Tideland

[Kirkinson]

(That photo was taken by Jeff Bridges.)

I don't think anyone can watch the film without wondering about what was going through Jodelle Ferland's mind or, perhaps more worryingly, what will be going through her mind a few years from now.

Gilliam has talked about her in much the same way that John Cope tells us Christopher Gans did, and has also referred to her many times as a very professional actor. Apparently she even joked to Gilliam about how she has more experience being on a film set than he does. And any time she's been interviewed she has nothing but positive things to say about working on the film. I guess that's all we have to go on now, but it'll be interesting to find out whether she has something else to say about it later in life. She might just be eager to please as children sometimes are.

At this point it I'd like to bring out an article that Sarah Polley wrote for the Toronto Star last year. It used to be online here, but appears to have been taken down (or maybe you need some sort of subscription to see it). Luckily, I saved it for myself:

Polley recalls trauma of Gilliam set

SARAH POLLEY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

On Sept. 10, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail headlined "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star." It was about Terry Gilliam's latest film Tideland, starring 10-year-old Canadian actress Jodelle Ferland. It touched upon his past use of a Canadian child actress.

Globe writer Gayle MacDonald stated, "Filmmakers like Gilliam keep coming to the Canadian talent trough for child actors because our kids, by all accounts, tend to be easy to direct, manage, and mould. Chalk it up to our easy-going, accommodating national character."

Or you could chalk it up to ACTRA's child-labour protections, which are much weaker than American counterparts.

But there's a lot in that paragraph which makes me shudder. The implication that our children being "managed and moulded" is a good thing makes me very uncomfortable.

And then there's the fact that, 17 years ago, I was the first Canadian little girl Gilliam used in a film. I'm always amazed when people don't question the repercussions of children being managed and moulded in an environment as perverse as a film set. The experience of working on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, in particular, was traumatic to say the least.

When I first heard that Terry was shooting a film here with a Canadian little girl, I immediately called ACTRA and asked them to keep a special eye on Jodelle. I also sent Terry an email that I should have sent a long time ago. What follows is the correspondence between us:

Hi there, Terry.

I hear you're making a film in Saskatchewan this summer. I hope you have a great time — there are some great crew people you'll probably be using from Winnipeg who got into making films because of you. (It's actually pretty bizarre — I worked out there this winter and at least five people told me that Baron Munchausen was the film that made them choose to be in film.)

I guess I just wanted to touch base and share a few things about my experience working on that movie. I know you'll be working with a young girl and I realize we've never had a chance to talk about that time — or I guess I mean I haven't communicated to you what my experiences were, or how I remember them now, or how I feel they affected me. I know you've heard varying reports (I can't remember who told me that) and I realize that it's not really fair for me to not communicate it all to you directly. Especially since the only people who I hold responsible (and who, by definition were supposed to be responsible) are my parents.

Basically, I remember being afraid a lot of the time. I felt incredibly unsafe. I remember a couple of trips to the hospital after being in freezing water for long periods of time, losing quite a bit of my hearing for days at a time due to explosives, having my heart monitored when one went off relatively close to me, etc. I remember running through this long sort of corridor where explosives went off every few feet, things were on fire, etc. I cried hysterically in my dad's lap and begged him to make sure I wouldn't have to do it again, but I did. I think I did it quite a few more times. I remember the terrifying scene where we were in the boat and the horse jumped out and ended up surfacing a plastic explosive that went off right under my face. I remember being half trampled by a mob of extras and then repeating the scene several times. I remember working very long hours.

I know I had some fun as well, but it's pretty much obliterated by the sense of fear, and exhaustion, and of not being protected by the adults around me. And again, the adults who should have been there to protect me were my parents, not you. This, of course, took some time to arrive at. I admit I was pretty furious at you for a lot of years.

What I went through is nothing compared to what many kids in the world suffer. But it certainly was unusual for a middle-class kid in Toronto, and it hardened and isolated me for many years, I think. It also created a pretty substantial lack of trust in my parents (again, not your fault, but a by-product of the experience).

