steven's angry, incoherent rant against Avatar was INSANE! and WRONG!
alright he wasn't very angry or incoherent, but he was wrong. it doesnt suck bro. i must say no to you, and i'll give you my reasons.
for one thing, my 84 year old grandma seemed to like it quite a bit, and she only ever watches Hallmark channel movies stuffed up the ass with christian bourgeois values and wealthy white people learning life lessons about the evils of socialized medicine and islam or whatever. so my grandma endorses Avatar. that has nothing to do with anything really, i was just amazed at that and thought i'd share. anyway MOVING ON!
i'm one of them folks that values style as much as substance, and in order to appreciate a lot of movies, you have to realize that the importance of these two things is usually dependent on the type of film that's being made. the perfect film is probably an exact balance of both (Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind, WUDDUP EVAN!), where your eyeballs pop out of your fucking head AND your brain is thoroughly, maybe even erotically stimulated by the film's complex and challenging narrative, characters, ideology, or whatever you like. action films almost always drop an elbow from the sky on substance and put style on a pedestal, for better or worse.
if you're an Avatar fanboy like me, you've been following this movie since about 2005, read the first draft of the script the next year, and have been reading all of Cameron's self-promoting hype ever since. i knew almost exactly how this movie would look and play out from beginning to end since i read the script. i guess Cameron's a good visual writer, because when i first saw the trailer i thought "damn, this is exactly how i pictured Pandora." a few plot details and character names were switched around, but when i saw the film there were no surprises. it's such a predictable story that i don't think anyone was surprised at anything, regardless of whether they read the script.
Cameron has never been a remarkable storyteller. every one of his films have been very simple stories built around one (Titanic) or multiple huge action set pieces (all his other films). he's the kind of screenwriter who probably picked up The Screenwriter's Guide and made sure to hit every note and follow all the directions. he's never been one to rock the storytelling boat. but that's not what he's about. he's the Isaac Newton of action filmmaking. he puts almost everyone else to shame when it comes to groundbreaking special effects and memorable action set pieces (even after watching Avatar, i still don't think anyone's done a better effect than when the T1000 walks through the liquid nitrogen and starts to fall apart.)
when he started up the hype machine about two years ago with his outrageous quotes like "this is the greatest achievement since sound on film! NOW RUB MY FEET AND FEED ME GRAPES!" i admit i didn't doubt him. and after the film, i say he was absolutely right. in fact i'll go so far as to call Avatar the greatest technical achievement for film since Birth of a Nation. never before have i seen a humanoid CG character that was 100% believable (King Kong almost counts), not even for one second of screen time. Avatar doesn't quite reach 100% in every shot, but for the majority of them, and especially in all the close ups, i saw dozens of 10 foot tall blue aliens that may as well have been people in makeup. i don't know why that didn't blow everyone's minds. and let's not overlook the environments. with CG environments in films like Lord of the Rings and King Kong, they're certainly realistic, but it doesn't feel like you can step into the freaking screen and touch the leaves and shit. just imagining the time and number of calculations it took to render Pandora almost makes my head explode. a lot of people take digital effects for granted. "oh, we're on an alien world. looks like real life i guess. hmph, my ass itches." they don't really notice the difference or give a crap about these details, but i think these people are jaded and don't really appreciate the sensory experience of films.
the arguments about white guilt and a white man coming to save the day are overblown. i generally hate Ed Zwick's films for this reason, because he seems to only make films where white Americans save the savages from their own brutal natures or whatever. race is a complete non-issue in Avatar, and the ideas of the white man's burden only stand up when you compare it to films like Dances with Wolves or The Last Samurai. but Avatar is not those films, and the conflict here is between the human and the Other, not the White human and the Other human. it's more about the human affinity for greed and our inborn desire to torture, light on fire and exploit everything we're afraid and ignorant of. not that white people aren't fucked up. but i don't see that specific message in the film. and at the end of the day, Cameron clearly sides with the natives and against the evils of unbridled militaristic capitalism, so i think the film is at least headed in the right direction.
