The bomb in the baby-carriage was wired to the radio...

So has anyone else seen Tideland?

I went to see Tideland on my own; I booked my seat in advance, thinking that it might be over-subscribed. This turned out to be a sadly ill-informed assuption. But anyway, I turned up to the Mayfair Curzon (one of my favourite cinemas for a number of reasons which this already over-long entry doesn't allow me to expand upon), seat booked, to see the film. I bought and drank a beer and felt a genuine sense of anticipation. Which is rare for me in cinemas these days.

For those who've not been there before, the second screen at the Curzon in Mayfair is essentially a very big widescreen TV in a very small room. The other 7 (yup, I counted, because we all definitely clocked each other) people who had chosen to spend their Sunday afternoon watching this innovative director's (by his own admission) most challenging work in a long time clearly hadn't booked in advance, because I got the seat smack in the middle of the most central of the 5 or so rows. In other words, I was in the (should one care to analyse the room) plum spot. Being alone in the centre of the room lead to the feeling that the film was being projected specifically for me, which may explain the vehemency of the following opinions...

Tideland starts, to my (at that moment) disappointment, with a disclaimer from the director. He appears in a very small frame, pre-recorded, to tell us that he knows that some people will find the film difficult; some will wonder what he's getting at; some (he doesn't say, but once one has watched the film, one understands he is suggesting) will be discomforted by the suggestions of intergenerational attraction (albeit in an entirely non-sexual idiom). He begs us to watch the movie from the perspective of the protagonist, a child of 8 or 9 years old. He even says that, in making the film, he found his inner child. She turned out to be a small girl. Which is cute, but doesn't really help interpret the difficult first 30 minutes that follow.

So here's the thing. I LOVED Tideland. I thought it was Terry Gilliam's most honest work... ever, probably. He maybe got lucky (not his usual style) by finding Jodelle Ferland to play the central role; she puts in a performance that is beyond standard movie "review" language. For someone so young to understand such an emotionally complex text so deeply, and still give such a light, loveable and somehow emotionally weighted performance is almost unbelieveable. I don't know if that was down to her solely, or whether Gilliam's direction gave her the lead, but either way, everyone should see her humbling performance and feel enlivened. A young girl playing multiple personalities, playing them off against each other and understanding the difficult pay-off that is the only solace that character is offered, and then delivering the final emotional kick that the movie suggests is simply beautiful. The movie is worth the money for that alone. But you don't have to rely simply on that, because Brendan Fletcher's portrayal of Dickens is so astounding that, even had Gillian signed a dud for the central role, the movie would still have been astonishing.

Anyway, much as I wish I were, I ain't Mark Kermode. So I was simply hoping that someone else might have seen Tideland and could offer an opinion. There were certainly hell bits of it I found nausiatingly nasty, but as a whole it's a beautiful experience. I can't think of a film that's made a more lasting impression on me.

It also adds to the weight of evidence that Jeff Bridges simply can't make a bad movie.