–>
Little Miss Sunshine(2006)
Directed by:Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Playing:Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Paul Dano, Steve Carell, Abigail Breslin, Alan Arkin
We chose this one for the film club rotation because we wanted to challenge ourselves a bit – not that it’s a quirky indie comedy that’s too hard to interpret, but a film that we’ve seen before and none of us really liked. Knowing that it retains its critical status of popularity twenty years later, we wanted to return to it to see firstly, if we had changed our minds about the film and secondly, if we could create a discussion about the film we disliked so much.
But let’s start with this: a good film, well made, well directed; it’s a fun adventure that happens more or less in an engaging way that keeps you on your way. It’s not a bad movie at all. In fact, we wouldn’t even suggest that it’s flawed, if you look at the writing, direction and acting, except for a few instances where the characters or the plot seem to get away from them. The film can’t seem to decide whether Greg Kinnear is an abusive monster of a father or just a deeply depressed but well-intentioned loser, for example. Toni Collette isn’t given much to work with in the script so she falls back on her patented “married mother” performance. Steve Carell’s tragic gay comes out for more than a little while. Alan Arkin’s Inappropriate Grandpa was already an indie film by this time. We’re pulling a lot of these observations and critiques from the podcast, but they’re not deal breakers for us, even though Kinnear’s character diversity often confuses the film. He keeps waiting for his family to turn on him and instead they all dance and hug at the end.
However, these are not the main problems with the film as we see it. The film has an aesthetic quality that works so hard against its goals that it’s almost uplifting. Now, there are many ways to criticize when it comes to film. It is completely understandable and acceptable to rate it based on the efforts of its director, stars, or writers. It is also acceptable to talk about the film from the point of view of the film or the song. But it’s rare that we come across film criticism that focuses almost entirely on how it looks.
Screenwriter Michael Arndt said in his interview that he chose the 1971 VW bus that serves as the centerpiece of the film and the perfect shot because of childhood trips he took in the same model and we feel that this often sums up the main story of the film for us. We don’t think it has a true or accurate understanding of what working-class poverty in today’s America looks like. It doesn’t look like the old quirky shops. Not a carefully selected mid-century property home in 2006. It’s cheap with old trash and broken trash.
Now, these things don’t matter to the overall quality of the film, although we would argue that Little Miss Sunshine lives up to that progression of aughts indie films that stifle it with its twee value. The production design in this film is neither subtle nor burdened with meaning. It’s a powerful statement, meant to be noticed, and serves as a representation of how this family is stuck in their ways and struggling financially. Production designer Kalina Ivanov has done a great job in creating life around these people, but it’s not a life we find particularly believable.
For example, the film makes a point of showing Steve Carell’s character looking at a vintage, 30-year-old McDonald’s glass that the directors meant to portray as the character’s low point, but the truth is that in 2006, it would have been difficult to find one of those glasses for sale and if you did, you would have to pay for it. You can explain why, you say, all these things were inherited, but nothing looks or sounds or wears out. Everything looks really well kept. Likewise, we find it hard to believe that a shooter like Greg Kinnear; someone who is obviously more concerned with appearing successful than actually being successful, could have a 35 year old hippy van for his family.
We’re very aware that this is a bit of a nitpick in our parts, but it often expresses aa opinion on the part of the filmmakers that pervades the film and reaches the deepest, most glaring criticism: this doesn’t sound like a respectful or honest take on the class of people it’s showing. Being a struggling working class family in 21st Century America isn’t just about surrounding yourself with twee beauty, it’s about trying to make sure that the things you need in your life will last a little longer. If you make poverty and struggle look weird, you’re not acting honestly, and that’s something we can’t get over with this film. More on today’s podcast, but what do you think? Can the beauty of a film be so wrong with the story it tells that it either elevates or contradicts its themes?
<!–
–>