Avatar is something like the 5th most expensive film ever made, and it's unrealistic to expect such a huge studio films to take any risks. naturally they went with a simplistic and time-tested narrative formula. bummer. but did anyone really get in line for an awesome story? i don't know about yall, but i paid $12 to see blue people riding pterodactyls and throwing grenades at gunships, and goddammit, that's what i got.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Trailer Comment Weekly, Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood
Merry Christmas Everyone! We present two trailers and subsequent comments for two event films coming out next year!
Enjoy!
Jackson Bishop:
Seriously...how badass does this look? I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to be witty or snarky on this one. Favreau and Downey Jr. managed with the first Iron Man flick to both capture the character of Tony Stark perfectly, and also created a viable world for the character to live in. Judging by this trailer, the sequel looks to take everything that worked with the first film and make it even better. Can't wait.
Catie Moyer:
I have an Ironman II bias because it comes out on my birthday, so all I will say is that: the trailer makes me believe that this will not disappoint. Between War Machine and Scarlett Johansen, I'll already goosebumpy. And what a great line: "I have successfully privatized world peace." hahahaha.
Evan Koehne:
Looks sweet. Can't wait to see more metal frames flying through the air to metal music.
Steven Ray Morris:
My thoughts on the Iron Man 2 trailer are a bit reserved and after watching it again I know it'll be good times with such an incredible cast, but the trailer wasn't nearly as exciting as I wanted it to be. Maybe seeing it on the big screen will be better.
Dax Schaffer:
As far as trailers go, this felt kind of underwhelming and…oddly paced. That’s a critique of the trailer though, not what I expect from the movie. I really enjoyed the original Iron Man, but there was always that nagging trace of white supremacy and racism that kind of bothered me. Can we please drop the bad guy with a heavy accent thing? I don’t see this as helping the film out very much. What I do think of as somewhat interesting, is how they are going to handle the fact that everybody knows who Iron Man actually is, which isn’t often dealt with in super hero stories. Iron Man falls behind Dark Knight in my list of amazing super hero movies, so I hope that it turns out at least as well as the first one. I’m sure it’ll look amazing none the less.
Kira Martins:
Iron Man 2 looks like its going to be packed full of action and I looove action! It also seems to be pushing the free-market-is-good-and-capitalism-is-kick-ass-awesome note too and I love that as well, especially since the villain seems to represent the whole 'you have to give back to the little people even if you don't want to' idea and because this is a super hero movie Iron Man is gonna crush the guy...so YAY for social commentary disguised as an action packed fun film, this is what cinema does best, can't wait to see the film.
Omar Najam:
Wow, this looks really intense. It kinda looks like they're taking the romance and glamor out of being a hero and portraying him more as a renegade.
Iron Man 2 will be released May 7th, 2010.
Iron Man 2 on IMDB
Jackson Bishop:
It's Ridley Scott so we're obviously all going to go see it, but this looks like the Kevin Costner Robin Hood with more battle axes to me. Maybe battle axes will turn out to be thing that other movie was missing and this will be great...
Is it too much to ask for Scott to hurry up and make a new scifi film?
Catie Moyer:
Can I just do a brief chronology of notable Robin Hood films for a minute? 1922: Douglas Fairbanks is Robin Hood. 1973 Walt Disney's Robin Hood in which all the characters are lovable woodland creatures. 1991: Kevin Costner is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. More notable, however, is Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Christian Slater and Morgan Freeman also helm that cast. 1993: Cary Elwes dons the tights in Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
So, here we have yet another. Ridley Scott is bound to offer a darker, less BBC friendly version of Locksley and OF COURSE he's got Russell Crowe, right? I mean, if it wasn't Crowe, it would be Gerard Butler because the two have become nearly interchangeable to me. As far as I'm concerned, unless you’re an animated lion, you just can't out-do Alan Rickman when it comes to the Sheriff, and here we have Matthew Macfadyen.
Frankly, I'm just kind of disappointed Scott has chosen to adapt Robin Hood at all. It's unoriginal, and everyone will not only be comparing it to the Robin Hood's before, but also to Gladiator which might as well be the same story only in the Roman Empire. Think about it, you'll realize I'm right.