This — contrary to how it may read — is not meant to be a guilt trip. You were always fun and fascinating, and you gave me a ton of confidence. You're a genius and it was a privilege (no matter what my age) to watch you make a great film. I think that film was hell for you, too, and you had enough responsibility just keeping it going without having to be a parent to someone else's child. I believe that you felt that if there was something that was particularly traumatic to me, that my parents would have informed you and pulled the plug. Of course, this is what should have happened on many occasions. I don't think my parents were monsters, by any stretch of the imagination. I do think, though, that you can't underestimate how in awe of you people like them can be. I think they were so shocked and thrilled to have their daughter in a Terry Gilliam movie that they couldn't see past that. They didn't want to be an annoyance or an inconvenience to anyone, and it must have been daunting to imagine holding up 100 people for your kid.

So here's my point: who knows whom you'll cast and what their parents will be like. My suspicion is that you might need to be constantly analyzing whether you would put your own 9-year-old in the positions you'll be putting this kid in. Because it's entirely likely that the child's own parents will be (for whatever reason) incapable of making the right call. This is a huge responsibility but I'm starting to think (from watching other kids and parents) that this is a fundamental part of the job when you're working with kids who should really be in school anyway.

Here's some unsolicited advice:

Try to keep a close eye on the mood of the kid, ask them a lot of questions about how they're doing, if they want to stop doing what they're doing, etc. if they seem uncomfortable, afraid, take it upon yourself to make the call as to whether or not it's best to stop or keep going.

If there are water scenes in this one — make sure it's warm!!!! If there are explosions in this one — I really can't emphasize enough how much better it would be if you could do reaction shots separate from the explosions themselves. I still duck when a car door slams too close or too loud.

I know it's probably a sucky way to shoot it — but it might save you another email like this one.

Sorry for the babbling. I just realized I wasn't doing either of us any favours by not letting you know this stuff. And I really think you're a decent person so hearing this might have an impact without being too alienating (I hope).

Good luck with the film. I know it'll be brilliant.

Sarah Polley

Sarah,

Ever since I started this Canadian project, your name has been at the forefront of most of my Toronto conversations. Every potential crew member I interview ends up including you in the chat. You are ubiquitous. How many people get that adjective thrown at them?

I also hear you are about to direct your first film. Congratulations. You've done brilliantly. You've continued to be a wonderful actress and I'm certain you'll handle directing just as well.

As far as the scars of Munchausen go, I had no idea that they were that deep. What always impressed me from my side of the camera was how professional you were ... always prepared and willing to dive into anything, no matter how difficult, that we organized (possibly that should read, disorganized). In fact, I started taking for granted that you could always be counted on, unlike some of the adults. You seemed so focused, I had no idea you were having such a terrifying time.

For what it's worth, we were always concerned to make things safe for you (you were too valuable to the production to allow anything to happen to you). Although things might have seemed to be dangerous, they weren't.

The only time events got close to trouble was when the horse jumped from the boat. We all were terrified, however I knew that Angelo Raguzzo was one of the most brilliant horsemen I had ever seen and that he would make sure none of you in the boat were harmed. Nevertheless, the explosion was a f--- up and I apologize.

One thing I'm curious about: Can you tell, when you see Sally in the film, in which of the shots it's you ... and which ones are your double?

Do you remember that the shots of you in the boat were right at the edge of the tank with stuntmen in the water next to the boat? I only ask, not to minimize your bad memories, but to try to understand the differences in the way you and I remember the events ... especially since you were so young and impressionable and sensitive, and yet seemed to be so wise and about 30 years old.

Luckily, for the girl in the film we are starting, there are no physically dangerous or terrifying scenes. I grant you there are some disturbing ones for adults, but I don't think so for her.

Like you, she is in every scene. It's her film. She's 9 years old and has been acting since she was 4. Extraordinary! Luckily for her, I'm much older now. And a lot more tired. Possibly a bit more wise, as well. And I will take to heart your suggestions.

