: "It is about a film (a lousy, boring film in my opinion, but that´s of course arguable) and about producers making a profit with a family tragedy." Did Capturing the Friedmans not make money from a family tragedy? At what point does profiting from others' suffering become okay for you? Is it not okay for Tarnation to profit from suffering because you think it is boring, or because you think it is dishonest?

Tarnation IS a documentary. A documentary film is a documentary because it is a non-fiction film, though it may contain parts that are staged or may allege things that are untrue. Barry Hempe in his book "Making Documentary Films and Reality Videos" defines a documentary in two ways:

"Documentaries can range from those shot in a hot situation, happening right now with the outcome in doubt, to fully scripted reenactments or re-creations shot with the same preparation and attention to detail as a feature film or television program."

When Jonathan Caouette re-enacts the morning he found out about his mother's lithium overdose he does so to give the film coherence. Where you got the idea that this was being dishonest shows your ignorance of the process by which documentaries are made and your naivete that nothing in a documentary can be staged or even the slightest bit untrue.
In a film like Tarnation, which can be called a documentary in the style of a personal essay, ideas expressed by the filmmaker cannot be taken at face value. It is the filmmakers own editorializing that makes this film as much a documentary about himself as it is about his family. You might remember in Capturing the Friedmans the denial expressed by Elaine Friedman when she says, "What was he doing with those pictures? Meditating?" The subtext of that comment is what makes Capturing the Friedmans such a powerful and interesting film. There are such moments in Tarnation. You must view the assertions made by Caouette about the source of his mother's condition in the context of how one deals with family tragedy. Because Caouette chooses to explore this tragedy through commercial film makes him perhaps an exhibitionist, but not an exploiter.
javillol, I have apologized for my personal attack on you. I did so not because your opinions differed from mine, but because you refused to support your own oversimplified arguments. Instead of explaining your point of view you hid under the supposedly democratic view that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion... and then you called us fascists. I am not a fascist. I believe you are entitled to your opinion, but in expressing that opinion you are obligated to do so with well-developed arguments and by using terms that are defined (e.g., it is best to know what a documentary is before you call something NOT a documentary).

reply

[deleted]

I think actually that TARNATION 2 AND 3 are being filmed back-to-back now, they are reportedly going to be released on a 2 disc dvd in Spring 2008.

reply

Uh...no. This is untrue information. Jonathan is working on the ATP Festival movie right now, and then two completely unrelated projects are lined up. Tarnation II and/or III are just an idea he had...

reply

I just wanted to jot a quick reply: Your criticism of the film aside (liking it or not doesn't matter to me), I think you've misread it. The evidence is in comparing it to "Capturing the Friedmans" (you and I agree - a brilliant movie). "Friedmans" does utilize home footage, but Andrew Jarecki - an outsider - made the film with home movies taken by the family. What Caouette is doing is something entirely different - it's more of a personal essay film - and thus, by it's very nature, is self-absorbed. The better comparison is to the films of Ross McElwee, which I truly enjoy. He takes footage he's been making all of his life and shapes them into stories. I feel like Caouette's film is a "dime store" version of those films - personal histories as documentary. If Caouette had the budget and experience of McElwee, I think it would have had a greater impact. As it is, I found myself at first annoyed by it's indulgence, but over time I felt like I was growing a little closer to it. It's imperfect, sure, but you're confusing your dislike for the film (fair) and it's intent (something tells me that Caouette isn't make a ton of money off of this - probably enough to support his partner and his mother, which is all right by me.)
I recommend that you investigate the films of McElwee, "Sherman's March", "Time Indefinite", and "Bright Leaves" are all wonderful personal essay films, and have a little more polish and sense of humor than "Tarnation". I'd like to hear what you think after seeing a stronger example of the style.

reply

I agree with you, javillol. Capturing the Friedmans was both an awe-inspiring documentary as well as a impressive slice of reportage. Hehe, and despite the disparity b/t their subjects, they have a lot in common as far as how they were conceived. But yes, watching the Friedmans break was SO much more interesting and vital than watching Couette TRY to.

