There have been many directors' first movies made for a paltry sum and every piece of writing that refers to Jonathan Caouette’s ‘Tarnation’ mentions the production cost of $218. This review should be no different. But what exactly did the $218 buy ? For instance, the movie has a soundtrack, and there are rights for those artists to appear on the soundtrack. I am sure the whole promotional campaign cost lots and lots more too. So what actually constitutes a movies cost ? But any review for a movie should be based on what the movie does, and not what cost is involved. For example, in my mind the staggeringly expensive ‘Titanic ’ should have been buried at sea. Now the production cost has been mentioned it’s time to move on.
‘Tarnation’ is one of those movies that fall into the category ‘beautiful but painful’. It is overindulgent at times but undeniably a powerful, emotional experience. What makes this so different from say Harmony Korine's ‘Julian Donkey-Boy’ or Shunji Iwai's ‘All About Lily Chou Chou’ is that this time it is a documentary. It is an extremely personal look at someone’s life and at times too heart-wrenching for members of his own family to participate in.
In the opening scenes we see Caouette’s reaction to his mother’s lithium overdose, his frantic Internet searches for possible effects and his heart-breaking reaction. This emotional hook catches the viewer and does not let go for the whole bumpy ride, told with a frankness that is touching and at times unsettling. It places the main character of Caouette (himself) as a third person, which is especially noticeable in the title captions that appear throughout the film. This detachment increases the feeling and understanding of Caouette’s own illness: his 'depersonalisation'.Speedily, we are then whisked away for a family tour that will lead us up to and beyond the starting point of the movie.
We are told a happy story, almost to the extent of white picket fences in suburbia, of Adolph and Rosemary Davis. How they met and married are told with flash cards and glimpses of old photographs. Then into the mix of this idyllic life comes Renee. This bundle of joy completed the family happiness, until one day an accident changes their whole world. Renee falls from the roof of the house and injures herself, and despite baffled doctors, is not able to walk for the next six months. Hell is unleashed on the household as they are persuaded to give electric shock therapy to their little daughter with an almost kill or cure mentality (there are mixed opinions in the movie where this solution came from).
Renee’s life is put under the microscope, and during a brief marriage Jonathan is born. Throughout their lives we are given a great deal of details to wrestle with. His mother is still going through shock therapy for no apparent reason, and once when they escape from the homestead, she is raped in front of the infant Caouette. She is jailed, institutionalised and finally looses custody of her only son to the parents she fled from. Jonathan, with no mother within his reach, has his own problems. Dealing with his homosexuality at an early age, and an increasing mental detachment from life, he becomes very much an apparent problem child from a problem mother.Not all is dark here; there is love and affection. We even get to see a reunion with Caouette and his long lost father.
The styles of the filmmakers that Caouette identified with during his early days in New York, sneaking out as a petite Goth girl into gay clubs and underground film nights, have obviously influenced this kaleidoscopic story. The works of 60’s wonders Warhol, Morrissey and Kuchar to the more modern Waters, Jarman and Lynch can be clearly seen. At one point when Caouette was at high school, together with his boyfriend, they directed musical version of Lynch’s ‘Blue Velvet’ ! Balls indeed.Gus Van Sant acts as Executive Producer, which no doubt helped publicising the film.
The movie runs at approx 88mins, and at this length it works as a psychedelic personal journey through Caouette’s many hells. One can only imagine that the original 3-hour version, submitted to the MIX Film Festival, would have been just too overwhelming and self-indulgent that it might have lost its audience and perhaps even the point it was trying to make.
This is a truly unique experience but will not suit everyone’s taste. But it will make everyone that goes through it think. And that is not a bad thing. If only all cinema could do that.
Your Talkback on this Story