Thanks for making contact. Hopefully, next time I'm in Toronto we can manage a dinner together. I'm curious to learn who you are now.

Terry

Thanks a lot for getting back to me. I do know in retrospect that many things that terrified me were not as terrifying as they seemed then (and I definitely remember that the boat was in a tank) — and I'm pretty sure I know which shots were the double (specifically an overhead shot where little Kiran [stunt double Kiran Shah] is running like the graceless 35-year-old midget he was. I was pretty bitter about this loping run being attributed to me in my girly teens). However — it does raise a question of what I remember vs. what happened. It's like this with photographs. Whole memories get built around them, which is sometimes a reflection of a general sense of things as they felt at the time, as opposed to what actually occurred.

So I'm willing to accept that my impressions may have been unlike what an adult might have. I think that's sort of the point. It wasn't a good environment for a kid because there were things that could easily be interpreted as dangerous without actually being dangerous. I think it's harder to make those distinctions as a child, and I didn't have a lot of support in trying to make them. The really traumatic things that happened are distinct memories that gave me nightmares well before the film came out, so confusion between what the stunt double was doing as opposed to me didn't really play into my bad memories, I don't think.

I really appreciate you responding. I wasn't sure how you'd react. I hope the film goes really well. I'd love to get together when you are next in Toronto.

I've really appreciated this exchange.

Sarah

Postscript: At a film festival event a few weeks ago, I saw Terry for the first time in 17 years. We had a friendly chat and spoke about Jodelle. He said, "She had a great time, you could tell she really loved it, she knows this is what she wants to do, and she was happy to be there ..."

"Then again," he said, "I remember thinking the same thing about you ... that's why I was so surprised to get your emails." He looked confused.

It would have been difficult for anyone to see how unhappy I was at the time. Like many kids, I was eager to please and good at adapting to difficult situations, storing them away to unpack later. When it came time to publicize The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, I spoke glowingly of Terry and making the film.

In every interview I've read with Jodelle Ferland, she talks about shooting Tideland as a very positive experience. Though she's still a child, it's important to respect her impressions of her own film-set experiences, as they stand now. Yet, based on my own experiences, I'm curious about whether her impressions will change. Perhaps I'll drop her a line in a decade or two to find out.

[godardslave]

politically correct bullshit, daily dose.

[exte]

politically correct bullshit, daily dose.

So her memories from the age of 10 aren't valid? Her feelings of trauma don't suffice? Plastic explosives and freezing water do not count? Or was it Gilliam's response, of how 'professional' he thought of her to be, that smelled of bs? Or is it Sarah Polley's concern for the child's welfare that rubs you wrong? Or am I referring to the wrong post altogether?

[domino harvey]

there are so many people in this world I can feel sorry for, child actresses are not near the top of the list.

[toiletduck!]

I just saw it tonight (also in Chicago), and am also ready to call it Gilliam's best film. Gilliam has always been a weird one for me. Conceptually speaking, I think he's the greatest living mainstream filmmaker. Give me any of his films on paper, and I'm ready to (and in many cases did) line up to see it. But by the time the credits hit I'm just not quite satisfied. It's not that Gilliam's work isn't technically brilliant, but there's always been a certain level of disconnect that throws me -- I even have a hard time getting through Brazil in one sitting.

I never had this problem with Tideland; whereas all of his previous work struck me as a fantastical world being orchestrated by Gilliam, here it was almost as if I was seeing the same world through his eyes. There was such an immediacy to the work (which was in no doubt helped by the wonderful Lil' Miss Ferland) that what, content-wise, could have been one of his most disturbing films instead hit me as entirely playful and (as everyone else here has rightfully pointed out) innocent.

