Little Children (Todd Field, 2006)

[Antoine Doinel]

A friend of mine posits that I misread the film - that it's not about suburban hypocrisy and the decay of the middle class soul (puke puke puke), and that all of its Flintstonian ruminations on suburbia are secondary to its titular obsession - it's a film about how all these characters are behaving like high schoolers - going to English class (the embarrassing Madame Bovary scene), having football games, and generally refusing to grow up - their problem is not one endemic to their location but to their inability to accept the responsibilities of adulthood.

Really, if this is the claim the film is making, I think I hate it even more - the inherent equation here of youth with moral or social maladjustment is offensive and banal - what kind of cynical humorless pedant could earnestly make that his theme?

I'm not sure how you missed the theme, particularly when the main character had the nickname of "The Prom King".

And Field's theme would be laughable if American statistics that show 40% of children are born out of wedlock and 50% of marriages end in divorce weren't so glaring. For all the ruling party trumpeting of "family values", an actual look at American gender relationships shows something far different.

[portnoy]

A friend of mine posits that I misread the film - that it's not about suburban hypocrisy and the decay of the middle class soul (puke puke puke), and that all of its Flintstonian ruminations on suburbia are secondary to its titular obsession - it's a film about how all these characters are behaving like high schoolers - going to English class (the embarrassing Madame Bovary scene), having football games, and generally refusing to grow up - their problem is not one endemic to their location but to their inability to accept the responsibilities of adulthood.

Really, if this is the claim the film is making, I think I hate it even more - the inherent equation here of youth with moral or social maladjustment is offensive and banal - what kind of cynical humorless pedant could earnestly make that his theme?

I'm not sure how you missed the theme, particularly when the main character had the nickname of "The Prom King".

We'll go with it being such an awful, witless premise for a film that it'd never even occur to me that someone might seriously do it.

And Field's theme would be laughable if American statistics that show 40% of children are born out of wedlock and 50% of marriages end in divorce weren't so glaring. For all the ruling party trumpeting of "family values", an actual look at American gender relationships shows something far different.

[John Cope]

A friend of mine posits that I misread the film - that it's not about suburban hypocrisy and the decay of the middle class soul (puke puke puke), and that all of its Flintstonian ruminations on suburbia are secondary to its titular obsession - it's a film about how all these characters are behaving like high schoolers - going to English class (the embarrassing Madame Bovary scene), having football games, and generally refusing to grow up - their problem is not one endemic to their location but to their inability to accept the responsibilities of adulthood.

Really, if this is the claim the film is making, I think I hate it even more - the inherent equation here of youth with moral or social maladjustment is offensive and banal - what kind of cynical humorless pedant could earnestly make that his theme?

I'm not sure how you missed the theme, particularly when the main character had the nickname of "The Prom King".

We'll go with it being such an awful, witless premise for a film that it'd never even occur to me that someone might seriously do it.

Yet another film I have yet to see but this supposedly "awful, witless premise" is exactly why I want to see it. I'd like to think that my own social network is not completely anomalous or marginal and I can tell you I see this attitude all the time, constantly. Often with people who otherwise have many things going for them. I would even say it's a rampant social problem. But apparently I've misjudged its significance.

Oh, and I don't think anyone is equating youth with social maladjustment. But attempting to remain fixed in your youth in defiance of the nagging, often unpleasurable demands of maturity is a maladjustment.

[Matt]

Yet another film I have yet to see but this supposedly "awful, witless premise" is exactly why I want to see it.

Well, if you want to see it represented in film with absolutely no insight, critique, or analysis, this is your film.

[a.khan]

I thought it was incredible. As Matt notes (appreciatively, I think) there's no attempt to say anything beyond what's presented. The drone voiceover narration made me feel the story was like a science experiment where man, the social animal is being studied with a cold, matter-of-factness. I was also genuinely taken by the wry humour in the film.

[Antoine Doinel]

Field's film isn't just about people who can't take of their kids. As filmnoir1 pointed out there is some really interesting observations on sexuality and power.

SPOILERS

It's interesting how the women view the Prom King in the first place -- firstly as a sex object and later, through Winslet's character as a someone to build a relationship with. At the end of the film when the both Winslet and Prom King abandon the plan to run away it is for entirely different reasons. Winslet realizes how much she has been putting herself first instead of her child and finally accepts that she must become a responsible adult, and deal with her child and perhaps the difficulty in her current marriage. The Prom King on the other hand, while it is later revealed he has kept the envelope he was going to leave his wife, is still searching for a fulfillment of his fantasy. Indeed, all the male characters in the film are continually driven and damaged by unrealistic fantasies. The cop who dreams of being somebody's hero; the pedophile who wishes to be normal; The Prom King who wishes to be 18 again; Winslet's husband who fantasizes about a digital image. I think Field's makes a scathing comment about men in contemporary society, particularly in positions of power. While The Prom King is failed lawyer, but in the neighborhood his sexuality gives him sway over an obsessed Winslet that is at times painful (ie. when she stalks him on the weekend; when she repeatedly inquires as to the Prom King's wife's looks; and when she shows up at the football game).

