Little Children (Todd Field), 2006
|
The invocation of child abuse in any form raises innumerate hazards for a filmmaker. The extreme emotional response to the topic is one of the film’s subjects, but it is also a potential handicap both in finding an audience and in keeping them on side. It takes a deft touch, and Field’s confidence in tackling it is impressive. His previous feature, In the Bedroom, was a subdued drama about grief and relationships; it was a fine film with strong acting and judicious direction, but it also felt weighed down by the seriousness of its intentions. There is no sense of the same studied tentativeness in this film, with Field more willing to mix comedy and tragedy, and much more adventurous visually. This creates what some movie snobs might consider a contradiction: it is at once a lot more accessible than In the Bedroom but also considerably more ambitious and interesting. The combination of subject matter, tone, and a Thomas Newman score evokes strong memories of Sam Mendes’ American Beauty, but the more serious undertones are also a sign of how things have moved on since that film. Mendes’ work had its DNA combined with soap operas to spawn pop derivations such as television’s Desperate Housewives, but Little Children sees the comic / dramatic satire on suburbia once again used for serious purpose. Suggesting that Field mixes serious themes with an often light touch risks giving the impression that the film is flippant about its serious topics. It isn’t. The film has no illusions, for example, about the Ronnie character. While the film is critical of the vigilantes who target him, its opening shots – a montage of porcelain dolls and clocks - have also subtly planted the idea that he is a ticking time bomb. Jackie Earle Haley is extraordinary in the role, which builds on a tradition that extends back to Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang’s M. Ronnie lives with his mother, his only friend and defender, and as played by Haley he alternates between strangely sympathetic and deeply disturbing. The film’s most affecting sequence is that in which Ronnie is pressured to go on a date by his mother, who thinks a girlfriend will solve his psychological problems. As the evening unfolds and Ronnie interacts with the vulnerable woman his mother chose from a personal ad, we see with aching clarity just how near and yet how far Ronnie is from conducting a normal relationship. Field is also
an actor, and Haley’s excellent performance is
just one of those he has elicited from his talented cast. The
performances are
vitally important here because they contribute to the moral ambiguity
of the
characters: Winslet and Wilson, for example, make
their characters human and appealing enough that it complicates our
responses
to their often dubious behaviour. Similarly, Jennifer Connelly as
Brad’s wife
Kathy is all sharp edges but ultimately sympathetic. Noah Emmerich
(as the neighbourhood’s lead vigilante) and Phyllis Somerville (as
Ronnie’s
mother) are also very good in vital supporting roles. More than
anything else, In
the Bedroom had established Field as a director of actors, and Little
Children will further strengthen that reputation.
What has
progressed greatly since the earlier film, however,
is Field’s visual sense. The style of Little
Children takes its cues
from the
pristine neighbourhood in which it unfolds, using the
ever-so-pretty suburbia of affluent America
as a cue for a visual style that hovers on the borderline between
naturalistic
and stylised. A lot of Hollywood films are shot in this
way, but it’s a tough trick to get the heightened effect of a bold
visual style
without sacrificing reality. Field, however, walks this tightrope
adroitly.
One
sequence, for example, sees a stampede at the pool when parents
suddenly
recognise Ronnie swimming amongst their children. The pool empties and
Ronnie
is left alone in the middle. Field until this point has shot the pool
so that
it looks small and intimate, but suddenly the empty blue expanse seems
enormous. (The allusions to the Fourth of July sequence from Jaws could
have
been too cute, but somehow they, too, work). Other smaller directorial
touches are
also very effective. In a crucial dinner scene, for example, Kathy (in
the
background) reacts sharply to something Sarah says in the foreground:
Kathy is
prominent in the frame but out-of-focus, and Field delays the obvious
focus
pull, letting us register Kathy’s surprise even while the focus
(literally)
stays on Sarah. It’s a very smart shot, as Kathy’s surprise is even
more
dramatic, and keeping the focus on Sarah intensifies our awareness of
Kathy’s
sudden attention to her.
![]() As the film progresses, Field (along with co-scriptwriter Tom Perotta, who wrote the source novel) moves the story in directions that, in broad terms, are to be expected. What is less predictable, and welcome, is the extent to which the film asks us to keep re-examining characters as events unfold. Some of those we initially sympathise with wind up looking foolish, while others we have been primed to despise achieve unexpected redemption. The journey to its ambiguous but satisfying conclusion is very rewarding. This review first appeared at In Film Australia. |
|
Comments? Click
here
Text © 2007 by Stephen Rowley.
Todd Field’s 