Evan Koehne:
It's too bad they couldn't get Wes Anderson's foxes to play the parts. That would have been the extra historical accuracy this needed.
Steven Ray Morris:
May I ask an obvious question? Why do we need another Robin Hood? It looks a bit drab, but upon second viewing of this trailer I realize it has promise (Cate Blanchett). I think perhaps Scott needs a new muse. Even Tim Burton made a movie without Johnny Depp once.
Dax Schaffer:
Men in Tights kind of made it hard for me to take Robin Hood movies seriously ever again. Regardless, Ridley Scott’s name is here and as far as I’m concerned, that means “maybe.” I just find it hard to be excited about more proof that the movie industry is still running out of ideas. As far as being a good iteration of the story though, it probably will be… but it’s nothing that I haven’t already seen in about 5 other forms.
Kira Martins:
Could this trailer have been anymore VAGUE or is it simply assuming that we all know the story of Robin Hood and therefore already know what is going to happen in the film? if that's the case I'm already disappointed and if it isn't, this preview did nothing for me and I think I'll go re-read Stephen Lawhead's Trilogy entitled Hood, Scarlet and Tuck.
I will note that its interesting to be telling the tale of Robin Hood now with our present politics and economy since it's essentially the story of a government that took from the productive and gave to the unproductive and one man and his merry band of thieves who stole back what was taken and returned it the those who had earned it in the first place...sound familiar?
Omar Najam:
Wow, this looks really intense. It kinda looks like they're taking the romance and glamor out of being a hero and portraying him more as a renegade.
Robin Hood will be released May 14th, 2010.
Robin Hood on IMDB
Enjoy!
Jackson Bishop:
Seriously...how badass does this look? I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to be witty or snarky on this one. Favreau and Downey Jr. managed with the first Iron Man flick to both capture the character of Tony Stark perfectly, and also created a viable world for the character to live in. Judging by this trailer, the sequel looks to take everything that worked with the first film and make it even better. Can't wait.
Catie Moyer:
I have an Ironman II bias because it comes out on my birthday, so all I will say is that: the trailer makes me believe that this will not disappoint. Between War Machine and Scarlett Johansen, I'll already goosebumpy. And what a great line: "I have successfully privatized world peace." hahahaha.
Evan Koehne:
Looks sweet. Can't wait to see more metal frames flying through the air to metal music.
Steven Ray Morris:
My thoughts on the Iron Man 2 trailer are a bit reserved and after watching it again I know it'll be good times with such an incredible cast, but the trailer wasn't nearly as exciting as I wanted it to be. Maybe seeing it on the big screen will be better.
Dax Schaffer:
As far as trailers go, this felt kind of underwhelming and…oddly paced. That’s a critique of the trailer though, not what I expect from the movie. I really enjoyed the original Iron Man, but there was always that nagging trace of white supremacy and racism that kind of bothered me. Can we please drop the bad guy with a heavy accent thing? I don’t see this as helping the film out very much. What I do think of as somewhat interesting, is how they are going to handle the fact that everybody knows who Iron Man actually is, which isn’t often dealt with in super hero stories. Iron Man falls behind Dark Knight in my list of amazing super hero movies, so I hope that it turns out at least as well as the first one. I’m sure it’ll look amazing none the less.
Kira Martins:
Iron Man 2 looks like its going to be packed full of action and I looove action! It also seems to be pushing the free-market-is-good-and-capitalism-is-kick-ass-awesome note too and I love that as well, especially since the villain seems to represent the whole 'you have to give back to the little people even if you don't want to' idea and because this is a super hero movie Iron Man is gonna crush the guy...so YAY for social commentary disguised as an action packed fun film, this is what cinema does best, can't wait to see the film.
Omar Najam:
Wow, this looks really intense. It kinda looks like they're taking the romance and glamor out of being a hero and portraying him more as a renegade.
Iron Man 2 will be released May 7th, 2010.
Iron Man 2 on IMDB
Jackson Bishop:
It's Ridley Scott so we're obviously all going to go see it, but this looks like the Kevin Costner Robin Hood with more battle axes to me. Maybe battle axes will turn out to be thing that other movie was missing and this will be great...
