Turning the Tidelands - why Terry Gilliam’s most despised film is actually one of his best

by Memo Salazar

I know my title is a stupid pun, but it’s also very true. Perhaps the best film I saw in 2006 was Terry Gilliam’s Tideland. I walked out of that theater thankful that Mr. G had, once again, reinvented himself and the world around him. Imagine my surprise, then, when every review that emerged from the sad pit of insecurities collectively known as “movie critics” gave Gilliam big zeroes for his effort. I’ve never heard such vitrol from such “professionals”:

“An endless, pointless drone with characters like bacteria and dialogue like an untuned radio.”

“Horrendous and terrible.”

“It’s just a bad movie.”

“You watch the film feeling abused and exploited.”

“As unwatchable as a train wreck.”

“Ugly, disturbing, and misguided mess.”

“Tideland is borderline unwatchable.”

“Pointless and an excruciating bore.”

Entertainment Weekly gave it a flat-out “F”, and Gene Siskel’s watered-down replacement, Richard Roeper, actually chimed in with : “I came very close to walking out of the screening room. And I never do that.”

In fact, most of the reviews shared the same basic phrases and reactions, almost as if they had all been copying each other during a math test. These guys aren’t just disappointed by Gilliam’s effort, they are pissed; they feel cheated and abused. They’re convinced Gilliam has gone bitterly postal, and that this film is his way of getting the industry back for 30 years of abuse towards his career. How can this be the same film that not only I, but almost every person I’ve met who has seen it, really enjoyed? How can Tideland be “most depressing” to a bunch of critics, yet fascinating and inspiring to all seventeen of us who actually saw the film?

Gilliam himself anticipated the backlash. He introduces the film on camera, explaining what we are about to see. I quote from memory: “Some of you will love this film. Some of you will hate it. Others won’t know what to think- and that’s okay, as long as you are thinking.” He then goes on to advise that, in order to appreciate the film, one has to get in touch with one’s inner child, and see things, in this case, through the eyes of a little girl. It’s not just a cute introduction- it is a literal truth. If you can’t remember what it’s like to be under ten years of age, if you can’t appreciate what kids have that most adults have long forgotten, and if you can’t appreciate the creative survival power of the human mind, then you will definitely not understand (and will probably hate) this film. Apparently, this includes every major American film critic.

Is that such a surprise? I’ve met many prominent film critics, and, by and large, they all fall into the same stereotype- insecure, frustrated writers who haven’t an original thought rattling in their mind; a group of people with such little confidence, that everything they write down must first be rationalized and justified by precedents, never daring to do something original and insightful, lest they make a mistake for the world to note- these are our critics. Let’s hear it for a bunch of mental weaklings who’s only source of ego-boosting is the belief that there are people out there who give a shit about what they have to say! Sadly, they’re partially right- there are people out there who actually give a shit about what they have to say.

I generalize, of course. I’m being unfairly harsh, but only because critics by and large have done more harm than good in this world. Hey, I’m quite aware of the apparent irony in my words, since I, myself, am playing the role of critic as well- but it’s not the concept of criticism I’m attacking, it’s the execution. Criticism should be an attempt to analyze a work objectively, not merely a projection of one’s clearly subjective tastes onto someone else’s work. It’s like saying you don’t like a movie because there’s not enough olive green in it- hey, olive green can be your thing, but it’s a completely irrational, unhelpful bit of criticism to the general public. This is the mistake most critics make- they’re so stuck in their “critic” shtick they forget to just shut the fuck up and understand where the artist is coming from. There is the occasional review (or reviewer) out there that is willing to accept a film on its owns terms, critiquing it for what it’s actually doing rather than what the critic wants it to do… but this kind of critic isn’t common, and Tideland is probably the best case in point.

