From the first time I paid attention to him, over a decade ago now, I’ve thought he was genius. He has a way of seeing and interpreting movies that not many other people possess. Even when I disagree with him, I still see his points. And he’s right on with this answer from his Answer Man column about kids and film. I’m determined to make sure my girls enjoy all kinds, see all kinds. I decide what is appropriate for them, not the corrupt and ridiculous MPAA and most of what’s out for kids right now, in America, is crap. Entertaining crap, but crap nonetheless.
______________________________________
Q. My 8-year-old son Andrew has taken an interest in my movie collection. We’ve been watching movies atypical for someone that young: “Rushmore,” “Spellbound” (the spelling bee documentary), “The Right Stuff,” “Tell No One” (with subtitles no less!) and this past Friday, a movie near and dear to you: “Dark City.”
It appears that kids can handle complex characters and story lines better than we think. Very rarely do I have to explain what was going on, and his comments indicate that he is getting it (during “Rushmore”: “Sometimes Max is not nice, but I like him”; on the ending of “Dark City,” “He knows all about her, but she doesn’t know about him!”)
What strikes me the most is how “natural” cinematic grammar is understood by children. No one has to sit down and explain things like cutaways, flashbacks, dream sequences, POV shots and the passage of time in films. How do they learn this stuff? Also, do you think the thematic material in the movies I listed is too much for 8-year-olds, or can I continue to brag and bore my friends?
Mike Spearns, St. Johns, Newfoundland
A. Start bragging. IMHO, kids up until about the age of 11 are more open to good movies than they will be again for some years, unless they fall prey to the deadening effect of peer pressure. A kid knows, as any adult does, that “Twilight” is a crashing bore. I suspect many teenagers like it because they have been ordered to by their peers.
Younger children instinctively love a Miyazaki animated film more than the meaningless action of films like “Monsters vs. Aliens” or “Kung Fu Panda.” They’re open to the magic. Later, some seem to need to be battered by noise and chaos.
I’ve never met a preschooler who did not respond well to silent comedy. A film critic friend of mine and his novelist wife raised their daughter on nothing but good films, and so she developed such good taste that she never has been able to stomach visual junk food.
As for understanding the language, the grammar of film seems to have evolved directly from the instincts of the first filmmakers. It requires no theory to understand the difference between a closeup and a long shot, or that a dream sequence is a dream sequence. A good movie contains all the instructions you need about how to watch it. This is true of the greatest films. Only junk like “Transformers 2″ requires an instruction manual.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow… Go Ebert!
I hope that you keep your promise and allow your beautiful girls (I follow you on Tumblr with the same name) to enjoy many movies that different. Enjoy watching their minds expand. Before I go, promise to do the same thing with reading too!
My kid’s definitely seen different types of films (*I* rule the tv in my house – not her! Plus, I’m not a huge fan of tv in general, and simply can’t stomach most crap.), but I’m not going to become some kind of pretentious jerk about it. Television and films are there to primarily inform and amuse us. I naturally lean toward the informing part. However, there’s sometimes nothing better than watching some brain dead comedy. :)
Twilight – and I haven’t seen it, nor have I read the books – is a frigging joke. I can’t believe how many people – ADULTS! – are all caught up in that crap!!! Then again, I can (being the grumpy, I hate- people type).
Wish more people would really think about what they let their kids watch in general. Period.