It's a weird film. They never suggest for a moment that what the parents did is criminal - a violation of their children's basic human rights. The movie also never criticizes the use of fear to control a population. It's treated as though it's a completely valid form of societal control. I see parallels between it and American 'fear culture' but I also see parallels between it and the way certain segments of the 'baby boomer' generation "raised" their children [if you can call that raising]. They were all about "good intentions" and grand social experiments executed at their children's expense, without consequence. It's as if children are rats and it's "ok" to experiment with their lives as long as your intentions are good. Someone needs to make a beautiful and moody sequel where all the parents are handcuffed and carted off to prison.

Scribbled by Rachel at April 27, 2005 08:36 AM | Permalink

Yes, it is weird. I think they must have started with some version of "wouldn't it be neato if ..." and didn't go a lot further. It felt more like an episode of The Twilight Zone than a film. It just made no sense: if there was enough money to buy a game preserve, why not a gated community? An island, even? It is inconceivable that a group of people would be so opposed to modern society that they would be willing to die of routine infections. Well, not inconceivable; but inconceivable that they wouldn't be characterized as psycho cultists.

I just don't think it was that well thought out.

Scribbled by mj at April 29, 2005 12:11 AM | Permalink

The Scarlet Letter meets Children of the Corn. - Fantastic description! One more reason to not see it.

Scribbled by Bibi at April 29, 2005 12:58 AM | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://webteam.unb.ca/cgi-bin/MT-2.21/mt-tb.cgi/1557