reply

[deleted]

Some parts of this felt too self-indulgent,too staged..and the opening really put me off at first... and towards the end when he's lying beside his mother 'sleeping'... i dunno, it felt a bit off to me.
but we see that this guy has always had a thing for camera,being on camera,recording everything, a kind of 'melodrama'...
I think overall it worked pretty well.. though at times too self-indulgent, as I say..And hey, the budget on the film... probably was a lot cheaper than therapy!

reply

Right. Great therapy... For him!

reply

some people get it
and some people don't. It's as easy as that

My roomate thinks Gummo is the worst film ever made and I can argue that. Just let the man have his opinion since obviously there are people out there (hi) who appreciate the flick and "get it" and there are people who should go see XXX2.

reply

Wow! Finally, an intellectual elaborated reply...
Your roommate is the foremost of film criticism, and you do nothing but disqualify...

reply

When compared to the fabricated "documentaries" that have been in the mainstream (specifically Supersize Me and Fahrenheight 9/11) I think "Tarnation" was more real than these big money makers are.

So maybe some fabrication is involved? Big deal. Maybe Jonathan wanted the emotions he felt that day he found his mom overdosed on Lithium so the audience can see the attachment he has to his mom, whom we are about to learn about.

No the camera techniques are not original, but in today's movie industry it's nice to see something very different. I love Avante Guard Film like David Lynch's Eraserhead and this reminds me of those types of films, which rarely show up.

I'm fortunate enough to have seen it as part of a course I'm taking in college. I didn't feel forced to see a movie as much as I was fortunate to be able to view this film. The editing was fantastic with the sound and image effects added in certain scenes.

I completely understand Javi's grudge with the opening feeling "fake," but look past that to when he's acting as an 11-year-old boy who is already sure he's gay. Is he acting for the camera? Is he losing it? We don't really know. That's what made me enjoy this film.

reply

I think that people constantly putting "rules" on art are in fact killing art.
As a person with schizophrenia and gay and an artist i identified with i lot of this film. If you were to make this same film, with the same power and tone but "not fake" how would you do it exactly? This film was about his life, all of it and was very personal it's more real and honest than any film done by someone detached from the subject.

reply

i respect everybodys opinion.
However, i really dislike when people subconsciously use flamboyant, deliberately condescending opinions as self-promotion, as if to say their existance transcends the existence of the film they are berating, per se.
Your arguments are self-righteous and dull now.
we get the point. you think you're just THAT smart and that your opinion is so right. We're all glad you have conviction, stop trying to dissuade other people from enjoying a film. Stop affecting other peoples opinions. Stop flogging somebody for thinking positively of the film just because it conflicts with your opinion. you are the reason why stereotypes exist, you are the reason why opinions are so hard to deal with. I can't tell you to stop your corosive antics, but i can sure as hell tell you that all you are doing is making yourself look less smart than you would like to.

And another thing: i thought this film was visually stunning. Its references, direction, and scene-linking were all clear and concise. Though some scenes, like the scene that started you on this incredibly self-indulgent and pointless post, did take away from it, they did not take away from the impact it had on the viewer and the feeling it left you with afterwards, atleast not enough. It made its point.

reply

Self - promotion? Who do I need to promote myself to? I am using an alias, nobody knows who I am...
No, I don´t think I am any smarter than anybody else and, most important, I have never written nor implied such a thing. If you feel less smart than somebody, then that´s your problem, certainly not mine.

I am not trying to dissuade anybody to enjoy anything! I love people who enjoy things! Again, if you feel you enjoyed the film less because of me... that´s your problem, not mine.

On the same way that self promotion feels a ridiculous thing, I couldn't care less if I am making less smart that something (definitely not what I would like to, because I don´t like to look anything).

If anything, you proved that my post was not pointless. It had strong points, obviously, since it produced that reaction on you. You understood what I tried to say (that´s called a point where I come from) and you don´t agree. Good for you! Now, am I not too important in your life for the little we know each other? Come on, baby. Don´t fall in love with me. I am not as good as YOU (NOT ME!) think I am...

