Tarnation

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

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 thought this movie was a masterpiece and something a lot of people really should see. I disagree with what some of the other people have been saying on this, because you don't need to identify with this movie. Its not meant to only effect people who have mentally ill parents or are homosexual. A movie doesn't have to be suited to you for you to enjoy it, that's a really selfish thing to say. The fact that someone is showing what its like using their own life in complete truth is amazing. (to some of the people who commented): stop criticizing everything that isn't perfect and not as entertaining as you wanted it to be and try and learn something from it. It seems like no one can just once put themselves in someone else's shoes and see what their lives are like without complaining and being disgusted. Try to be more open minded and give something a chance without prejudice. Its just like if you do something and the whole time your saying in your head how much you hate it, your obviously not going to like it.

I don't really care though, because I really liked it. It just makes me mad when people can just trash such hard work. So what, the movie was upsetting, you didn't have to actually be put through it, why are you complaining.

In contrast I think the movie was very uplifting how it turned out. Although I can agree that its not something you would watch if you just want to be entertained, but its still worth watching and I can guaranty that if you see it with good expectations, you'll like it. It was an extremely interesting film and also very much original. I definitely recommend it to anyone that is interested in psychology. The movie itself is very well shot and has great sound and music. Again, I think most people will be happy they saw it and please disregard what others say (and what I say). See it and decide for yourself.

Why do I feel as though I've watched a young man masturbate in front of me for two hours while in a conference room filled with clergy or nuns? Andy Warhol free form new wave movies come to mind? Woody Allen on speed? This poor boy should be in individual and group therapy for the rest of his life.

I'm glad he made 'art' out of trailer trash surrounds but I guess I'm not feeling any pathos or empathy--just an urge to turn down the volume and/or walk away. It is the same sensation one gets while watching an accident or encountering a street person who didn't take his meds today--but for the grace of God,etc. Such experiences convince me of a godless universe and at the most a hope that some Buddhists are on the beam. My parents were both substance abusers (cocktail swigglers/50s style)and I left this film feeling my life had been slightly left of the Donna Reed Show. I know now why I fled NYC at the age of 32--too many actor friends and wanna bees who were cycling together in their own imaginary worlds. I remember feeling the need for a real dose of average behavior at the time. (Now that Bush got in again, I'm not sure that is a good thing either) Well, good for this young man and his ego that he got noticed. He makes Edith Bouvier Beale look bland ("This is the only costume for the day, I think." "What I need is a manager, but he's got to be a Libran!") except she was much more interesting thanks to the Maysles. Aaah, well, I'm getting old, I guess. I do wish I had that seven dollars and fifty cents for the matinée show refunded, though.

I know that there is someone appropriate to recommend see this film to, I just wouldn't include friends among that list.

I shouldn't actually dismiss it outright, there were some good qualities to the film. It had a striking juxtaposition of visual images and sound; sometimes complimentary and sometimes contrasting. The use of split screen and other special effects did add interest, but the movie was ultimately personal in a bad way. Instead of drawing me more into the story it dwelt on personal issues and images way too long. Indulgent is the word I could use. He has every right to include every second he did, but he lost me along the way and I had the right to go to a film made for an audience. I was not offended by the homosexuality, but maybe if I were Gay I would have been a little more interested, or if I had come from as traumatic a childhood, or if the whole exposition had not relied on writing on the screen, or if...

Well, there are several things I could imagine that MIGHT have made me more interested in what should have been a compelling experimental documentary (the closest thing I can call it. But as it was, I sat there becoming more convinced I should have gone to see The Motorcycle Diaries, for which a trailer had played before this feature disappointing feature.

I am sure it will become a staple of gay film festivals and abnormal psychology classes, so you'll have a chance to see it again.