Again, less steely souls (or eyes or stomachs) may walk out, and I don't begrudge them, but I can't say that the film struck me as disturbing. There were parts of the 'romance' between Jeliza-Rose and Dickens that left me borderline uncomfortable, but immediate reflection says that this indicates more about just how inundated the American vilification of sex (no spoilers, there's really never anything to be concerned about) has become. As a whole (and thank god for Gilliam's introduction to put me in the right frame of mind from the get-go -- more directors should employ a similar approach), the film was a big ol' exciting fairy tale.

Which I think ties in to both the meaning behind the film and the child actress concern: innocence doesn't imply a lack of sophistication or even knowledge, but an lack of cynicism, a crutch that we grow into. A child doesn't have a concept of 'disturbing'; things might be exciting or sad or scary, but everything is an adventure to be had. It's a shame that as we mature, everything turns into what should or shouldn't be, as opposed to what is. I have a feeling that whether or not Gilliam feels this is his best film, it's probably going to be his favorite, because he has succeeded in portraying a story that simply is. And I am not worried about Jodelle at all. I've long since learned to never underestimate children -- it's amazing how conscious the lack of an agenda can make them.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Kirkinson]

French DVD on January 4

UK DVD on January 29

US DVD on February 27

Facets on the US DVD from ThinkFilm:

2-DVD set. Letterboxed. Closed-captioned. Includes commentary by Terry Gilliam, an introduction by Gilliam, an interview with Gilliam, the short film Getting Gilliam by Vincenzo Natali, theatrical trailer, and The Making of Tideland featurette.

According to these two postings at the message board on Gilliam's semi-official fan site, the French and UK releases seem to have the same extras as the US release with the exception of the Gilliam commentary, which so far seems to have been left off the French disc. This could change as soon as there's an official announcement, of course.

There's also no word on aspect ratios yet, but I would certainly expect all these releases to be in that regard an improvement over the Russian DVD, which is incorrectly framed at 1.85:1 (this film is 2.35:1).

[John Cope]

Well, I hate to say it but I was pretty underwhelmed by this one, despite Gilliam's all too obvious efforts to overwhelm. The tone is set immediately in the early scenes with Jeliza-Rose and her parents and these scenes work, at least as well as can be expected. But this may well be because they are early scenes. For me, at least, torpor set in quite quickly as it became apparent what Gilliam's agenda was.

The trouble is Tideland accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, it feels fully absorbed into Gilliam's system of intents, and that is the problem. His introduction on the DVD asks us to remove our existing prejudices and approach this material with the innocent expansiveness of a child. That sounds good but it avoids dealing with the fact that this innocent vision has been deeply contextualized within Gilliam's own abiding and presiding vision. It's as though he expects us to overlook the elements of his formal construction or deny our own inherent limitations of vision. This kind of naivete is why, amongst other reasons, I prefer a presentation of innocent longing like Angelopoulos's Landscape in the Mist, one that takes into account a viewer's cognitive contribution. All we can do with Gilliam's film is shrug and nod and say, "Yep, that's pretty fucked up."

Tideland wears on you and it's meant to and that too annoys me. It's not like the narrative rhythms of an American Psycho which also beat us down with monotony but for an ultimate reward of understanding that could not come any other way. Here, we have variations on the same cartoon grotesquerie for almost two hours with little reason to care or engage. True, there are a handful of moments where the mask seems to slip a little (Jeliza-Rose cuddling up to her father, her acknowledgment that Dickens is not a "captain", the revelation of Dell's past involvement with JR's father) but it's almost as if Gilliam really has no idea what to do with these moments. This is understandable as the component parts of his story are so extreme there is little room for any genuine human sympathy or recognition of tragedy. The loss Jeliza-Rose suffers, for instance, is unfortunate but hardly devastating as her circumstances were already impoverished and also already wildly psychotic. The "retreat into fantasy" to survive may be necessary but is merely an extension of her present existence--it therefore has much less weight than it otherwise would. This is a misjudgment in the original material I think, as I also felt that way about the book; however, it may very well be what Gilliam was drawn to. He's always been a sucker for blatant absurdity and the idea that this particular absurdity was at the service of profound wisdom may have appealed to him.