PS It´s really funny to read that "you are the reason why stereotypes exist". How? When? You think way too highly of me, honey! I can see the trial: The people vs. Javillol. "Javillol, you are guilty of creating stereotypes". Please!!!! Let´s be serious for one second! I just said that this movie was not honest. That I didn't believe one single frame that I saw. Period. You don´t agree. I am sure you can still be a happy person. I certainly never implied that you, or anyone else is less smart for enjoying the movie. It just means there is a good chance that we will never go to the movies together. Shame... I was starting to like you, in dispite of all your big complexes!

reply

'obviously there are people out there (hi) who appreciate the flick and "get it" and there are people who should go see XXX2.'

Please tell me you're not suggesting that those are the only 2 'reactions' to this film.

I 'got' this film...........and I disliked it.

I'm an independent film junkie, a diehard John Waters aficionado.......in short, a filmgoer who is not only 'open' to new things, but who craves them.

I simply couldn't get past the pervasive narcissism of this film.

Jonathan's self-serving editing and viewpoint basically killed any connection I might have felt to his mother (isn't she supposedly the FOCUS of this film?).

Don't get me wrong........Jonathan is a fascinating person/character, and he shows great artistic vision with this film.......

But in the end (for me), his love/concern for his mother (which I'm sure is/was completely genuine) comes across as being exploitative and just a vehicle for his own narcissism.



'I'm in my tree, I'm talking to the Dixie Chicks and they're making me feel better.'

reply

I can not say your are worng or right. We are entilled to feel the way we do about moves..

However, I can say that the movie IS great therapy... for many people.

I lost someone is a very simular fasion that "John" did with his mother.

The movie hits mental illness "right on the head" on so many levels.

Simpley put mental illness takes from everything/ everybody involved with the mentally ill.

EVERBODY LOSES...

All the loved ones of the ill feel it destructive touch: boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, children, parents, friends, etc...

The movie was good to watch b/c if you have ever personally dealt with the mentally illness of a loved one... watching the movie makes you feels "not as alone."

You'll say to your self "OMG! There are other who haved lost in the ways I have lost.."

For those not exposed the the world of the mentally ill... Sometimes, the very things that are used to help the ill are the very thing of their (the ill's) ultimate down fall.

"E-C-T," " Anti-depresents, Anti-phsycotics, and etc... can tremendous harm to those treated by it ..

Anyway, you are 100% entitled to you view.. you don't need anybody to say so..

But the move, does have its merrits... maybe in ways you don't understand yet... I hope and pray that you never do...

reply

Just watched the film. And I can sort of see your point. But I can't see how you can be so numb to the obvious traumas that Jonathan clearly suffered through and suffers through to this day. I'm just as iffy on the whole dramatic re-enactment at the beginning. But I quickly got over it when I saw the footage of him as a child acting (oops.... wait: SPOILERS AHEAD! there...) in front of the mirror, cutting himself and screaming, etc. I'm convinced that there was enough pain in him to truly give an honest dramatic re-enactment like he did. I mean, would you have done better? Relax, and don't be so callous because it makes your opinions weaker and weaker.

reply

It´s not really about what I would have done, is it? I mean.. I have been called all sort of things in this board. But this board isn´t about me. It is about a film (a lousy, boring film in my opinion, but that´s of course arguable) and about producers making a profit with a family tragedy.

I am really relaxed (believe you me!) and I don´t know what callous means, so I guess I won´t be able to stop being it any time soon. But here is something important: I really don´t care whether my opinions are weak or strong. Really. Get a life, people! Instead of wasting your time attacking me, why don´t you guys deeply think about this (or any other) movie????????

Although... If you´d rather attack me, please go on. I am having a blast!

reply

Sounds like you have issues with Gus Van Sant. He had nothing to do with the making of this. The film is genius in the simple fact that it compels disgruntled viewers to critique its narcissism. This film could be the catalyst to guide us out of our Mtv cultured mayhem.

