MovieChat Forums > Phoebe in Wonderland (2010) Discussion > Four things that would have made this mo...

Four things that would have made this movie 10x better

posted 12 years ago by gambitvoleur
1 reply | jump to latest

There's a lot to enjoy about this film. The child acting was really quite remarkable, whether they were being sullen or silly (or OCD). It's the kind of nuance from young actors you really only see once in a blue moon or somehow in every French movie involving children. The mother's character is also quite plausible: a loving woman who is is nonetheless very bad at knowing how to deal with her child's behavior, terrified of it, and also grappling with how much of her identity she is willing to surrender to motherhood. And Patricia Clarkson was great, 'nuf said.

BUT there were two things that in my opinion really, really dragged this film down.

1) Making the psychiatrist helpful. This is a movie cliché: the fat, colorless, impotent-looking shrink who seems creepy, unsympathetic, and wants to suck the joy out of your imaginative brain with his nasty "labels." The fact is this mother, while understandably terrified, has no capacity to control behavior at all, even with the younger daughter. She is complacent and makes excuses for everything. Obviously you have to know how to handle Turrets, but that's what professionals could help you learn. Supposedly at the end of the film Phoebe and Mom have learned to accept/deal with Turrets, but do we get equal redemption for the profession of child psychology? Nope, the guy who was right about the problem is irrelevant; his final image is still a fat, bow-tied waste of space who listens to you whine about your innermost fears a la Freud, rather than focusing on controlling the child's uncontrollable behavior, which is really the issue in the first place. I appreciate the way the movie captures that sense of uncertainty when something is wrong and you have no diagnosis, but I was disappointed by perpetuating this movie cliché at the expense of a real character.

2) Making the principal a real character. He's the flattest character in the film. Yes there are principals who are unsympathetic to teachers and not that great with kids, but this was a completely cardboard authoritarian antagonist stock character. I mean, who hasn't at least HEARD of trust falling? Who is heading a school and has no professional capacity to deal with an incident like spitting, which in an elementary school is bound to have happened once or twice? It's as if the only person in the whole damn movie who can both appreciate and deal with children is the Drama teacher. And the principal's manufacturing a way to get rid of her is grandiose and implausible, even for a dweeb.

3) Allowing the father to be articulate. I'm fine with the father being distant. I'm fine with the father having fights with the mother about the kids, careers, the shrink, etc. But for a guy who's supposed to write for a living, he's remarkably inarticulate. Maybe other people see this kind of ineptitude and repression at every turn as true to life. I guess I expect people who have a way with words and ideas to show it from time to time.

4) Turning monologues into dialogues. The mother’s rant about everything she’s angry about is great. But the dad has absolutely nothing to add; there’ s just a cut. The mother in the shrink’s office is a little mushy, but it’s plausible someone might think this kind of disorder is somehow about whether or not her kids love her or vice versa. But any psychologist/psychiatrist worth a damn would follow that up with a “look, your daughters not clapping three times in front of every door way just because you’re conflicted about not having a career and you feel guilty about resenting motherhood.” Conveniently jumping away in these scenes boosts the angst, but hides the obvious solutions. At the end we're supposed to go, "oh! there is a way out!" but I couldn't help thinking, "well, yeah, lady, if you actually listened to people you might have figured this out already."

This post is long and I'm sorry about that. But I'm curious as to what others think. Corrections? Additions? Admonitions?

[–] jlfratilla 11 years ago

I disagree with all of these points.

1. I actually thought that the psychiatrist was quite sympathetic, and he really did seem to know how to talk to kids (ie, explaining that the rules at school do not apply in his office.) He was a bit dry, but I think that is because we were seeing the psychiatrist (and all other characters) through Phoebe's eyes. The world confounds Phoebe in a way that it does not typically confound other children, and this movie sought to show the viewer why children like Phoebe have a difficult time relating to others. If this movie existed to show the world through someone like Phoebe's father's PoV, then maybe the psychiatrist would have come off as absolutely jovial (if the father had ever gotten to see the psychiatrist.)

2. This ties in with my explanation of number one. The principal's character was flat, because we were being shown characters as they would appear to someone like Phoebe. The reason that this was the case even when Phoebe wasn't present is because the the director wanted to keep the viewer in the Phoebe frame of mind. The principal falls right in line with the rules, the teachers, and even the other students. The rules were confusing, yet the other student's seemed to understand them just fine. The principal seemed like a douche, but everyone else seems to do fine with the way things are in his school. By by being subjected to these confusing rules and seeing only on dimension of these characters, we were able to feel the alienation that a child like Phoebe would feel.

3. Have you studied many writers? It's not necessarily the rule, but writers tend to be inarticulate and antisocial. Actually, most great writers are fabulous at writing because it is the only way that they can really get their feelings out in an eloquent fashion, as speaking is not the forte of most writers. To expound on their inability to communicate well face to face, most writers spend many hours alone each week so that they can get their writing done. Writing is a lonely job.

4. There seem to be two complaints in this one. As far as turning monologues into dialogues, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

" But any psychologist/psychiatrist worth a damn would follow that up with a 'look, your daughters not clapping three times in front of every door way just because you’re conflicted about not having a career and you feel guilty about resenting motherhood.'"

Actually, any psychiatrist worth a damn would never make such a judgmental statement, especially toward a mother who is clearly in denial about her daughter's diagnosis.

" Conveniently jumping away in these scenes boosts the angst, but hides the obvious solutions. At the end we're supposed to go, "oh! there is a way out!" but I couldn't help thinking, 'well, yeah, lady, if you actually listened to people you might have figured this out already.' "

They conveniently jump away in these scenes on purpose. For one thing, the mother is in denial, so she is clearly not going to listen to the reason of the opposite party. The jump was to keep us in suspense as to what was actually wrong with Phoebe. Plus, there is always to option that others didn't respond the the mother's rants due to the fact that they knew she wasn't going to listen, anyway. These people have probably listened to this woman rant like this multiple times before.

At the end, we weren't supposed to be like "Oh! There is a way out!" There is no way out. This child is afflicted with a brain disease that is never going to go away. Rather, we are supposed to feel that relief that putting a name to a disease can help people feel. Once we knew what was wrong with Phoebe, we knew that there were ways for her and her family to cope better. We also knew that there would be help for her in school (since the professionals there now had a diagnosis to work with.) People also realize that the mother was in denial all along. This is almost shocking to those who spent the whole movie empathizing with the mother. It is common to not want to label children with disorders due to the fact that these labels can be rushed and misdiagnosed (ie, ADHD); however, in this case, rejecting the "label" was a hindrance. There was something that was clearly holding Phoebe back, and being able to accept that it was Tourettes was the only way that this family was going to be able to move forward. The mother was understandably in denial over her child having a disease that tends to be viewed negatively, but her denial was damaging to her child and her family. There is a little of that, "You should have just listened to begin with" feeling, but it is hard to explain that to someone who is in denial until she gets over the denial.