But Fields doesn't spare the women either. It's depressing to see their ambitions destroyed by horribly scheduled lives and answering to the calls of their children.

What I liked most about the film is that Field never tries to have his audience sympathize with the characters. Unlike American Beauty which tries to make a hero out of Kevin Spacey's character, none of these people are worthy of our sympathy. And while the ending isn't as dark as I would've have liked, the relationships are fractured, possibly beyond repair. These characters aren't left with hope, but with pangs of regret, struggling to make sense of the new life they want to lead as parents and adults while reconciling that their past can't be lived again.

[Galen Young]

Todd Field and Kate Winslet were on Sunday Morning Shootout; Peter Bart asked Todd if he thought Little Children had a happy ending -- he avoided the question all together by explaining why he doesn't like happy endings, etc, ad nauseam -- but still wouldn't answer the question about his film. Got around to something about the characters all achieving a "state of grace"!? Hmmmm.... (he also told Winslet not to read the book, which she made the "mistake" of doing...!)

[Antoine Doinel]

Winslet read the book intentionally. NY Times interview below:

[quote]Kate Winslet Vanishes Into Her Roles

By SYLVIANE GOLD
Published: January 7, 2007

SARAH PIERCE, the central figure in “Little Children,â€

[John Cope]

Finally saw it and thought it was excellent. Perhaps not as profound as I had hoped but given the characters' own limits of vision that may be inevitable.

What was most striking to me about it was surely Field's beautifully economic distillation of the source material. It really is better than the book and for a number of reasons.

Field has tightened things up considerably, which was obviously partly due just to necessary compression of events, but he does this with great aplomb, elegance and skill. As I watched it I marveled at the choices made which rendered so much of the material in the book extraneous and rightly so. By junking many subplots and additional character info he manages to not only streamline his narrative but clear the frame of clutter. I can't think of anything he changed or did away with that didn't seem like an absolutely proper decision.

This will require spoilers so...

Amongst many examples, Field simplifies the reason for May's death. In the novel she's afflicted by a tumor; in the movie it is indicated that she may have heart problems and she appears to have a heart attack as a direct result of the confrontation with Larry. Say what you will about this but it serves to shore up Larry's subsequent behavior in ways that were impossible with the somewhat muddy source material. I can imagine some people not liking a change like this for just that reason: it simplifies and provides perhaps too much of a direct emotional parallel for Larry given his haunted past actions. But the error here is in assuming that Little Children is not or should not function as melodrama, that it can only be recognizably human and resonant if there are a multitude of complications. I simply disagree; this gambit can and often does feel just as contrived as straight melodrama and Little Children works best when it recognizes it own inherent limitations.

The ending is greatly improved as well. As I said before everything Field changes turns out to be a good choice. This includes dropping a godawful, excessively maudlin multi character confrontation and completely dropping Ronnie's guilt for a past criminal deed. I always thought that this was a huge misjudgment in the original text. Whatever Perrotta may have been going for, what emerged was this subtle reinforcement of the suburban characters prejudices. They were right about him all along. Eliminating that doesn't eliminate complications or contradictions in Ronnie's character; we get the fact that he may be irredeemable without it. It actually evidences a greater wisdom and sophistication to leave that kind of stuff out; Field indulges sensationalism when Ronnie reveals what he has done to be a "good boy" but this reveal is a tragic expansion of his character and a deepening of Larry's character without being obnoxiously schematic.

The narration is also crucial throughout. Most of what is said is straight out of Perrotta's source text but it feels well chosen and adds a layer of welcome irony to the proceedings. The tone of voice employed reminded me of something and I couldn't put my finger on it for the longest time. Finally I realized it was the same flat, unemotive monotone used in Fassbinder's Querelle of all things. The comparison is apt as both effect a dryly anthropologic quality, assessing the things we see and are overly familiar with in an analytic way which reveals the depths of surfaces. Ultimately, the narration functions in a way similar to the one in Oliveira's Valley of Abraham, which was also a variation on the Bovary story. The narration goes much further in that picture but that's because the goals are much grander. Field doesn't over-reach and it benefits him. Certainly he gets the tonal quality exactly right--the claustrophobia of an almost hermetic community, the suffocation of routine and the deep distress over presumed lost potential is consistently evoked. He's supported by very able performances as well, rarely overstating anything and in tune with his subdued intents (the moment in which the sound drops out to allow for Winslet's jubilation in the bleachers is stunning, a remarkable glimpse of unself-conscious desperation guised thinly as glee). The ending improves by thankfully not having any of the horribly platitudinous comments at the end of the book included in the narration. Instead, the narration provides us with a short, succinct admonition. It's beautifully to the point and does not congratulate any of the characters for having sudden insight or, god forbid, "growing up" (I was pleased to see that Field also eliminated the moment at the end in which Brad/Todd is loaded into the ambulance and asks after a career with the police--Jesus, can any more t's be crossed and i's dotted?).

I was going to mention something else about this one that struck me but it's fled from mind. Whatever. Suffice it to say that Field has crafted a mature, wise piece of suburban dissection without the hip emotional remove of American Beauty. I hope Perrotta is satisfied with the accomplishment; I can't imagine it being done better.