Is it too much to ask for Scott to hurry up and make a new scifi film?
Catie Moyer:
Can I just do a brief chronology of notable Robin Hood films for a minute? 1922: Douglas Fairbanks is Robin Hood. 1973 Walt Disney's Robin Hood in which all the characters are lovable woodland creatures. 1991: Kevin Costner is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. More notable, however, is Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Christian Slater and Morgan Freeman also helm that cast. 1993: Cary Elwes dons the tights in Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
So, here we have yet another. Ridley Scott is bound to offer a darker, less BBC friendly version of Locksley and OF COURSE he's got Russell Crowe, right? I mean, if it wasn't Crowe, it would be Gerard Butler because the two have become nearly interchangeable to me. As far as I'm concerned, unless you’re an animated lion, you just can't out-do Alan Rickman when it comes to the Sheriff, and here we have Matthew Macfadyen.
Frankly, I'm just kind of disappointed Scott has chosen to adapt Robin Hood at all. It's unoriginal, and everyone will not only be comparing it to the Robin Hood's before, but also to Gladiator which might as well be the same story only in the Roman Empire. Think about it, you'll realize I'm right.
Evan Koehne:
It's too bad they couldn't get Wes Anderson's foxes to play the parts. That would have been the extra historical accuracy this needed.
Steven Ray Morris:
May I ask an obvious question? Why do we need another Robin Hood? It looks a bit drab, but upon second viewing of this trailer I realize it has promise (Cate Blanchett). I think perhaps Scott needs a new muse. Even Tim Burton made a movie without Johnny Depp once.
Dax Schaffer:
Men in Tights kind of made it hard for me to take Robin Hood movies seriously ever again. Regardless, Ridley Scott’s name is here and as far as I’m concerned, that means “maybe.” I just find it hard to be excited about more proof that the movie industry is still running out of ideas. As far as being a good iteration of the story though, it probably will be… but it’s nothing that I haven’t already seen in about 5 other forms.
Kira Martins:
Could this trailer have been anymore VAGUE or is it simply assuming that we all know the story of Robin Hood and therefore already know what is going to happen in the film? if that's the case I'm already disappointed and if it isn't, this preview did nothing for me and I think I'll go re-read Stephen Lawhead's Trilogy entitled Hood, Scarlet and Tuck.
I will note that its interesting to be telling the tale of Robin Hood now with our present politics and economy since it's essentially the story of a government that took from the productive and gave to the unproductive and one man and his merry band of thieves who stole back what was taken and returned it the those who had earned it in the first place...sound familiar?
Omar Najam:
Wow, this looks really intense. It kinda looks like they're taking the romance and glamor out of being a hero and portraying him more as a renegade.
Robin Hood will be released May 14th, 2010.
Robin Hood on IMDB
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Top 5 Films of 2009 (Before Christmas)
Hey folks, posted below are some of our writers favorites of 2009 (so far) before all the big guns come out on Christmas (or today as in Up In The Air) and during the Oscar award season.
Check em' out and we shall see how they change in the coming week or two.
Jackson Bishop:
1. Moon
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
3. District 9
4. Adventureland
5. Star Trek
Honorable mention to 500 Days of Summer and Inglorious Basterds, and hopefully Avatar will take a place here too after the 18th.
As I've stated before, 2009 to me is the year of SciFi. The genre made a huge comeback with some quality films that fulfill...ed every function of the genre. They were though provoking, reflective of our culture, and damn entertaining. 2009 was also a year of chances taken, with films like Fantastic Mr. Fox, Paranormal Activity and even Watchmen, that were in one way or another pretty ballsy to release as they were. Here's hoping 2010 will be as memorable.
Michael Anthony Lopez:
1. District 9
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
3. Paranormal Activity
4. 500 Days of Summer
5. Where the Wild Things Are
others I really enjoyed were Coraline, Up, and Inglourious Basterds
Films this year seemed to take existing subject matter and bring it to life in a new and unusual way. District 9 is in my opinion one of the best sci fi films of all time. Like Paranormal Activity, it took a subject matter that is questionably believable and made it feel real. It was also a good year for the family since Fantastic Mr. Fox, Where the Wild Things Are, Coraline, and Up were all quality films for everyone.
