Best of the Decade #18: Little Children (2006)
When we first started putting together our Top 20 Films of the Decade, I really didn’t expect Todd Field’s Little Children to be among the titles that would make our combined list. However, I’m definitely glad that it did because I think it’s a fantastic film that a lot of people still haven’t seen. Most of us here at Film Junk overlooked it back when it was in theatres, and didn’t discover it until we recorded the very first episode of The Movie Club Podcast the following year (we have our friends at Row Three to thank for that).
Although the marketing for the movie made it out to be a steamy romance or melodramatic Oscar bait, the truth is, the movie borders on dark comedy. I suppose anyone familiar with Todd Field or Tom Perotta would have known that from the start (Tom Perotta is the same man who wrote the novel upon which Alexander Payne’s Election was based… ’nuff said), but I really think its unassuming title may have prevented the movie from finding an audience. Little Children tackles the dark side of sex, relationships, parenting and surburban life, all underscored with a sinister feeling of tension, dread and unease.
Suburban malaise has been popular theme throughout the decade (perhaps carrying over from American Beauty’s Best Picture win in 1999), and Kate Winslet revisited some of these ideas again last year in the less compelling Revolutionary Road. It’s worth nothing that this movie also cemented Patrick Wilson’s on-screen talent after his performance in Hard Candy, which raised his profile to the point where he was cast in Watchmen a few years later. Jackie Earle Haley, on the other hand, also delivers a standout performance as a convicted sex offender… which in all likelihood helped him land the role of the new Freddy Krueger!
If you have yet to see Little Children, seek this movie out and discover what all the fuss is about. And if you already saw it once, go back and watch it again!
Check out previous entries from our Top 20 Films of the ’00s.
Comments (49)
i never even heard about this movie! gotta watch it now! on another note, i hope you guys give Hard Candy the appreciation it deserves. imo, it’s easily one of the best movies of this decade.
Posted by Napalm on December 4th, 2009I thought this was a very good movie but not in the top 20 of the decade however
Posted by Niklas on December 4th, 2009Great choice. Great movie.
Posted by projectgenesis on December 4th, 2009I’m not as big a fan of this one as everyone else. Love JEH though. Especially his scenes with Jane Adams.
Posted by Rusty James on December 4th, 2009It’s good, but I don’t think one of the top 20 of the whole Decade.
Posted by Chris on December 4th, 2009its good, so many layers, so many layers
Posted by rus in chicago on December 4th, 2009Having just seen this, and Revolutionary Road earlier in the year, I think one can safely identify the problem with american woman (and I guess faux-american woman Kate Winslet in particular), and why their lives may end up miserable: They can’t get the right guy to fuck them.
I found this movie pretty petty, which is too bad. I was pumped to see it.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009trust me, watch it again, maybe listen to the movie club podcast, there is stuff in there you will love, such as, American aggression in world politics…layers, baby, layers
Posted by rus in chicago on December 5th, 2009I watched it tonight, then listened to the movie club podcast (much of which consisted of debating how many people watched the movie in how big a number of theatres upon release).
There was good stuff in the movie, but just so many moments where I was like “give me a break”. I hated the bookclub scene, I hated the kid telling mommy it was going to be alright… Who does scenes like that with a straight face?
The major problem with these films is just that the characters are two-dimensional. Even if they just meant to be ciphers to portray tendencies in human nature. I mean, if they are that, then don’t give them human names and pretend they are real human beings! At least not if you want me to take them seriously. I found this shallow and uninteresting most of the time – I mean you want to portray sexual frustration in a marriage and you immediatly go to the guy sniffing panties from online porn shops? That’s pretty layered and interesting…
I did like the direction it went in with that when it portrayed all the perverts living in the neighborhood, and the minute somebodys kink is out in the open (Masturbates in public) they are all of a sudden an outcast. But it never really dealt with that, I mean it didn’t even deal with the husbond.