[Dylan]

I saw this a few weeks ago, and while not great, I thought it was pretty interesting.

One thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere are the nods to John Updike: Patrick Wilson's Brad is a former jock (like Rabbit Angstrom from “Rabbit, Runâ€

[ezmbmh]

I missed this on initial release, finally Netflixed it with high hopes--Field's In the Bedroom was terrific, I thought, and I wanted more. I'll see Jennifer Connelly and Kate Winslet in anything and heard all the buzz about the performance of J E Haley. I don't usually chime in when I dislike something but I flat out hated this. It felt utterly false where it really counted. While the performances were excellent all around, and the visualization of empty modern life and suburbia dead-on, everything that mattered most was contrived, from the semi-literary narration (is that the guy from Frontline, for chrissakes? I kept hoping we were being aimed at irony, but it was just parody, unintended)) with his portentous tone announcing the obvious, which the scene had already amply supplied, to the overbaked idea of finding yourself in childhood again (football, romantic adventure). I kept hearing South Park, But What About the Children?"

What bothered me most was an utter lack of insight or development in the characters. The plot hums along smoothly, everyone gets nicely wrapped up, and the one thing the movie had going for it--a bleak if dull but at least trying-to-be honest view of trapped lives--is jettisoned sickeningly by the treackly end. What has anyone learned? Will the marriages succeed simply because the affair didn't? Has Haley now become a martyr to society's insatiable need for revenge? (I kept hoping Jane Adams would reappear and turn an Uzi on them all). And will the ex-cop now become a social worker?

These changes in character need to be earned, from inside them. All we ever got, however nicely rendered, was the characters from the outside, their trite well-acted unhappiness (Sirk would have knocked the bottom out of them), their wriggling in it, but not (aside from the evocation of the performers themselves) any reason we should care.

Or I should care. The empty symbolism of the title (after all, aren't we all, in our way, Little Children?), to the fields of child's play, to the empty swings and bloodshed brought to the playground. I could say something really ugly, but I'll clean it up some--if you're going to manipulate me shamelessly start to finish at least give me some people I can believe in for two hours.

I came away not shaken or stirred, just nauseated.

Kate Winslet, though, should have won the Oscar. She's beautiful but unafraid to be ugly, earthbound, and her face going from shut down despair to selfish but bouyant hope when Wilson tells her he had a terrible weekend too, was amazing. I rewound four times. With an actor like her, imagine what a screenplay with some insight might have accomplished.

Two years later maybe nobody cares, and maybe that's best.

[MoonlitKnight]

My main problem with this was the extraneous narration. Basically all it did was tell you what was going on in the characters' heads when you could plainly see it through the acting. Other than that, it was very good.

[jbeall]

I agree that the narration was annoying. Because of it, the first half-hour felt like a poor adaptation of a novel. I felt like the direction got better as the film moved along, but the story was never particularly interesting, esp. since several of the characters were caricatures. Kate Winslet gave her usual standout performance, but the film just goes through the usual checklist of why suburbia sucks without adding anything insightful.

[knives]

After falling for Tár I figured I’d finish off Field’s films. This is definitely the weakest of the three features, but a lot of the things that didn’t work for me such as the in the moment zeitgeist narrative equally apply for Tár. I guess I have to conclude the basic narrative, the dissatisfaction with satisfaction, is one that doesn’t work for me and requires something truly tremendous such as what I get from Reitman.

All the stuff with Winslet and the Prom King annoyed me even though I acknowledge the depth discussed above. What does work amazingly for me is Haley’s performance and character. It’s pretty clear, and I’m thankful for it, why this revitalized his career. There’s no sensation and underlining of his work to make a point. He’s just simply and truly this guy and you have to accept him. Ronnie goes beyond the bad everything is an analogy for everything else feel of the rest of the movie to present us with a guy who has accepted reality as he can process it and just is trying to be. His version of being is a pretty awful guy, but it’s something I as a viewer feel capable of working off of. I think it’s that thread which was followed through on and made Tár work better for me despite the similarities.

[erok910]

I agree it's the weakest of his three features. Funny enough, I think one big reason is that Tar and In the Bedroom are really good. This isn't really good, but it's fine and has grown on me in years- most likely due to its simplicity. Reread the script today and found a few things interesting, most notably that the film doesn't feel nearly as flavorful as the script. I don't really dig Tom Perotta though, so I think it might just be that certain things are illuminated- or that the capacity for greatness in my head wasn't matched by the direction. I think Patrick Wilson may not be up to par with Haley or Winslet, and that might make his character seem a bit more bland as well.

But I don't really know understand what the film is getting at anymore, which may be why I've become more fond of it. I saw it in the theater when I was in my teens and thought I understood the narrative and ideas pretty clearly. Now I don't feel like I really understand what it's about anyway, beyond the obvious 'little children' aspect. Might mean it's worse than I thought, might highlight my aging, might mean it's a more complicated film- but I have to agree, even if it's not a fair comparison: it's not as good as In the Bedroom or Tar.