Tolstoy once said that all dysfunctional families are different, and all happy families are the same. Then again, it might be the other way around -- I'm not sure, I can't remember and I don't care (neither do you.) As THIRTEEN (the new film which, in the words of my thirteen year-old little nephew, we're all supposed to go "oooh oooh" about) wishes to stress that all dysfunctional families ARE the same. THIRTEEN may have a lot of heart, but that's it's problem. It's nothing but heart, and has very little [sympathy] for its supposed hero. If I'm not mistaken, this film was written by a thirteen year-old; it's called thirteen; and it's about thirteen year-olds -- this makes it unique - a film experiment of sorts. In fact, when I heard about it in all the "thinking man's" magazines, not much attention was paid to the quality. It reminds me of the fifteen year-old writer I read about in the Times, who had his first novel published on a whim by some stupid publisher. The content and quality are irrelevant, the fact that a thirteen year-old girl can write a screenplay is so astonishing (to some) that the movie is instantly garners some attention. And, I will grudgingly admit, it deserves it. This is the first movie to (sort of) address jailbait, or underage girls who are sexually active. Although their exploits do not reach far beyond sucking off the occasional brown-skinned fellow (which was a strange choice by the writers, but makes sense in its own little way) the sexual encounters are well executed, but everything else in the movie is stilted, and unrealistic. The first thing in the film that not only surprised, but genuinely upset me, is that Rachael is not a depressed character, yet she cuts herself and lashes out at her recovering drug-addict mother with venom. She's an empty vessel, a dimensionless character -- a large, clean dinner plate encompassing every teen "issue" on the menu. Whereas most sad, little girls mutilate themselves because (according to some "experts") the healing of the cuts makes them happy, echoing the purgation of inner pain -- Rachael is an afterschool special; every "Lifestories: Families in Crisis" character ever. The "dysfunctional family" scenes are so hokey, they're comical (such as Rachael and her brother, Mason, playing tug-of-war with a broom) and the fact that we view them through lame director Catherine Hardwicke's use of the dutch-angle shot and shake and bake-cam packs all the more pulled punches. The idea that a thirteen year-old could write a screenplay does not baffle me. I recently saw a film called "White Oleander" with an equally clumsy narrative structure, which was written by an adult (who probably has a PHD in pap) and you wouldn't know it was about a dysfunctional family if you didn't see the trailer. The thirteen year-old white girls who dress like gucci models, dance to hip-hop music and scream for joy at the thought of hooking up with the "hot guy" at their school; Rachael goes "yesss!" and starts dancing when the most popular girl in school invites her to hang -- these are a few "real" moments in the movie that are gone about terribly by the writers and director. Another example is the implicit reference to the fact that Rachael feels obligated to "keep the change," as they say, the first time she performs oral sex on a man. I feel like I'm going against everything I believe in as a film critic in saying this, but this is one of those films that doesn't rely on craft, but gets an unhealthy dose of it from the director. Don't see it, I suggest Heavenly Creatures which it is almost identical to in every way, and far superior by traditional film/literary standards.
Review of Thirteen