I guess for me the reason that both this and Pan's Labyrinth ultimately seem so lackluster is because I cannot help but compare them to other works that accomplished these aims so much more vividly. Here I'm thinking of not just the aforementioned Angelopoulos but also stuff like Night of the Hunter, Whistle Down the Wind, and especially Philip Ridley's great Reflecting Skin. There is nothing in these more recent films to compare to the scene in that film in which little Seth Dove visits the house of the woman he believes to be a vampire and she feeds his imagination while simultaneously excoriating herself, making herself deeply vulnerable. We understand what he does not, that this is a damaged but more importantly human being whose destructive self-image he is obliviously contributing to, her depression unto death also an underlying theme in so much of Lynch's work. Gilliam, meanwhile, gives us nonsense with Jeliza-Rose and Dickens which has only one purpose, to push our buttons and repel us. We're meant to shake our heads and wonder just how far Gilliam will go. But this is the sign of an ultimately insecure filmmaker, one who constantly has to goad a surface response to his provocations. In Reflecting Skin, once again, the shock of seeing Seth's dad self-immolate is nothing compared to the inspired counterbalance of seeing Seth blow at the sparks of the resultant blaze as though they emanated from a summer bonfire. It's a poetic image that is not belabored; it evidences a real understanding of childhood resilience merged with imaginative caprice because it passes by like an after thought, like a flourish.

At least Pan's Labyrinth chose to deal with the weight of evil but it was undercut by its own schematic structure. It does not go where Reflecting Skin goes, into the realm of a gradually dawning awareness of complicity with evil, the shift from innocence to understanding to utility. The recognition at the end when Seth is forced to confront the ramifications of a moral choice does justice to the responsibilities inherent in a more restricted consciousness, which is also a given inevitability. The parallel to that is the end of Blue Velvet and its profound understanding of the price of wisdom, the required necessity to accept darkness as inherent and the choice to actively suppress it.

Anyway, I know all that has nothing to do with Tideland and maybe that's the point. I emerged from Gilliam's movie pretty much unmoved and cognitively unmotivated and that can't be what he was aspiring toward.

[exte]

Didn't he make an agreement with Depp in Lost in La Mancha that each of them would go off an make a commercial flick so that they could return to it later? Well, obviously Depp did good on his part, but Gilliam seems to love shooting himself in the foot.

[Antoine Doinel]

Though to be fair, the Weinsteins meddled with nearly every aspect of the The Brothers Grimm.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Though to be fair, the Weinsteins meddled with nearly every aspect of the The Brothers Grimm.

Exactly, as covered quite nicely in Bob McCabe's book, Dreams and Nightmares: Terry Gilliam, The Brothers Grimm, & Other Cautionary Tales of Hollywood.

[colinr0380]

Well, obviously Depp did good on his part, but Gilliam seems to love shooting himself in the foot.

But strangely I'm left with more respect for Gilliam!

[Kirkinson]

Can anyone who has watched the Thinkfilm DVD comment on the aspect ratio? There's a post at the Dreams messageboard saying it's been presented incorrectly as 1.85:1, and claiming this was achieved by cutting off the sides. I've been trying to confirm this elsewhere but I'm getting conflicting information from reviews. Slant and Currentfilm.com both say it's 2.35 (which is what it ought to be) but The DVD Lounge says it's 1.85.

[John Cope]

It's definitely not 2.35.

[Dylan]

I'm in disbelief.

How often has a film with the greatest and most visually painstaking cinematography of the year get cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 on its R1 DVD release? Does anybody have any clue as to how this fuck-up possibly happened?

Luckily, I didn't pre-order or buy the R1 DVD.

[Kirkinson]

The first still is from a clip at Tideland's web site. The second comes from the French edition of the film, which is also around 1.85:1. (I think the color difference appears because the film wasn't finished -- i.e., color timed or corrected -- when the web site's clip was made.) It shows that the transfer is more open at the top and bottom and somewhat cropped on the sides. I presume this is also the case in the US, as well as the Russian, Belgian, and (probably) Canadian editions. It's looks as though Revolver's UK release is the only one that got the framing correct. I haven't been able to find any screen caps to confirm that one, however.