The narration was god-awful in the beginning, but I sort of got used to not thinking for myself and being told what was going on with the characters. Not a very engaging way of portraying emotion – letting somebody read it aloud to your audience. I was thinking numerous times how much better a scene would have played without having some guy read the subtext to me like I was a child.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009The narration in Little Children is a litmus test for me, which you just failed, large
And so that’s all I’m gonna say, hah.
Posted by Goon on December 5th, 2009Henrik, I appreciate your attempt to explain why Little Children didn’t do too much for you.
I was absorbed in the story, but then again, I find 90210 pretty absorbing. (And before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m not saying 90210 shares the same themes or subtext as Little Children. Ha ha.)
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 5th, 2009Henrik, good points, I appreciate you giving it a chance (unlike Goon and Elah, ha ha)
I think you might be “throwing the baby out with the bath water” on the internet porn and sniffing of panties. The affect on the male subconscious and contemporary marriage that the easy access porn, prostitution, and all other sexual fetishes through the internet is fairly new and has not been introduced as a plot device in many films.
The narration is perfect as it ties the film to an exceptionally well written book that needs to be honored. I find it well placed and illuminating.
oh well…thanks for trying
Posted by rus in chicago on December 5th, 2009Great to see this make it onto the list, this is an awesome AWESOME movie that I keep going back to when I recommend movies to people.
Posted by Jurassicalien on December 5th, 2009To me, it’s more like a neglection of film in generel to include narration like that. I guess as an experiment of how booky you can make your film and still call it a film it’s alright, but is that really what you want to be watching? I sure don’t, I’d rather watch a film, and if it’s experimenting, I would like it to push the medium, rather than neglect it.
I guess if you find it illuminating, it serves its purpose. Wouldn’t you rather think for yourself though?
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009Reed, were you involved in making the list? I like 90210 quite a bit myself, having grown up with it, and it being on TV all the time, it feels familiar and comforting to watch. And I laugh so much.
Goon: What is the point of your litmus tests?
“The affect on the male subconscious and contemporary marriage that the easy access porn, prostitution, and all other sexual fetishes through the internet is fairly new and has not been introduced as a plot device in many films.”
Like I said, maybe I would have liked the film better if it dealt with things like this. Not that it seems particularly deep, new or interesting, I mean couples have had sexual problems since dawn of man I’d bet, but the subversive nature of the perversiveness could have been interesting I suppose. The jerkoff scene was a pretty creepy moment.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009The film is satire first and foremost (drama second) that narration is somewhat crucial in helping an audience make the distinction. Admittedly it would have been ballsy to leave out the narration and see how people took it. But if you are trying to exaggerate the American bourgeois suburban experience, no harm in letting people know up front that is the expectation. Yea, I love this movie.
Posted by kurt on December 5th, 2009Who decided that satire doesn’t work without narration? I find this hard to believe.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009Henrik, I wasn’t asked to participate in this “best of” list. Maybe because I’ve told Sean in the past that I don’t like making lists. I basically categorize movies into “I like,” “I dislike,” “I’m ambivalent towards,” and “I couldn’t care less.” It’s hard for me to rank movies. Also none of my movies would have been on the others’ lists. Ha ha.
BTW, when I mentioned “90210,” I was referring to the new series, not “Beverly Hills 90210″ that you’re probably thinking of, Henrik.
I didn’t realize “Little Children” was a satire.
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 5th, 2009you need to come in out of the woods on bashing a film due to narration:
A Clockwork Orange
Sunset Boulevard
Taxi Driver
Badlands
Apocalypse Now
FIGHT CLUB
GOODFELLAS
Trainspotting
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption
The Assassination Of Jesse James
Blade Runner
Adaptation
“I mean couples have had sexual problems since dawn of man” – yes, and in all those years the problems involved fetishes available by the click of a mouse due to an expanded internet virtual community….whatever
Posted by rus in chicago on December 5th, 2009“What is the point of your litmus tests? ”
To write you off without addressing your points. Lazy but simple.
