Little Children

There seems to be a constant fascination with filmmakers about the dark underbelly of middle class suburbia. Its a common theme running back to at least American Beauty (perhaps earlier but that is when I really started to notice it) and is still prevalent in Little Children. Now to be fair the latter is based on a book but regardless these attempts to look below the surface seem as superficial as the premise that suburbia is ideally perfect in the first place.

Tales of unhappy suburbanites having affairs and generally being less than perfect isn't all that interesting whether its being sensationalized as liberating on shows like "Desperate Housewives" or portrayed as gritty last resort inevitability as in this film. And watching this film made me think maybe those involved realized it and tried to spice it up with several gimmicks. Again to be fair at least one presumably is the result of the novel.

I admit I have not read Tom Perrotta's book and can not judge its quality. Nor should that be a factor, since even an adapted film should stand on its own. The story focuses on two parents providing care for their children. Sarah (Kate Winslett) is an educated academic feeling trapped in her homemaker role. Her husband is distant and she feels suffocated. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is equally unhappy in his role dealing with his successful wife and although he is his son's primary caregiver, the son still seems to prefer mom to him. Brad is nostalgic for his glory days of college football.

Of concern to both and the community at large is a recently paroled sex offender Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley) who has moved into the neighborhood. The film also follows him as he tries to cope with his predatory urges and is harassed by an ex-cop set on driving him from the neighborhood. The film is built on the premise that we even care about these stories. I think it fails. The story is a mess of unanswered questions and half forgotten plot lines. Sarah's husband is prominent for a while then disappears. Attempts to make Ronnie sympathetic are at best to mixed results. The motivations seem wholly lacking, contradictory or added after the fact.

There is no convincing reason why Sarah and Brad should cheat. She's nostalgic on account of past's promise. She was an academic and a feminist reduced to conversing about the "Prom King" with fellow parents. Brad is nostalgic for past glory. Whereas Sarah seems to ask "what might I have accomplished" Brad seems to say "look at what I was".

Nor does it feel convincing that Brad would cheat on his wife. She's supportive and trusting and merely desirous of his success. All this drive a wedge between the story and believability. Not that the actors don't give it there all. Winslett has frazzled housewife down. Her frustration at being delayed her one reprieve, a daily walk, is spot on. Haley does wonders with his character despite clear problems with his purpose.

But I'm saving most of my ire for a completely pointless omniscient narrator. Intruding on the film at uneven points, it acts as an almost anthropologist to suburbia. Explaining backgrounds and motivations unnecessary to the story. Most gratuitous was the narrator's play by play of a football game late in the film. It so reminded me of "Inside the NFL" recaps that I wondered if this was the sole reason the narrator was being used.

And why does a movie about the darker side of suburbia end so neatly? Grandly absurd revelations of character enlighten almost everyone. Redemption, wish fulfillment and reality checks fly so fast that I was irritated. In the final assessment this one seems like a massive failing of story made worse by gimmicky direction.