Movie review: Following Sean
Add comment June 23rd, 2006
I don’t usually go to opening day movies because of the madness of sold-out shows, but once I found out that Ralph Arlyck was going to be conducting a Q&A after the first evening performance I knew that I had to be there. This is a movie I’ve been waiting for since I first saw the poster in the window of the Spectrum. I think that, on some level, it’s a movie that I’ve been waiting my entire adult life for.
There is a very common misconception in mainstream America that the children of the 60’s (and, to a lesser degree 70’s) counterculture either become (to quote Arlyck) "coke heads or stockbrokers", but the reality is that most of us turn out to be normal people who maybe have an outsider’s perspective on most of society. Upon seeing a preview, a friend of mine said "I fear that this movie won’t end well". This is not a reaction that is unusual, rather, one that is exceptionally common. More on that later, first let’s talk about the movie.
Following Sean is a movie based on a short film from 1969 titled simply, Sean. It’s a 14 minute film about a 4 year old boy who lived upstairs from Arlyck in Haight Ashbury at the height of the Hippie movement. When discussing the 60’s and Haight Ashbury, Arlyck offers a perspective of an outsider in the trenches - someone who was there, but wasn’t really a participant. Perhaps he is removed by the camera between him and his subjects, perhaps it is the mindset of a documentary filmmaker, but the reality is that he is removed from that time period and all the things going on around him.
However, he is not removed from the rest of the story. He intertwines his family and experiences as a counterpoint to the family and experiences of Sean. It’s a contrast between "normalcy" and counterculture that is the result of the juxtaposition, but there almost seems to be a question of whether or not "normal" as experienced by the suburban family is the same as "right" or "proper" or "good".
We don’t actually follow Sean through his life or even learn all that much about his childhood after Arlyck moved back to the East Coast. Instead what Arlyck does is lay down the foundation of "this is the kid I knew" and turn it into a pursuit of who this child grew up to be. The answer, as stated above is surprising to a lot of people, simply because he turned out to be an everyman… maybe not entirely, but he’s no different than any other Generation X adult, at least not to appearances, but how much can we really know in an 87 minute film?
At it’s core, this movie is about family, growing up and personal evolution. It’s about work ethic and generation gaps, what we pass on to our children and what we give back to our parents. It’s about defining "normalcy" and breaking misconceptions.
This is a really excellent movie. I recommend that everyone see it, but I think that far too few actually will.
What follows is some personal information that explains why I felt such affinity to the movie and some comments related to the Q&A after. Since I am concerned that I may offer spoilers or that you’re just not interested in the personal stuff, here’s the cut:
I, myself, am a product of the counterculture, though my parents missed the height of it by a couple of years, they retained the spirit and lived it as best they could.. To sum things up I’ve simply stated that "I was raised in a VW bus by travelling street musicians", which suffices, but it doesn’t really tell much of the story. As a child, I wished for that "normalcy" that you see on television or read about in books, but as an adult I really value the unique experiences that made me into the person that I am today. I think that a lot of kids, especially those who flirted with the public school system at any point in time, had similar views on the growing up period. I was "weird". I had done and seen things that kids my age didn’t realize were interesting until they turned 15/16, discovered the performers of the 60’s era and started experimenting with pot. That’s when I wasn’t weird anymore, I was experienced.
This period isn’t talked about in the movie, but it’s something that a lot of us went through. Few of the parents of the hippie culture retained that mindset after they started their families or "grew up". Think about it. Hippies became Yuppies, they "sold out". They moved to the suburbs and started not only families, but careers. They outgrew their younger antics, but they also abandoned their ideologies. They bought their children "things", they looked upon their youthful endeavors and behaviors as a lark, as nostalgia, as "well, we tried to change the world, we failed, oh well." They tuned out, turned off and dropped in, right back into the same mainstream society that they tried to destroy and, in effect, they became their parents.
So all the rest of us kids, the ones who lived in schoolbusses, the ones who lived in communes, the ones whose parents still smoked pot, the ones who were home schooled or alternative schooled or not schooled at all, the ones who ran around naked… we were the weird ones and we weren’t going to grow up to amount to anything. We were thought to be (and this was even asked as a question after the movie) neglected, left to our own devices, given "too much" freedom. But WE were loved and taught and surrounded by communities that loved us, while our counterpart peers were babysat by television. We were given independence and taught to take responsibility for our own actions, while our counterpart peers had their hands held and their outings restricted by unheard of (for me) things like curfews. We were taught to "smile on our brothers" and to find the good in people, we were taught how to BE SAFE and think for ourselves, while our counterpart peers were taught "don’t talk to strangers" and to not question authority.
The question was asked how Sean was so successful academically. People seem to expect that he didn’t have any educational basis upon which to draw, but measuring things and spending money are better teachers of math than workbooks and tests. People said they worried he was neglected, they were appalled at the idea of a 4 year old "smoking grass", but all the time forgetting that children often imagine realities to emulate their parents that aren’t necessarily true. When I was Sean’s age, I told my grandmother that "I do bong hits all the time." This wasn’t true beyond the smallest grain, but in my 4 year old mind, it was.
I have to say, I found Ralph Arlyck to be a very approachable and down-to-earth guy. He has no illusions about his place in the counterculture or even his role in the movie. Though he stated, not 5 minutes prior, that it was never his intention to make a 60’s nostalgia movie (as there are SO MANY of them and it would have distracted from the story that he did wind up telling), a woman asked the question, (paraphrased) "Why didn’t you identify the 60’s/revolution icons or focus on them more?" and went on to say that the younger people wouldn’t recognize them or understand the significance of that time period.
Frankly, Screw You, Lady. All the young people in that audience knew about the 60’s. We have parents and grandparents who remember it first hand. We’ve seen movies, documentaries, reminiscences. We’ve heard the music, we’ve read the books. The 1960’s are probably the most publicized decade in American history and probably also the most well understood. Just because you wanted to relive your youth doesn’t mean that was EVER going to happen in this particular movie. Your disdain for the film, the answer you received not just from the writer/director but from the audience and for Arlyck himself in not living up to your entitled expectations was very clearly shown when you walked out while Mr. Arlyck was answering someone else’s question. Honestly, I don’t think anyone missed you and your Mrs. Thurston Howell speech affectation. Take your discarded youth, your hypocrisy in aging and your (obvious) money and good riddance. She really set me off, much more so than any of the other mainstream/societal misconceptions formed as questions. (Ok, some of that was a little too mean. I stand by it, but I shouldn’t have said it in the first place.)
I find myself wanting to see more of Ralph Arylck’s movies, since he seems to have a very personal film making style that allows him to be extremely in touch with his subjects. I approached him after the Q&A to thank him (again) for making this movie and heard several people say "I was a Sean" or something to that effect. I gave him a link to this blog, too (shameless self-promotion) and I hope he stops in, but more importantly, there’s part of me that hopes he’ll share this with Sean, so that he can see what his participation has done, not just for me, but for a whole lot of "Seans" across the country.
Like I said, I think I may have been waiting my entire adult life for this movie.