Posted by Goon on December 5th, 2009For a long time Amadeus was my favorite movie, and that has narration in it.
What does “need to come in out of the woods” mean? I did not mean to bash narration in generel, that would be ridiculous, but the narration in Little Children in particular.
“yes, and in all those years the problems involved fetishes available by the click of a mouse due to an expanded internet virtual community….whatever”
See, this – to me at least – is not the content of the movie. This is the circumstance, that in and of themselves have no impact. You have to treat them in an interesting way to make them interesting, either emotionally, intellectually or technically.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009I almost wrote something long. I just wanted to say I think you’re coming towards the movie from a different place a lot of the rest of us are. I think the narration is meant to create some distance from the characters, but you seem to need it to connect closer.
At the end of the day when I think of Little Children, I think of the dark humor and the immensely watchable entertainment factor more than any profound truths. In the Bedroom has some of this going on as well, but not to the same extent, which is maybe why Little Children is on this list instead.
Posted by Goon on December 5th, 2009The narration is just telling you what is going on in the scene (I assume directly taken from the book). If I wanted that, I would read a book.
I’m not sure I understand the whole distance-thing. Does the narration tell you to not take the people seriously? You couldn’t figure this out without it?
I think it’s just a genre I don’t like. Kurt called it satirical melodrama, I like melodrama I suppose, but I don’t like sappy bullshit like a kid telling its mom its alright, and a voiceover saying ridiculous things like “The past can not be changed… But maybe the future is another matter”.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009“At the end of the day when I think of Little Children, I think of the dark humor and the immensely watchable entertainment factor more than any profound truths.”
It’s like There Will Be Blood, only uglier and with less entertaining character(s).
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009I’d probably have to freshly watch the movie again to address anything in detail about how the narration works. Keep in mind making a list of movies from an entire decade means relying on a lot of gut level remembrance of liking/loving a movie, not necessarily prepared to freshly debate someone who would immediately go out and view it.
Posted by Goon on December 5th, 2009One of my starkest memories in the aftermath of watching Little Children is looking up Jackie Earl Haley and going “holy shit, its the kid from Bad News Bears”, and then being excited at the excellent casting choice of making him Rorscach. I knew then he’d do a good job, and he did.
Posted by Goon on December 5th, 2009That’s no problem, I am not trying to rag on your choice, I just thought I’d give my thoughts on the movie.
Posted by Henrik on December 5th, 2009but you still haven’t supported your thoughts, you brought up the jack-off scene with the panties and made a big deal of it when, in truth, it is a plot device to push Kate’s character down the road to addressing her own sexual and emotional needs. you keep saying you need more depth yet this scene (as a plot device) has more originally and depth than 90 percent of the movies produced – prove me wrong.
You keep ragging on the narration but in this case the film is based, and got green lit, due to a very respected book from an author respected for his prose. You fail to identify this fact and lump the film with any old one that has narration.
The narration has some of the best lines in the film, such as, “sexual tension is an elusive thing and Kathy is usually aware of it…it was as if a radio found its station and the signal came in loud and clear” This is great stuff from a great author, it should be in the film because, believe it or not Hendrik! some things can not be shown because the artform of words, constructed on the page is the purest form. There is no way to work that prose into a character’s dialog that will make it BETTER. the narration stands as a good idea for this film. Like Goon said, if you can’t feel this you fail the litmus test!
You sir are acting, dare I say, like a little child!
Posted by rus in chicago on December 6th, 2009“you keep saying you need more depth yet this scene (as a plot device) has more originally and depth than 90 percent of the movies produced – prove me wrong.”
I don’t even understand what you mean. I did not mean to make a big deal of the specific scene, it just came to mind as a moment in the film that felt pretty rushed and unresolved. It’s original I guess, but not dealt with very interestingly.
