by Zach Miners
Many Americans seem to get so caught up in dreams of immortality and timeless strength that they forget to simply live and have fun. Walt Disney’s “Tuck Everlasting” addresses this facet of our existence, although it fails to justify and make use of its morals.
Disney is definitely beginning to produce movies geared more towards a mature audience, although Tuck still falls short of delivering some essential plot elements and character development.
The film is more entertaining than most Disney projects; however, this does not suggest that the movie is a flawless in its own right.
Alexis Bledel stars as Winnie Foster, a stubborn 15-year-old who runs away from home after being forced to attend private school by her domineering parents.
After leaving her Victorian house and wandering into the forest, she discovers the Tuck family living in a log cabin on her family’s grounds.
Initially, the relationship between Winnie and the Tucks is cold and impersonal. Angus Tuck, played by William Hurt, seems solely concerned with keeping Winnie quiet and in their presence, yet at the same time is struggling to keep some information under wraps. And Jesse Tuck (Jonathon Jackson) even orders Winnie to return home.
Mrs. Mae Tuck (Sissy Spacek) is the only family member that greets Winnie humbly and embraces her as a daughter, serving as the catalyst for Winnie’s gradual acceptance to the family, and making Winnie realize that this is the first time in her life she has experienced freedom and excitement.
As a love relationship between Winnie and Jesse grows, Jesse reveals to Winnie the existence of a spring in the woods that makes its drinkers immortal. It is at this point that Winnie is informed of the true physical and emotional nature of the (long-lived) Tuck family.
Three-quarters of the way through the movie, Angus urges Winnie not to drink from the spring, claiming that their lives more resemble those of inanimate rocks than human beings.
He advises her, “Don’t be afraid of dying, Winnie. Be afraid of the unlived life.” Mr. Tuck’s guidance is important and provides the movie with a very strong moral, but it actually contradicts the progression of the film.
If the Tucks are truly focused on the lived life, why are they spending their time living in some rich family’s backyard? Why not make use of their timeless state and do some good for society? For example, it would be a great twist if the immortal, indestructible Tucks decided to help those who are not as fortunate, instead of always running from the local authorities.
“Tuck Everlasting” also is extremely lacking in character development. For instance, it is never quite determined how the relationship between Winnie and Jesse originates. Is it a result of male hormonal urges, or do the two really have feelings for each other? If so, why is there a sense of attraction between them? The other primary characters are never quite flushed out either, perhaps because the film is barely 90 minutes long and so much time is spent on this silly love affair.
At the conclusion of the movie, Winnie is forced to make a decision: should she drink from the spring and live with the Tucks forever, or go back to her family and try to make something of herself?
And since there has not been any character development, this creates a serious problem.
What will Winnie base her decision on? In light of this aspect of the film, it’s not surprising that “Tuck Everlasting” is based on a children’s book. Mr. Tuck’s advice is appealing, although I much prefer that of Socrates: The unexamined life is not worth living.
Leave a Reply