On the audio-commentary track to the DVD version, Terry Gilliam makes repeated reference to the film being just too daring and too different for audiences to grasp. That supposedly is why it flopped at the early screenings and was never given a proper release. Well, Mr. Gilliam, if you are reading this, let me just say that you are deluding yourself. Your film sucks. It is the least interesting film you have ever made.
I say this as a fan. I love most of Gilliam's films. His adaption of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was dead-on. This film never approaches the excellence of his best works. Or even his best misfires.
Like all of his films, Tideland is about the crashing together of worlds of fantasy and reality. In this case it is about how a young girl's innocence and imagination shield her from the hellish world she is thrown into by emotionally damaged adults. The point is that what we would think would be a terrify ordeal -- the death of her parents, her isolation in a decrepit farmhouse, the antics of the bizarre Dell and Dickens -- is, when seen through the eyes of a young girl, actually an amazing adventure, maybe even the most exciting time of her life.
It's a great idea, unfortunately the film it inspired just doesn't work. Brief scenes of grotesque ugliness bookend a staggeringly dull, seemingly endless story where basically nothing happens. No tension builds in the plot, and aside from the young girl herself none of the other characters are remotely interesting. The sense of awe and whimsy a film like this needs to truly grab a viewer is simply absent.
You know the film is in trouble when Gilliam tacks on a prologue where he looks directly into the camera and begs viewers to watch the film through the eyes of a child. If the film actually worked, he wouldn't have to rely on such special pleading, would he?
I say this as a fan. I love most of Gilliam's films. His adaption of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was dead-on. This film never approaches the excellence of his best works. Or even his best misfires.
Like all of his films, Tideland is about the crashing together of worlds of fantasy and reality. In this case it is about how a young girl's innocence and imagination shield her from the hellish world she is thrown into by emotionally damaged adults. The point is that what we would think would be a terrify ordeal -- the death of her parents, her isolation in a decrepit farmhouse, the antics of the bizarre Dell and Dickens -- is, when seen through the eyes of a young girl, actually an amazing adventure, maybe even the most exciting time of her life.
It's a great idea, unfortunately the film it inspired just doesn't work. Brief scenes of grotesque ugliness bookend a staggeringly dull, seemingly endless story where basically nothing happens. No tension builds in the plot, and aside from the young girl herself none of the other characters are remotely interesting. The sense of awe and whimsy a film like this needs to truly grab a viewer is simply absent.
You know the film is in trouble when Gilliam tacks on a prologue where he looks directly into the camera and begs viewers to watch the film through the eyes of a child. If the film actually worked, he wouldn't have to rely on such special pleading, would he?