I don’t lump the film in with anything. I just critisized the narration, it is uncinematic, it takes away from the content by spelling it out for you. Think of the scene where they push their kids on the swings. That scene, to me, would have been far more interesting without the narration. With the narration there, I didn’t even have to watch the people, they could have been two cardboard cutouts. It’s probably brilliant writing and great in the book, but then it should have been kept there. When you say things can not be shown because words are the purest artform, I definitely do not agree, and I think you lack creativity.
Are you trying to piss me off?
Posted by Henrik on December 6th, 2009I feel like getting into this “narration” debate, and I’m sure some people will misunderstand me and some will take umbrage, but here goes.
A psychology professor was discussing Marshall McLuhan’s idea about the “medium is the message” (or “massage,” depending on your source). He stated that there are some ideas that can be expressed in print that can’t be expressed through visual media. I disagreed stating that you could film the pages of the book and get the same messages across. I think the prof thought that I was missing the point or being a smart-ass.
I think for the “pure” cinema artist, the use of narration is a cop-out, because you rely on the beauty of spoken words to express your ideas. So in my point-of-view, you might as well film the pages of the book.
So Henrik has a valid point if he thinks that the narration is being unnecessarily heavy-handed at points. After all, isn’t this one of the reasons why some people hate the narration in the theater cut of Blade Runner?
Henrik, don’t let “rus in chicago” goad you. Maybe he’s paying you back for the goading that you sometimes do. Ha ha. (I know. I’m a goad digger, too.)
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 6th, 2009and Henrik, part of the response is that the Little Children narration is INTENTIONALLY “heavy handed”, including for the sake of comedy. Because Henrik is European, he may miss out on how casting the voice of Frontline works on a *buzzword alert* meta level.
Posted by Goon on December 6th, 2009Yes Henrik, Reed is right, I’m trying to get under your skin in service of one of my top ten films of the decade.
Let’s go with the pure narration debate. I to, was in the “narration is bad” camp, but I got out as so many of my favorite films used it. I think the problem here is somehow people look at narration as a foreign element to film. One of the most fascinating things about film is that it is an art form that combines visual, audio and “societal” Yes, I said that, film is a medium used to comment on current elements of society. The thing is, you can change any one of these ingredients and the film is fundmentally affected.
When a filmmaker uses a montage the combination of two different images creates a separate idea in the viewer. Isn’t the use of words over the top of images the same thing? In Little Children the use of narration could be talking about the scene going on, it could also be creating a documentary feel due to the cadence and tone of the narrator, it could also be communicating to the viewer that the scene playing out is more about societal concerns than simply the characters in the scene.
Henrik has said he enjoys melodrama, isn’t melodrama assisted by musical score? Is a musical score cheating like narration. One of my biggest problems with Traffic was its use of extreme color schemes to distinguish the two stories, many people felt that was awesome, is that color filter any different than the use of narration?
At the end of the day, I just feel Little Children would be a rather boring film without the narration and is one of the best examples were narration, used by a good filmmaker, can create something completely different and entertaining.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 6th, 2009@Rus: “At the end of the day, I just feel Little Children would be a rather boring film without the narration and is one of the best examples were narration, used by a good filmmaker, can create something completely different and entertaining.”
We Have a BINGO!!
Posted by Kurt on December 6th, 2009Hmm… removing the narration would make “Little Children” a boring film? Holy hyperbole, the Dark Knight! That’s like saying that without John Williams’ musical score, “Star Wars IV: A New Hope” would be a boring film! (Actually, George Lucas did say something like that, but I guess he was just being complimentary.)
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 6th, 2009George Lucas also said “film is binary, it either works or it doesn’t” I can take something out of Hero and it would cease to be your favorite film. I could take an ingredient out of a recipe and the food would taste like shit.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 6th, 2009I just don’t like it when films give me human beings, portrayed by real actors, and then wants me to not look at them as such. If they really had balls and wanted to experiment, they would avoid this by working around this presentation of the people as human beings. As it stands, it just seems petty to reduce humans to this, and to not let them live through their own actions.
