The best thing about this film is Aaron Webber's portrayal of 13-year-old Emerson. I'd recommend keeping an eye on his career in the future.
I found it preposterous that a lad of 13 would desire his teacher. Could someone please explain to me what is appealing about this older man - as far as I can tell, nothing. If the teacher were younger and better looking and the student 16 instead of 13, this movie might be believable. It is hard to get into a movie that is implausible out of the starting gate.
Canadians take pride in their movies because they are often freer and more daring than films made in the U.S.A. But one can be simply sordid and pointless instead of courageous and honest. The film-maker should do something with this greater freedom - not proclaim it for its own sake.
For all its supposed bravery, this movie is surprisingly conventional with regard to its depiction of the human body: The female lead is shown fully and plainly nude, whereas the father and the son are ever so carefully posed to avoid equivalent frankness. How traditionally sexist.
In "Whole New Thing," the viewer is presumably "liberated" from hackneyed, conservative American stereotypes. But let's take a closer look at the characters here: In place of sexually crimped, over-zealously religious parents trying to retard the sensuality of their teenage children we get a careworn, pot-smoking couple - a withdrawn, tepid man and his sad, adulterous wife; in place of a restless, dutiful youth shackled by legalistic restrictions on his behavior we get a kid who has no trouble lying about his intentions because he believes the lie will help him manipulate a much older man into having sex with him; and instead of an uninspired teacher limited by narrow, parochial thinking we get a guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to cruise for casual sex at a rest stop. Are any of these free-wheeling replacements an improvement over their safer, more traditionally drawn counterparts? Is the indignant radical's cry really, "Liberate me so I can be sordid and miserable!"?
There are seeds of a high-quality, courageous film in "Whole New Thing," but they are never watered or cultivated. For example, there is a passably good-looking kid who harasses Emerson verbally and physically at school. At one point, Emerson asks him, "What is it you want?" But what if the film-makers with their Canadian courage explored the psychology of the bullying? What if Emerson punched back with gusto, held his own in a fistfight and then asked the question: "What is it you want?" What if the bully desired Emerson? (This is certainly more plausible - not to mention more innocent and age appropriate - than Emerson desiring his teacher.) How would such a relationship develop? Would they try to date? Would they meet secretly? How would the relationship affect the other kids in the school? The film might even flash forward to a committed, long-term relationship when the boys are older. Surely this would have been more interesting and daring than the somber radicals we're presented with in this movie.
I found it preposterous that a lad of 13 would desire his teacher. Could someone please explain to me what is appealing about this older man - as far as I can tell, nothing. If the teacher were younger and better looking and the student 16 instead of 13, this movie might be believable. It is hard to get into a movie that is implausible out of the starting gate.
Canadians take pride in their movies because they are often freer and more daring than films made in the U.S.A. But one can be simply sordid and pointless instead of courageous and honest. The film-maker should do something with this greater freedom - not proclaim it for its own sake.
For all its supposed bravery, this movie is surprisingly conventional with regard to its depiction of the human body: The female lead is shown fully and plainly nude, whereas the father and the son are ever so carefully posed to avoid equivalent frankness. How traditionally sexist.
In "Whole New Thing," the viewer is presumably "liberated" from hackneyed, conservative American stereotypes. But let's take a closer look at the characters here: In place of sexually crimped, over-zealously religious parents trying to retard the sensuality of their teenage children we get a careworn, pot-smoking couple - a withdrawn, tepid man and his sad, adulterous wife; in place of a restless, dutiful youth shackled by legalistic restrictions on his behavior we get a kid who has no trouble lying about his intentions because he believes the lie will help him manipulate a much older man into having sex with him; and instead of an uninspired teacher limited by narrow, parochial thinking we get a guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to cruise for casual sex at a rest stop. Are any of these free-wheeling replacements an improvement over their safer, more traditionally drawn counterparts? Is the indignant radical's cry really, "Liberate me so I can be sordid and miserable!"?
There are seeds of a high-quality, courageous film in "Whole New Thing," but they are never watered or cultivated. For example, there is a passably good-looking kid who harasses Emerson verbally and physically at school. At one point, Emerson asks him, "What is it you want?" But what if the film-makers with their Canadian courage explored the psychology of the bullying? What if Emerson punched back with gusto, held his own in a fistfight and then asked the question: "What is it you want?" What if the bully desired Emerson? (This is certainly more plausible - not to mention more innocent and age appropriate - than Emerson desiring his teacher.) How would such a relationship develop? Would they try to date? Would they meet secretly? How would the relationship affect the other kids in the school? The film might even flash forward to a committed, long-term relationship when the boys are older. Surely this would have been more interesting and daring than the somber radicals we're presented with in this movie.