Tideland is rich and challenging, but its heart is incredibly simple. Thematically, it shares much with the more popular Pan’s Labyrinth, though structurally, they are quite different beasts. When life shits on you as a child, you find a way to get by. In Pan’s Labyrinth, our young heroine survives by transplanting herself into the fairy tales she loves to read. It’s a surprisingly wonderful film that eschews cliche while it blends historical fiction with classic fantasy. Tideland, however, reaches this theme via a much more alternate path. Yes, it too is about a little girl who escapes into her fantasy world in order to survive life’s ordeal, but this fantasy world is a truly unique vision, rather than the familiar, comforting fantasy world of princesses and fauns. Gilliam serves us a darker, more bizarre and unpredictable meal, but that’s exactly what makes it such a masterpiece. Every scene takes you to places you’ve never imagined; not once can you guess the pattern or predict the resolution. It all makes sense, but within a logic you’ve never dealt with. Gilliam never cheats us with formulaic solutions and “twists”, which seems to be a problem in the eyes of our critical pals. We’re never given anything to grab onto, any type of cinematic landmark that brings the film back into the realm of “I’ve been here before; I know how this thing works.” It is exactly like poking around in a pitch-black cave and having to figure its layout using only your fingers. Probably not the kind of “fun” people expect when they watch a movie, but definitely an experience worth savoring over and over.

And Jeliza-Rose, our protagonist… what a girl! Played by Jodelle Ferland, this is easily the greatest performance by a non-adult actor I have ever seen. It is amazingly subtle, yet strong enough to literally carry an entire film by itself. Gilliam throws her into a sparse Canadian landscape, where nothing much is happening, and dumps the responsibility of keeping the audience’s attention on her lap. She interacts with other characters at times, sure, but most of the film involves her and her imagination- nothing else. That’s a lot to ask for from anyone, let alone a “mere child”, but Ferland proves that kids can be much stronger than adults… which is fitting, since that’s one of the points of the film.

Like Terry says, if you can’t put yourself in Jeliza-Rose’s shoes, if you can’t grasp the beauty of her childish resilience, and if you can’t understand that this film is not showing the world as a horrible place, but rather, why life is so beautiful and amazing, then you just don’t get it. You don’t just misunderstand this film, you’re misunderstanding what living’s all about. I know them’s fightin’ words, but that’s exactly what this culture needs- something worthwhile to fight for. In this dormant, bland culture of ours, it’s rare that you will watch a movie that shakes up your comfortable little version of reality. Most things fit nicely into the compartments we’ve been taught to distinguish, giving us a sense of control over our chaotic lives. Along comes Gilliam, throwing us a giant curveball in a constantly-shifting shape we can’t begin to describe, and we’re expected to catch it? Who does he think he is?

Please, watch one of the most ignored, but greatest, films of our time. Watch it twice before you send it back, because once is probably just not enough to really appreciate what it’s all about. It’s simply that kind of film.

Wisconsin Film Reviews: Part One

By Dan Tester

…so I says to him, I says “Hey der, you seen dat movie SHORTBUS yet?” and he says to me, he says “Heck no, I ain’t been to the picture house in years and what not” so I says to him I says “Well dis picture ain’t in dat movie house, it’s in the picture borrowin’ house down on Milton Avenue, and not even in the prevert section. It is right on the shelf with NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM and what not” and he says to me, he says “Oh gosh, I ain’t even got one of them home picture showin’ machines, I ain’t got no need for it” so I says to him, I says “Well, der, you might be better off, because dat SHORTBUS was kinda weird in a strange way” and he says to me, he says “What’s it about?” and I says to him, I says “Oh, about an hour and a half or so, I reckon” and he says to me, he says “Well, dat’s a fine runnin’ time” and I says to him, I says “Yeah, I guess you got a point der and what not, but dat movie was just plain weird I tells ya” and he says to me, he says “What was so weird about dat flicker?” and I says to him, I says “It is mostly just a buncha preverts out der on the coast, touchin’ each other inappropriately and sinnin’ against Jesus and what not” and he says to me, he says “I hear ya, dem movies today sure do like to show dat kind of smut” so I says to him, I says “Hey dere, there is one scene where a fella sucks on his own pener and jizzes right onto his own face.”………………………………………………………..

