Tarnation

A $200-some-odd initial budget is no excuse for a dull, self-indulgent film that offers little or no insight into either a young man's life or his times.

I was initially drawn to the film by both the subject matter and the fact that John Cameron Mitchell (creator of "Hedwig and the Angry Inch") was an executive producer. After seeing "Hedwig," I trusted Mitchell's artistic judgment completely---only to guess after seeing "Tarnation" that Mitchell must have been swayed by some sort of internal "pay it forward" guilt-trip to professionally help out a fellow young-ish gay filmmaker. (Disclaimer: I'm gay myself and very much appreciate gay or gender-bending film-making---when it's well done. This film, though, was like a psychedelic version of the incredibly gooey "Better Than Chocolate"---as in "I'm a sensitive gay person and I've been through a lot---love me!" Ick.)

Director/star Caouette apparently had about 15 minutes-worth of interesting home-video footage of himself as a child growing up with his once-institutionalized mother and oddball grandparents. And a few minutes of vanity shots of himself as a teenager with friends and as an adult with his boyfriend. The rest of the movie consists primarily of long, drawn-out filler---pseudo-freaky graphics and music superimposed over photos of Caouette posing. Not to mention the subtitles, especially at the beginning, that take 20 frames to relay a bit of information when they could have taken 2 or 3. (I read other reviews here before posting this; someone wrote that he/she saw people in the theater walking out during the first 10 minutes, and that they must have been either gay-intolerant or unfamiliar with non-mainstream film-making...My own guess is that they must have just been extremely bored with the by-now-clichéd MTV-style video sequence.)

Caouette's mother's story is truly tragic. Her own parents are tragic. Caouette's abusive upbringing in foster homes is tragic. But I know this only intellectually from the film, via the facts presented in the subtitles. Caouette isn't able to evoke an actual sense of pathos or understanding with either his photographs or his video interviews. How, for instance, did he escape the bizarre family cycle? Like Caouette, I also began hanging out in area punk clubs as a teen... It was an extremely visceral, life-changing feeling of acceptance for me. And for Caouette? He met a boyfriend. And a couple of club friends. You see a couple of bland photographs of them and maybe a minute of video of the guys mugging for the camera. Nothing else to give anyone viewing a sense of either the era or for what Caouette himself was feeling.

Then he moves to New York City. There, Cute Boyfriend David is very understanding and hugs Jonathan whenever he gets a (video-recorded) call from his weird mother. The two frolic in the snow. The utter vapidity makes me wish for the crazy mom and grandparents to re-appear. (They do, they do. But rather too late to salvage the film.) I also wonder why Caouette didn't reveal in the film that he'd had a kid with a girlfriend years earlier. Probably because this doesn't quite fit into the forced "My Sensitive Boyfriend Is All I Have After My Crazy Mother" theme. It would, though, have made much better film sense as part of the bigger picture of "dysfunctional family dynamics"(and been more honest, as part of a documentary).

Near the end of the film, Caouette tries hard to make us feel something by looking "sincerely" into the camera and telling us he hopes that he doesn't turn out like his mother, then wiping away a tear... He's trying desperately to be sincere, but after seeing earlier clips of his put-on antics, the effect is more schmaltzy than credible.

Caouette's actual family situation seems to have been very intense and disturbing, but again, you learn that primarily from the subtitles and not from the actual footage. He's barely been able to get anyone in his family to open up to him on camera (unless you count his mother's "pumpkin dance" near the end of the film, which seems more like anyone's unfortunate attempt to entertainingly mug for the camera rather than an example of "look at the tragedy that my mother has become"----since we've never learned what his mother was like to begin with).

The sparse actual footage of this film is put together with a lot of bells and whistles, but there's no "there" there. And certainly no family there, only an attempt at an "American Gothic" portrait that falls short due to its transparent attempts at being "hip" and convincing.

I guess I fall into the "art school gimmicks" camp regarding this film. I went into it intrigued with the idea of watching a 13 year tale of a mother and son. Such was hardly the case. I have to admit somewhat brutally, that this movie seemed somewhat exploitative. Given how much of the film was about Caouette growing up as a gay male, I fail to see how his mother's condition actually had a hand in it. Honestly she seemed to merely be a device (an unwilling one at that) to extend Caouette's angst well into adulthood where he otherwise seemed pretty settled and happy.

The structure of the movie was: shock the viewer with my mother's condition, now talk about my horrible angst ridden teen years, now bring mother back to keep the emotion going.

I was not at all impressed with the experimental/disjointed editing style. I've been to a fair amount of film festivals and, if anything, that sort of manipulation disappeared with the advent of affordable editing software. In short, they don't even do that in film school anymore.