[domino harvey]

The descriptions of this sounded pretty good, so I went in with an open mind even though I truly dislike Gilliam as a director. From the obnoxiously obvious "Alice in Wonderland" reading to the typical nauseating canted angles, this was a complete failure. I kept waiting for it to become more than what it was. Fart jokes melding into decomposition "jokes" I guess is what Gilliam wanted me to laff at, and the heroin-injecting kid and her two junkie parents just seemed like way too much effort on the part of all of those involved in the film to "shock" the viewer-- Gilliam, I've read all 400 pages of the 120 Days of Sodom, nothing you have to show can "shock" me, and there's few things more boring than someone trying. We'll sew up the dad! That's kooky and just weird man! The young girl did her best with the material she was given, but it was wasted effort. The dollheads seemed to be the most interesting aspect of the film, but like everything else, it never went anywhere beyond presentation of the elements. An empty film.

[denti alligator]

How often has a film with the greatest and most visually painstaking cinematography of the year get cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 on its R1 DVD release? Does anybody have any clue as to how this fuck-up possibly happened?

As those caps show it's the 2.35 framing that's cropped. The question still remains: how was this mean to be projected? Anyone have a straight answer?

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

It was shot in Super 35, so cropping would be necessary to obtain a 2.35:1 image. The fact that it was Super 35 argues against an intended AR of 1.85:1 (I believe there are a few 1.85:1 Super 35 films, but it's unusual to say the least); I saw it projected twice and it was definitely 2.35:1 (or 2.40:1 or 2.39:1 or whatever) on both occasions. I've never heard anyone else say otherwise. And it's quite clear from this interview that 2.35:1 is the intended AR:

With Tideland you have used a wide aspect ratio. Since working with cinematographer Nicola Pecorini, you have worked with a wider format with Fear and Loathing and Tideland. How do you decide which ratio to shoot in?

Gilliam: It was really because we wanted the wide open spaces that we chose the wide screen. That was also true in Fear and Loathing - desert and space. Doing something in a city where things are much more vertical, I go for a less wide format. Brothers Grimm was 1.85 instead of 2.35 simply because we wanted to show the height of the trees.

Some folks at the Dreams message board have confirmed that the UK DVD is 2.35:1, so it looks like that's the one to get.

(As an aside, Gilliam and Palin had better get together one of these days for that Water Music project mentioned in the interview -- from the sound of things it could be the Ripping Yarns feature film that never was.)

[kinjitsu]

The Tideland DVD discussion is now located over here.

[Michael]

There is not much I can add to what Kirkinson and toiletduck! have already elaborate beautifully (above). I'm a Gilliam skeptic and his films never did anything for me. His Tideland was unfortunately SAVAGED when it was released. Honestly I don't think I've seen worse reviews for a movie in the last 5 years. Entertainment Weekly gave the film an F when it was out, but apparently reviewed it much more nicely with the DVD release. Tideland is the best film Gilliam has done. It's intensely macabre and so eye-meltingly gorgeous. There's not a better film other than Halloween to watch during October. It's gothic made fresh again. It navigates the same territory as Pan's Labyrinth but I think Tideland's execution of fantasy, imagination and horror is far more original, fascinating and disturbing - even hundreds times more than the Pale Man sequence - the best but too brief sequence of Pan's Labyrinth. I also noticed a sprinkling of "borrowings" from Italian Horror (especially after revisiting Bava and Argento heavily in the past few weeks).

Ignore the critics. And even if you don't like Gilliam, do give Tideland a chance. It's fucking awesome.

[indiannamednobody]

I was watching Spirit of the Beehive last night and the honey colors and the landscape reminded me a lot of Tideland.

[Magic Hate Ball]

If I ever want to be drowned by a film, I pick Tideland, because it's the only film that can do such a thing.