………so then he says to me, he says “Maggie’s apple pie sure is good today, eh?” and I says to him, I says “You got dat right, and what not” and then he says to me, he says “Dem Packers are gonna win dat Super Bowl this year, yah hey dere” and I says to him, I says “Yeah, I reckon they look pretty good and what not” so he says to me, he says “Yah, Favre is lookin’ better than ever, I suspect” and I says to him, I says “Yah, I reckon he is ready for another run” and then he says to me, he says “Say, do you see any girls touchin’ themselves in dat movie you were just talkin’ about right there?” and so I says to him, I says “Sure do, and she is Chinese or somethin’ too” and he says to me, he says “Boy, I never had a Chinese before” and I says to him, I says “She gets a pener in almost every hole in dat movie too!” and he says to me, he says “Every hole? Ouchadeena!!!!” so I says to him, I says “I reckon” and he says to me, he says “And dat movie is just right there, on the reglar rentin’ shelf and what not?” and I says to him, I says “Sure is” and he says to me, he says “You don’t meet many chicks like dat in these parts, and my Gertrude sure ain’t into dat kind of filthy smut, which is why I love her dearly and what not” and so I says to him, I says ”I guess some girls are just dirty dat way sometimes I reckon” and he says to me, he says “Well, dat is just disgusting, and it makes Jesus angry”………………………..

….so then he says to me, he says “I think we ought go right go down to dat borrowin’ house and get dat movie and take it to the preacher, so he can see what kind of smut is comin’ into our town, and what not” and I says to him, I says, “Dat is a pretty good idea, I reckon” and he says to me, he says “Let me use your borrowin’ card, and I will go get dat dirty, horrible flicker and take it home with me to make sure it is safe and what not” and I says to him, I says “Okay, someone really should do sumthin, yah hey dere” and then he says to me, he says “I ain’t gonna watch it or nuthin’, I just want to make sure it is safe, I reckon you reckon my intention” and I says to him, I says ”Yeah, I reckon, since you don’t even have a home picture watchin’ machine in your trailer” and so he says to me, he says “Chinese huh?” and I says to him, I says “Chinese, or some what not”………………..

….so I give him my borrowin’ card, I give, and he says to me, he says “I better take right off now and get dat dere disgusting poop before a youngun’ takes it home by accident and turns all whore-like and what not” and I says to him, I says “I reckon dat is a fine idea” and then he says to me, he says “How much do them home picture showin’ machines cost anyway?” and so I says to him, I says “They are really quite affordable nowadays” and so he says to me, he says “How long is Best Buy open?” and I says to him, I says “I believe right up until 10 pm most days, I reckon” and he says to me, he says “I better hit the road then” and I says to him, I says “But it’s only noon, and you haven’t even finished that slice of Maggie’s fine apple pie” and he says to me, he says “Perversion don’t take a nooner to eat pie, and neither do I, and what not” and so I says to him, I says “You are a fine, fine Christian man, I reckon” and he says to me, he says “Have a nice day now” and I says to him, I says “Go fuck yourself” and he says to me, he says “Yah, I hear ya. Go fuck yourself too. Yah hey dere.”…….

All in all, it was another fine, glorious day in Wisconsin.

Thinking Out Loud

By Warren Curry

Nothing screams cop-out quite like a “random thoughts” article, does it? Well, here’s my foray into that shallow (well, not in all cases; maybe just this one) form of writing geared specifically toward you, the short-attention span generation. With any luck something substantive will emerge and, yes, dear CinemaSpeak readers (i.e. Memo’s friends) prepare yourself for “Thinking Out Loud,” which won’t be limited to just the topic of movies, to be a semi-regular column. Other semi-regular columns I have in mind are “Netflix Diary” and an as-of-yet unnamed blog that will deliver capsule reviews of movies that are, or will soon be, playing at a theater near you.

To give you something of a preview of the latter, let me jump right into it…blindfolded…with both arms tied behind my back:

* Did you know Canadian actress Sarah Polley (”The Sweet Hereafter,” “Go,” “Dawn of the Dead”) is also a filmmaker? She has a few shorts under her belt, and her feature debut, “Away From Her,” is slated for release tomorrow (May 4) in New York and Los Angeles. It’s the first film I’ve seen this year that already has a spot reserved on my 2007 Top 10 list, but it promises to be a tough sell considering:

1.) The film is about a couple in their 60s whose marriage is tested due to the wife (played by the still stunning Julie Christie) suffering from Alzheimer’s disease;

2.) Its biggest name actor (that would be Polley) never steps in front of the camera;

3.) Its pacing could best be described as deliberate (but determined!).