Music is a cinematic convention, language is not. You can tell a story without words just as effectively as you can with words, only with words, you can spell things out more specifically. Then the issue becomes, am I spelling out the right things? Am I giving people something they could not have gotten otherwise? Am I bringing focus to what is really interesting? In my opinion, Little Children did not, since it is – by its own admission – about children and their problems.
Posted by Henrik on December 6th, 2009Henrik, I think the difference is the narration in Little Children is first and foremost used to set a tone. It’s used like music, to inform the audience not of facts but of feelings. It doesn’t lazily fill in plot holes, but rather shifts your emotional perspective.
Posted by Jay C. on December 6th, 2009Well, music can be overused as well. The scene that Rus pointed out as great writing, I agree with it being good writing, but the scene plays exactly the same without the narration. All it does is telegraph what is already there, and it annoys me, I feel talked down to.
Posted by Henrik on December 6th, 2009your point is still not valid due to the fact the narration in Little Children is never used over the dramatic scenes. It isn’t used in the jack-off scene, the kiss between the characters in the playground, the scene were they hook-up, the scene were the pedophile goes on his forced date, the scene were he causes himself harm, the scene were his attacker causes harm to his mother, the scene at the hospital etc. and so on. You keep stating the narration is misplaced and fails the film by doing what the actors could do for themselves, yet, all the key moments of the film are narration free. you fail, get your consolation prize at the door, go home.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 6th, 2009its actually masterfully used, almost as Sorbet – cleansing the palette before each highly dramatic moment occurs. It is skillfully deployed during scenes were characters and thoughts are introduced and then we are free to watch what happens. If you can’t see this you should be embarrassed and turn in you film fan membership.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 6th, 2009rus, I don’t get your logic. It’s not overused because you decided it was perfect and used over the right scenes?
I would gladly turn in my film fan membership and enjoy films on my own terms, if it meant having to consistently wrap my head around logic like yours.
Posted by Henrik on December 7th, 2009“if it meant having to consistently wrap my head around logic like yours.”
–hah ha, you left out the word “not” Freudian slip, your subconscious mind is bowing to my greatness. thank you Henrik, thank you for the compliment!
Posted by rus in chicago on December 7th, 2009My sentencing in english isn’t perfect, but let me explain:
After my comma, the ‘it’ refers back to the original grundled (I don’t know the english word and I am already putting enough effort into this) – that being my membership. So what I was saying, was that I would revoke my membership, if it (my membership) meant having to consistently wrap my head around logic like yours.
These last two comments can be deleted by a moderator if rus agrees.
Posted by Henrik on December 7th, 2009Thanks Rus for the gravatar info…as to comment #19 a great list of films with narration. What would have “Apocalypse Now” have been with out V/O? Have to say though do you really think “Blade Runner” is a better film with narration? I certainly don’t, although it is a novelty to go back and see that cut. Ridley certainly didn’t like it.
Posted by xego on December 7th, 2009Great choice. Love this film. It straddles the human gutter between comedy and tragedy in a way I have only seen in Almodovar’s films. Extremely engaging and tough to forget. It’s funny how provincial people can be about the “style” of films, with do’s and don’ts etc. The third-person narration in this film is consistent with the self-aware and self-possession of the main characters – all who have mirror, mirror identity issues. Yes, they behave in a two-dimensional way, until they don’t. Which is what I find refreshing about the film. Other than two passage of times sequences with a fair amount of compressed story, very much like The Royal Tenenbaums, the rest of the narration is geared strictly for humor. It is not, as the haters up top are claiming, used for story. I found an interesting essay germane to this argument here:
http://flashaddict.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/voice-over-narration-as-an -active-agent-in-film/
Posted by Fiona McGraw on December 10th, 2009thanks Fiona for your ideas
Posted by rus in chicago on December 10th, 2009If you’re wondering why you haven’t seen this movie, or even heard of it for that matter, it’s because it’s not good.
