Skip to content
Family Viewing – 1987 Egoyan
- Like his debut Next of Kin in 1984- Atom Egoyan’s Family Viewing (second film) is a fascinating family drama – a sort of bizarre coming of age story about a seemingly disturbed young man coming to grips with an equally (or even more so) disturbed world.
- Works as sort of a family therapy—catharsis– and a bit of a social critique and twisted thrilled
- Video plays a major role in the film and is largely the target of Egoyan’s critique (and the film oscillates between video and 16mm film—both ugly as hell) like Haneke’s Benny’s Video and Cronenberg’s Videodrome. Haneke’s film came later, but Cronenberg had to be an influence on Egoyan- another Canadian auteur
- A nice opening shot- Egoyan holds the frame on a food tray rack and slowly removes the trays to reveal the protagonist framed by it
- The photography is brutally ugly- but Egoyan’s camera movement and placement is very intentional- deliberate – slow zooms
- The owner/manager of the nursing home wearing a tie with the handicap sign on it is priceless- haha
- Aidan Tierney’s Van (main character) seems like he’s influenced (in character and casting) by Bud Cort’s character in Ashby’s Harold and Maude
- The father (and acidic home environment) is often shot on video—and when Van is outside it Egoyan uses 16mm- nice formal touch. The father tapes over his childhood videos (father is in the video industry) with videos of sex with his girlfriend
- Recommend- but not in the top 10 of 1987
Drake2020-09-15T13:18:06+00:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
If there’s a place for such debate here, I’m curious what you all think about this “Cuties” controversy?
Bullshit
The movie or the backlash?
The backlash. Stupid people who doesn’t see the movie. It’s like the Lee-Tarantino fight about the N-Word.
Oops, this feels like a complaint about me complaining about Tarantino’s obsession with the “N” word.
Haha sorry, not on purpose
Well I would agree with you in general – I don’t think anything should interfere with artistic direction but in this particular case they are not able to depict what they intended without actually committing acts that are against the law. If any of the problematic scenes were found on my computer instead of this film, I would be arrested. Would you also have the same stance if somebody was shot in the head and killed during a film? Would you still put a blanket of “artistic freedom” over it?
Also, any talk of deeper message and how it’s actually a critique of sexualizing children is a complete nonsense. No better way to parody it than 3 minute long takes of 11 year old girls in explicit poses..
« If any of the problematic scenes were found on my computer instead of this film, I would be arrested »
No, it’s not a porno you know.
« if somebody was shot in the head and killed during a film? »
Wtf ? It’s not the same thing, the movie mocks theses « cuties »
« Would you still put a blanket of “artistic freedom” over it? »
Anybody kills anybody, they go to jail. It’s called a murder. Bad exemple.
« it’s actually a critique of sexualizing children »
IT IS. Watch the movie please, all the « problematic » scenes are cut to the public reaction. The movie is not even subtle on his purpose. Mocks theses cuties who takes themselves for grownups.
I’m French (sorry for My Bad english) and im found this funny that the polemic begins in USA, land of « puritanism »
@KidCharlemagne
I haven’t seen it. Are you saying it mocks the children? Or the society/culture that spawns this phenomenon?
« Are you saying it mocks the children? Or the society/culture that spawns this phenomenon? »
Both.
@Kid Charlemagne
I can already see that we will not agree on if sexually explicit conduct (it doesn’t need to be porn) appeared in the film so let’s not even go into that. The film pretends to be a critique and if it was more subtle maybe I would believe it, but the reality is that they are going for shock value under the mask of social commentary. Moral questions aside, it’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time. Whoever wrote that has seen human interaction only in movies.
Also I have nothing to do with USA…
« I can already see that we will not agree on if sexually explicit conduct (it doesn’t need to be porn) appeared in the film so let’s not even go into that. »
Agree to desagree ?
« The film pretends to be a critique and if it was more subtle maybe I would believe it, »
Agree with that. Not subtle at all. She denounces that.
« but the reality is that they are going for shock value »
Have you ever seen Irreversible (2002) ? Little Miss Sunshine (2006) ? In the Realm of the Senses (1976) ?
« Moral questions aside, it’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time. Whoever wrote that has seen human interaction only in movies. »
I agree, bad movie. Not deserved the archives AND this noise.
I don’t think the movie is good (I have not seen) but certainly this debate would be interesting if the movie were of the quality of Citizen Kane but we are discussing films that due to their quality do not deserve to be discussed
I agree with aldo. A discussion on a real film like sallo pasolini would be interesting. Or birth by griffith. Not some worthless junk like cuties.