The story is one more anecdote for a point adults need be keenly aware of: adults have (at least, we expect) a positive framework to establish negative experiences upon, while children faced with those negative experiences don't have such a positive framework - instead, the negative experiences become the framework, leading to long-term dysfunction. A key anecdote for this is the Shrek movies, overflowing with humorous satire - unaware that a good chunk of the audience doesn't know what's being satirized, and hence takes the stories as the foundation instead of the facade.
TL;DR - a child star of a Terry Gilliam film writes him, decades later, to describe the sheer terror she felt acting out the film and how that terror caused her social/emotional problems growing up; Gilliam responds in surprise/confusion/appreciation, lauding how solid an actor she was at age 9, and unaware of the effect it had on her.
Yes, children don't understand satire because satire is complicated, but that won't affect their enjoyment of the movie. The satire is there for you, the adult stuck in a cinema for 90 minutes, watching yet another rehash of an old story.
It seems like you're referencing some sort of psychology study or finding about children's reactions to Shrek - I was unaware that there was any child-psychology-based controversy about its use of satire whatsoever! Searches for "Shrek controversy" don't seem to mention anything nearly like this - do you have any references to the phenomenon you mention?
that's interesting how you used the word yes but actually ended up not having the answer. certainly you didn't mean that as parent you feel that your emotion is a reference?
I think any popular and kids movie will insert innuendos, sarcasm and things like that in there. I suspect that often addressed for the adults. In other words it is a multi-layered thing going on. I don't know which cartoons but some have had pretty adult references in there, but it would take an adult to understand. Kids might ask "hey, why are you laughing?".
However I agree with the idea of positive vs negative framework in general. And think there is even a temporal dimension in it. By that I mean that almost all childrens' shows have some kind of a conflict in the beginning -- someone behaving badly, someone being shamed, ignored, maybe not sharing, or other negative behavior like that. Later in the story that is resolved and the protagonist learns a life lesson -- "ok, be nice to your friends", "listen to your parents" etc. Except the problem is at a certain age children cannot follow the continuity of the story they just see a character fighting, behaving badly, etc and they copy it.
Actually, I thought it was kind of a dick response on Gilliam's part. He completely dismisses her feelings at the time and the effect the experience had on her by half-heartedly assuring her she was safer than she thought, and then immediately goes on to ask her how well he did with her body double.
Diana Serra Cary, who was a famous child star of the silent era, is still around, living in Merced, CA. She's written several books about her experiences. She wasn't that bothered by working in Hollywood; it was her controlling father she remembers as the problem. She writes: "But, as for my memories of those times, my theory is that most children live such a sedentary life that every day is the same. A lot of my memories, in many cases, concern life and death situations. You're being asked to do things that are really a stretch for a three-year old or a two-year old. Also, I did most of my own stunts. I was my own stand-in. Everything was new. I took in everything, and I really have a terrific memory of most of those early days because they were so intense, you know." She grew up in a cowboy family, was on a horse as soon as she could walk, and was around people who had risky jobs. So she saw the risk as normal.
It was an unusual life. She writes in one of her books of seeing some children playing and asking "why aren't they working"?
Sarah Polley has grown up to be a great actress and a filmmaker in her own right. Her documentary THE STORIES WE TELL is very insightful and subtle where it could have been exploitative and self-indulgent. In a way, it's thematically related to this exchange- Family, the way people remember things, the way our stories of our lives may not match reality and how that may not matter in terms of our own experience.
It's interesting she doesn't blame Gilliam for her experience, at least not now. I tend to agree to some extent, though I also think he has some responsibility. She's right to place some blame at her parents' feet. In the end, protecting her is 100% their job.
Gilliam has some responsibility, it is after all his set. But the film industry is aware that directors can't always be trusted to balance their conflicting goals the way they should, and the 1st Assistant Director on a set is explicitly in charge of set safety. They're there to rein in a director who may be going too far. Tough job, but it's only one of the ways a 1st AD has to steer directors sometimes. And ultimately, the producers are responsible for everything, period. There's a reason the producers are the ones who accept Best Picture Oscars, and their ultimate responsibility for a film and everything that happens in the course of it is why.
In the recent MIDNIGHT RIDER case, where a film crew member was killed by a train while shooting a stupidly dangerous scene while trespassing, the director, 1st AD, and the producer were all charged with manslaughter. The director and 1st AD have pled guilty, the producer had charges dropped. Looking into it now, I see the producer was the director's wife, and the court may have dropped her charges in consideration of their children, as long as the director agreed to plead guilty.
The Bluray has a lengthy featurette regarding the problems they had filming Munchausen. It was a complete disaster behind the scenes for multiple reasons that weren't really Gilliam's fault -- other than the fact that he was pursuaded to film in Italy in the first place.
When you watch The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, there are some pretty intense practical effects scenes that Sarah Polley had to go through. In particular, I'd be leery of the combination of water, large animals, and explosives myself! In fact, I'd probably want to be there as they were setting things up, asking countless questions until I was satisfied that all danger was illusory. Even as an adult, this would likely have been hard to do in a chaotic production where everything was constantly in danger of spinning out of control.
Gilliam obviously did not have full knowledge of how Polley was feeling at the time, but her experiences offer a lesson for anyone who has to put a child in circumstances that are challenging. It's crucial to spend extra time explaining and educating them in order to defuse fear that they might not admit to. Children have a lot of things they still need to learn, and one of those is when to speak up for themselves when they're not comfortable. Polley was wise to have this discussion with Gilliam and, perhaps, wise also to make it public.
Directors often have too much on their plate to worry about the welfare of their actors and parents are probably afraid of interfering in a way that might harm their child's chances to work in later productions. It's sad, but Polley's parents were her agents in a way, and had an incentive to prevent her from objecting when she felt she was put in danger. Perhaps a third party advocate for child actor safety should be on set, but admitting this would be a bitter pill indeed for the parents!
TL;DR - a child star of a Terry Gilliam film writes him, decades later, to describe the sheer terror she felt acting out the film and how that terror caused her social/emotional problems growing up; Gilliam responds in surprise/confusion/appreciation, lauding how solid an actor she was at age 9, and unaware of the effect it had on her.