I didn’t find anything in this movie darkly funny. The narration was ok, but seemed inconsistent in that long stretches of the movie would go by and I’d wonder where the narrator went b/c he hadn’t said anything in a while.
At the very end of the movie, all of the characters made out of character decisions that were not at all supported by the plot up to that point.
No need to rent this film to see what everyone is talking about.
Posted by Jeff on December 19th, 2009The ringing of countless clocks commences this film, whose subject concerns American suburban life. This sound fragments the day into hourly slivers which the suburbanites follow without skepticism. But under the street-lamps, at the end of the day, the main characters cast their shadows too far.
Kate Winslet plays the frustrated, educated mother, the spectacle of the film, with Gregg Edelman as her erotica-obsessed husband, and Sadie Goldstein as their neglected daughter. As Sarah, Winslet’s life brings her to Brad, played by Patrick Wilson, another disenchanted suburbanite and Ronnie, a desperate child predator. In Hollywood fashion their lives are intertwined more and more until the climax, but the way in which the director depicts these characters makes their stories authentic and profound.
Sarah and Brad become secret and passionate lovers after a scandalous kiss at the playground, a kiss which made disappear the suburban wives and mothers from Sarah’s life. The incident that they committed filled them with vivacity and sexual energy. That the spectators sees their faults, their relationship, and their unhappiness only adds to the underlining of all the scenes by the small-town friendly narration of Will Lyman.
The other characters must be mentioned because of their strong and sensitive performances. Ronnie, the pedophile, is encouraged by his mother, who only wants good for her son and that he will change. He is harassed because of his problem but Field does not subjectively comment on his actions. This relationship makes us realize the love of a mother for her son and that others, the ones about whom we read in newspapers, are not as different as we think. The empress of suburban life, Mary B. McCann plays her role to the extreme, a mother who embodies the incessant ringing of the clocks from the beginning of the film and who confirms the dominant aura of the suburbs.
Based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, the film transmits well the subtlety of emotions and themes. Field explores the interior of the characters, their relationships, and their surroundings; one sees this in the recurring images, always facing upwards, of silent trees, deserted playgrounds, and grand New England houses. Also, Field makes evident the idea of movement in a new direction, the future, and that this movement obliges us to forget, to hurt ourselves, or to relapse. This is well illustrated in the stories and dialogues, the brief and intense interaction of the characters.
Field has given us an extraordinary film with the talent and professionalism of Hollywood and the introversion and symbolism of the novel. This film should be watched to know the direction where Hollywood could go.
Posted by Ross G on December 20th, 2009I think I had too many windows open and posted my comment on another thread so I will repost and figure it out later…
I too recently watched “Little Children” for the first time because it was on the list, but I don’t count it as a mistake. I would not count it among the best of the best of the decade either, but I did appreciate a lot about the film, altogether though I think it is strung to thinly for what it hoped I think to do. The cinematography reminded me of “Zodiac” at times, a lot of that green uncorrected look (I don’t know what you call it?) on one hand I like it and understand why so many filmmakers use it, on the other I want to roll my eyes because I have seen it so many times now.
It is essentially an unhappy little movie, at the end the different threads have some sort of resolution: the bully sees the error of his ways, The Molester castrates himself and makes a new friend, maybe now he can join the football team…with that noggin he could be the ball…The prom king goes back to his cold and frighteningly Skinny…(come on Jenny for god sakes Eat!) wife…I don’t know what happens with the pantie-sniffer?…So I guess what? All is right now in suburbia?
Posted by xego on December 20th, 2009I am wonder if it was Jay C that lobbied for this film to be on the list? If Todd Solondz “Happiness” hadn’t been done in 1998 I think it would have been #1 I could see him brow-beating the other Junkateers into acquiescence with peels of maniacal character assaults…You’re shit!” …”You’re an Idiot!” Like Patty McCormack in “The Bad Seed”…ok I am “Shit” now…”
Leave a Reply