One more disappointment: quite late in the film, we have an opportunity to hear about Caouette's mom from two people in Caouette's family. In one instance, the opportunity is totally wasted; nothing comes of his on-camera time. In the other (with his grandfather), Caouette's manner of questioning badgering and accusatory; he doesn't let the old man get a decent thought out.

I know I should, but I don't watch many documentaries. It's a different world inside of film-making, one in which everything is, among other things, real. Another feeling that a documentary generates is immediacy; a sensation of present time even if it's telling something that's older than you. "Tarnation", a life story, is a striking view of a unique personality.

Jonathan Caouette, its director, is now in his thirties; but it's like he had planned it all his life, like if he had known it would be a completed project all along. Here we see a lot of films inside of the big film, that Caouette put together to show who he is, what he does, how he feels and how the people who live around him act.

More than the rest, there is a focus on his mother, Renee LeBlanc, who suffers from schizophrenia and didn't live with him for a long time. She lives with him now and Jonathan lived with his grandparents for a lot of years, and he didn't know his father but he tried to find him; and he also lived with foster parents and he always knew he was gay.

This and more is seen in the images he put together in a program anyone with a Macintosh –Apple- computer can use. I don't want to say much more because "Tarnation", although not great, is really magical and inspiring…Magical because is like nothing you've ever seen before; inspiring because it shows and speaks of the creativity of the filmmaker. It will give to anyone who's thinking about doing cinema ideas about tons of things, unstoppably.

And "Tarnation" is also a film for any true cinema lover, because it contains references to a lot of names and important influential cinematographic figures. But influential for him, who, as he inspires us, shows us who inspired him…One example that comes to mind is the fact that Caouette and a friend made a musical stage version of David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" when they were in high school.

He says it in the film's tag-line: "Your greatest creation is the life you lead", and he is right. So be encouraged, and if you feel that you should make a film out of every day you live, don't worry and write about it; or carry a camera with you through the day. This is the kind of message "Tarnation" wants to leave, cinematically.

Emotionally, it wants to show the truly difficult experiences of a genius who, somehow, had a whole movie in his head and wanted the world to know he's not afraid of showing these experiences with and in it…Life is like that, you can't escape it; write that down.

Tarnation is a neologism made from the words tarnished and damnation; that is also the name of a band. The trailer was disturbing and especially the tagline "this movie has saved my life". There is a lot of teenagers who are writing a diary and that is a bit surprising that this kind of movie has never be done before. I'm sure many people have made some kind of patchwork (photos, drawings, movies etc) but the work of Caouette is different. J Caouette had a plan : he wanted to be a director and this plot makes all the difference. This film is not kinky, is not defending Gay and Lesbian cause, is not a documentary about schizophrenia even if all that stuff are a part of the essence of the movie. I believe (but maybe I an wrong) that J Caouette wants to tell his own story of a boy who are fascinated by cinema. I loved this movie because many things had bounced in my heart during the screening. I am not gay, I don't want to work in the cinema business, my parents are not mentally insane but I understand the feelings of Caouette because all teenager has got pain in his heart : shame, fear, anxiety, neither an adult and a child etc. So I remembered memories of pain, tears and laughs. I remembered my own life. Tarnation is also a movie which leads hope and happiness to come. The cinematography is awesome, the music is good. Supported by Gus Van Sant and David Lynch, this movie is like a new born for the youg actor, director J Caouette. This man has got the rest of his life ahead. I think he will become a great actor/director. Go see this unique movie even if the first part of the movie is a bit violent and disturbing.

Gaël - Paris - France

my IMDb vote : 8/10

After reviewing tarnation, I really think that there should of been some sort of biography attempt made by the director in order to explain more clearly. I must agree that this film shows bare emotions to the fullest extent. However, I got something a little different out of it, as I have met and had lengthly conversations with the director, John. I met John through John Cameron Mitchell at an audition in New York. I hung out with him recently in NY when I was visiting JCM as he co produced the flick to begin with.

I felt that the core of the film really lied within ourselves. What could be called everyday family situations where no one is really concerned how they go are essential to life and essential to this story. Many may think that this is a whimsical film about a boy taking care of his schizo mom. These everyday life situations I thought showed more of the human side we all tend to possess. Life may be full of thrill rides, but you have to wait in line to get on them, hence some of these scenes.

Overall, I think what John has created is a film too real for Hollywood and more importantly, more real than everyday life. Most people can't relate to real life as they don't live it themselves. In fact, it was even so for myself (lol). I did feel a little weird myself in the end.

Any movie where the director bares his soul in it's entirety is worth seeing to me.