Yet anyone who loves rich entertainment that relishes the depth of emotional content, even if that means the occasional slow going, will embrace this film. Here’s to hoping the almost criminally talented Polley will be able to strike a nice balance in her career between directing and acting.

* Another worthwhile new release, also written and directed by an actress, is the late Adrienne Shelly’s “Waitress.” Though it’s not as emotionally satisfying/complex as “Away From Her,” “Waitress” is an enjoyable, accessible movie that only the most cynical could really dislike. I don’t know how this film won’t be overshadowed by the story of the bizarre, horrific murder of its director last fall, but “Waitress” clearly doesn’t need one’s sympathy to be appreciated. You can read my full review HERE. For information about special Mother’s Day screenings of the film visit: www.MOVIEwithMOM.com.

* Note to ESPN: Those people who annually attend the NFL draft wearing their favorite team’s jerseys aren’t just diehard football fans — they’re also complete idiots. Stop encouraging them.

* Inspired by Memo’s most recent blog, I finally got around to seeing “Grindhouse” last weekend. Mr. Salazar and I disagree (at least somewhat) about this one. My reaction fell in line with my previous opinions of the directors: I couldn’t stand Robert Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror” and loved every word of silly chatter and frame of ass-kicking action in Quentin Tarantino’s “Death Proof.” I won’t claim to be an expert on ’70s Grindhouse cinema, but I don’t think either of these films could be mistaken for the genuine article. Rodriguez is so obviously a child of ’80s action flicks that his “slumming” screams Hollywood poser, right down to the movie’s last digitally manipulated scratch. All that blood, violence and action, and yet it’s still so insufferably boring. But if his trailer for “Machete” is ever turned into a feature (which, I believe, is the plan), count me in! Yes, “Death Proof” is filled with talk, talk and even more talk, but the flapping gums didn’t bother me. In fact, listening to QT’s collection of ladies chat away about whatever (and often times “whatever” would be the perfect description of their conversations) entertained me infinitely more than any moment in “Planet Terror.” And the action is better than anything QT’s ever done, completely blowing “Kill Bill” out of the water, probably because it’s not as elaborate. But is “Death Proof” really a Grindhouse movie? Despite the inanity of his dialogue (and I don’t actually mean that as a slight), Tarantino is simply too good a filmmaker to make easy to discard schlock. “Death Proof” is a simple tale of revenge, but translated through the eye of a filmmaker schooled in the serious American cinema of the ’70s (who also, annoyingly, loves to reference his past work). At the same time, it doesn’t feel as if QT is taking this material nearly as seriously as he did in “Kill Bill,” and the movie’s all the better for it. Rosario Dawson and friends turning Kurt Russell into a human punching bag is one of this year’s movie highlights.

* Can we now call Season 3 of “The Office,” maybe not a disaster, but a genuine disappointment? The jokes are weaker, the old characters are growing tired (does Ryan still serve a purpose?), the new ones have yet to be developed in an interesting way (that would be Karen), and if even my wife doesn’t find the Pam/Jim thing cute anymore, then you really have problems. Every week I tune in, hoping for the episode that will right this season’s ship, but it has yet to air. At least the Michael/Toby dynamic still makes me laugh.

* The demise of “The Office” has elevated “Entourage” to the much revered status of “Warren’s favorite television series.” But I’m starting to worry about this young season, too. The writers seem somewhat unsure about Ari’s direction, and I don’t like what they’re doing with the relationship between Vince and his new agent, Amanda, which feels entirely forced. Given that “The Office” and “Entourage” are the only weekly episodic television series I watch — aside from “Best Week Ever” (a truly guilty pleasure) and “Real Time with Bill Maher” — it might be time to enlist backups. I had sort of high expectations for MTV’s “Human Giant,” but the only episode I’ve caught missed as often as it hit.

* “Napoleon Dynamite” has to be the most controversial movie Ken Loach never directed.