"too busy stayin' alive" Richard Ashcroft

reply

For someone making films for over 18 years, it appears you still don't seem to quite get it do you?
First of all, what is that nonsense about honesty? Moviemaking IS manipulation, the same way all artistic expressions are. As the feeling of realism is certainly important to enjoy most (but not all) movies, the TRUTH behind them is irrelevant, due to the sheer fact that this truth is highly relative. Movies are constructions of reality, carrying a point of view and an esthetic proposition ; who said they're supposed to be honest and reflect THE TRUTH (whatever that may be)?
Besides, Caouette never pretended to make a documentary : the guy has some vision he wants to communicate and he use the necessary means, it's as simple has that : ethics has nothing to do with esthetics.
As for the argument concerning the exploitation of his family's misery, it's almost too absurd to comment on. What about "Schindler's List", "Hotel Rwanda" and so on : are they exploitation scams too? Should we only make films about positive and happy things, in order not to profit on the misfortune of others?
Come on man, this is pretty basic stuff to anyone who had the chance to reflect on the nature of cinema for more than five minutes! Who are you anyway? Brett Ratner for Christ's sake?. Maybe you should reflect a little more on your opinion before sharing them with the world.

PS : English being a second language to me, please excuse its relative quality.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

reply

Thank you, Yanski, you hit the nail on the head.

"too busy stayin' alive" Richard Ashcroft

reply

I just finished watching the film and was curious to see what had been posted here in reaction. Unfortunately, so much (as in other boards) has focused on the ad hominem attacks of fellow posters. Such a waste for this great resource for film lovers.

That said, I think what I sense missing in many of these posts is the awareness of the mental illness of the director himself. Caouette lets us know about his battle with his disassociative disorder, for which those who suffer find it difficult--if not impossible--to distinguish the "real" in life (this disorder is attributed to the PCP- and formaldehyde- laced joints he smoked). Thus, he has always struggled distinguishing his LIFE from, say, a FILM OF HIS LIFE. I remember him speaking in an interview about how he sometimes has to remind himself, when on the phone, "I am really talking to my friend on the phone."

Seen in this light, it makes perfect sense to have "re-enactments" or "dramatizations" of his own life...part of the experience is NOT KNOWING what is "honest" or "true." In order to show us how it feels to feel your life is fictional (like a movie), Caouette gives us filmed versions of "what really happened"...or maybe not. The film ultimately succeeds because it frustrates us--as many posters here have noted. That frustration is exactly the point--it feels like less truth and more "movie" because that's how it feels for Caouette. Imagine trying to make a film about what it feels like always to feel like your life is a film, all the while REALLY wondering if your lived experience is real or a film. I think Tarnation places us entirely in that ambiguous, confusing, frustrating space. And in that sense it is entirely honest and true. Yes the beginning makes odd sense; yes the end is staged; yes some moments we thought were really happening were actually pick-ups filmed later for continuity. What sad and brilliant irony that Caouette chooses (has always chosen) film--that medium based entirely on illusion--to record a life he already finds illusory.

reply

I was really glad to read your post. Finally, an intelligent answer! (Maybe it has to do with the fact that you are not Anglo-Saxon???).

I don´t want people to have the same opinion on everything. I like debates. Specially if they are smart, and I think yours is.

Now... Of course movie making is manipulation. But I think there are films that are honest, that are made from the guts, and some aren´t. I respect honesty in a film. I respect a director getting involved completely in the process and being coherent with what the movie is. Ethics has nothing do with esthetics, I agree with you, but you have to be honest with yourself and with your work in order to make any kind of art. Again, IN MY OPINION (God! I cant believe I have to repeat that sentence again and again to calm people´s´sensibility down) Capturing the Friedman's is an honest movie. Tarnation isn´t.

You said that the argument of his family´s misery exploitation is too absurd to comment on, but then you do comment on it. Strange... Now, do you really want to get into that discussion? It is a very interesting, long discussion that involves "politically correctness", governments trying to clean guilt, etc, etc, I suggest we move to another forum since this one is supposed to be for Tarnation. I would be happy to. I hated the bloody movie and I am spending way too much time witting about it because of all the personal attacks that I received...

reply