There is a lot going on in this film, most of it isn’t that good. Although I’d be the first to admit that fantasy films tie with horror films as my least favourite genre, I didn’t set out to pick apart this film in such a way that I found myself doing. There were some good elements of this film, primarily Wallis’ performance as Hushpuppy but because of a splintered narrative, I didn’t like the film’s direction. Consequently, one of the more glaring issues I had with watching the film was a struggle to follow a story. At the moment I am thinking that the narrative concerned the coming of age of Hushpuppy but there are countless other possibilities. In truth, Zeitlin chooses to explore too many themes, leading to a film that exemplifies style over substance.
Perhaps the most prominent theme and probably the only one I found to be provocative was how death was dealt with. Zeitlin presented death to be looming throughout the film, through a variety of methods, most notably with a prehistoric beast approaching. Nevertheless, I liked that Hushpuppy grew to become fearless in the face of death. I also found enjoyment with the bookending of the film with fire. To me, this seems like Zeitlin is pointing to the circularity of life. How death is as inevitable as life and youth.
One theme that I thought was overused was the idea of primitiveness. The usual impoverished conditions of a city were swapped for more recessive representations of poverty, for example Hushpuppy was encouraged to eat with her hands. Not only that but the set design amplified a really desolate and almost prehistoric setting. I’m not sure if this had the desired effect because I found myself questioning why civilisation hadn’t yet reached the community, in a location clearly in contemporary USA.
It must be said that I did enjoy the film much more towards the end, when Hushpuppy and co. entered much more of an urban environment. At this point I found the juxtapositions between the jurassic bathtub and the organised shelter really engaging. This was especially noticeable when Hushpuppy was briefly seen in a neat dress and combed back hair. This does also raise a few questions about the depiction of childcare in this film. Whilst Hushpuppy’s father is by no means criminal, he treads this line carefully and this made me feel conflicted at the ending.
By far the most off-putting in aspect of this film was Zeitlin’s insistence on using hand-held camerawork for the entire film. On top of this, his over-reliance on the score to evoke emotion got increasingly boring. Yet it was the camerawork that at points made me feel dizzy. I can’t understand why the rawness of the community couldn’t have been shown with much more static shots. I feel like letting the often times melodramatic action unfold with a fixed shot would have been more effective. Instead, the: erratic camerawork, extended dialogue and emotive score actually took away from much power or emotion, in my opinion.
Whilst I didn’t necessarily enjoy the experience of watching this film, I engaged on some level with the content that Zeitlin showed. In many respects, I found the film unique and I appreciated the experimentation used in presenting a stubborn society in such a a prehistoric way. Equally, I enjoyed Hushpuppy’s connection with the other children, suggesting that youthful joy knows no boundaries. Even though I found parts over the film overly dramatic, the ending was effective enough in raising a few questions about the fairness in changing people’s way of life, especially if they’re not doing anything particularly wrong.
Olly Staniland's Film Studies Blog 