I saw the film "Hoot" today, mainly becouse, as a young pre-adolescent, I loved the book. I also enjoyed the film imensly, and would go as far to say that it is one of the best family films of this century (in my mind comperable to "A Little Romance" thirty years ago), the critics however were nearly universal in their comments. While I can see Roger Eberts point about the kids being unbelievable (this is actualy nearly essential in an opus aimed at youngish teenagers, and the charecters actions, if not perhaps the precociosness are entirely believeable) but the critic who commented that the film's message was "deplorable" (becouse the children are smarter than the adults) seems slightly unhinged to me.
Thoughts?
[ May 21, 2006, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The reviews I've read call the kids "deplorable" -not- because they're smarter than adults, but because one of them does things like release poisonous snakes into a work area, put a four foot alligator into a Port-A-John, and in one scene even assaults and binds up somebody.
That's more "Eco-Terrorist" than traditionally heroic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was a thread with a good review of the movie up about a week ago, but it seems to have been deleted.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Puffy, first of all, despite the claims of the worker, cotton-mouths are native to that region of Florida and are extreamly numerous, and thus placing them there did not present a significantly greater danger than was already present. Nor do most of the actions shown constitute "eco-terrorism," but are more representive of the actions taken by non-violent British "eco-warriors" during the 1980s. I would be surprised if the use of a fishing net on a human was judged assult with a weapon by any jurry.
Far more importantly, the film portrays an abandonment of vandalism and the use of legal protests as the most effective form of producing change (I highly doubt that any pre-teens are likely to be joining the ELF as a result of this film.)
Again, I suspect the film would have recieved far fewer political criticism had the protaganists been college students. There is a peculiar belief in this culture that, while the free exchange of ideas and the Hegalian dialectical process are undeniably good, school-aged children, becouse of their naïfité should not be allowed to participate, which would seem to contradict the purpose of school and, inevitably, attempt to avoid the nature of coming of age. Hoot is a bildungsroman, a genre which has often been out of favour with some but with which I can attest the canon of literature would be far poorer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would be surprised if the use of a fishing net on a human was judged assult with a weapon by any jurry.
It would certainly be judged assault, though, and depending on how long he was held it could be abduction - a very serious felony.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't know about you, but I think deliberately introducing more cottonmouth snakes into a particular area is certainly a dangerous thing to do.
In what area of Florida was this supposed to take place?
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Some vague are around the Everglades. Can one be abducted if one never leaves one's own property? Probably, but it is irrelevant, as the film ultimately favours peace and democracy over vandalism, like I said: while the film and the book both have strong enviormental themes, neither makes apologetics for charecters actions, which, after all, exist independently from the author's own views.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can one be abducted if one never leaves one's own property?
It depends. At common law, no. Many states modified the transport element to include detention. For example, holding someone at gunpoint for two hours in their home.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Cottonmouths aren't THAT common. I mean, you might see one, maybe, but they're not just swarming all over the place.
-pH
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Anyway, the inclusion of a charecter, even if the charecter is supposed to be likable, does not equal aproval of his actions by the author. In this particular case, the best analogy would be with Huck Finn.