Arlin Golden:
1. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
2. Where the Wild Things Are
3. The Carter
4. Inglourious Basterds
5. Ponyo
2009 was a year of bipolarity, and rightfully so, as its films seem to be striding the line between what has worked the past decade and trying to find footing for the decade to come. The first half of the year seemed to produce such a dirth of quality films that I would go to the movies just to see something, but as the rush towards award season began I was left struggling to keep up. Suffice to say if I had gotten to every movie I was interested in this list would look much different; shout outs to Limits of Control, Moon, Antichrist, A Serious Man, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, movies I'm sure would've made this list more interesting
Evan Koehne:
I might be one of the worst people to ask to do an up-to-date "Best of 2009" list. In the words that Chris Farley's famous Bennet Brauer may well have said, I don't "Go out to the movies." But I do my best. Here's a list of movies I saw this year that I liked, and also a list of movies that I wish I could have gotten around to seeing.
1. Coraline
2. Up
3. District 9
4. The Hangover
5. Zombieland
I am all about fantasy, and I am all about the crazy adventure story, as you can tell. All of these movies do that very well, while also in small ways breaking down the conventions of their supposed "genres." I'm also a sucker for the animated film. The Hangover is on there because of Zach Galifinakis.
Yes, I saw Inglourious Basterds. No, it didn't make my list. So sue me.
Catie Moyer:
1. Drag Me to Hell: the return of Sam Raimi to his roots in horror.
2. It Might Get Loud: epic romp with three guitar legends of different generations; Jimmy Page alone make this one worthwhile.
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson plays with stop animation adaptation of Dahl's book which led to my discovery that Dahl used to be a secret agent.
4. Jennifer's Body: roll your eyes if you must, but as far as women's film goes, this one wins this year with Diablo Cody writing, Karyn Kusama directing, and two starlettes in extremely sympathetic performances; definitely not man-friendly.
5. Paranormal Activity: just read Stephen King's exclusive article "What's Scary" in Jan Fango. You'll understand.
OH MY GOD! DO I GET A SIXTH?!?!?!?
Zombieland. For sure. No justification necessary. Word.
A word on 2009: Sparse and a little blockbustery. I'm expect normal people's lists would include Star Trek and Avatar. Or maybe Harry Potter 5 and Transformers II. Of course, we're not normal people. Or is every year kind of like that? I don't know. I'm all wonky right now. Don't include this part. ^.^
Kelsey Brannan:
1. Where The Wild Things Are
2. Avatar
3. Inglourius Basterds
4. Up
5. District 9
Steven Ray Morris:
1. District 9
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Princess and the Frog
4. Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. Up
This definitely is a really great year for animation bar none in a really long time. The summer blockbusters were a mixed bag and did not live up to the heights of mainstream cinema in 08 (The Dark Knight, Wall-E), but one breakthrough is the success of a lot of smaller films. The “Indie” and B Movies have returned. Hopefully there will be more and more low budget films released again in the coming years.
Joshua Fu:
1) Fantastic Mr. Fox
2) A Serious Man
3) Up
4) Where the Wild Things Are
5) Antichrist
* this was in no way easy. runners up included: The Informant!, Observe and Report, The Hurt Locker and The Messenger.
Dax Schaffer:
1. Up
2. Princess and the Frog
3. Coraline
4. Star Trek
5. Fantastic Mr. Fox
Yeah so… I was a little heavy on animation here. I really don’t know if I should put Coraline above PATF (*editors note: Dax made me switch them), but it feels a little more right this way…I pretty much liked them equally though. Neither one has an AMAZING story, but each one showcases their own art forms beautifully. Honorable mention to Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince for being the only Harry Potter movie that I liked more than the book. Also, I would add Waltz with Bashir, but it was technically an ‘08 release. So anyway, about animation…
Coraline (Stop Motion), UP (CG), 9 (CG, with a hint of Stop Motion), Princess and the Frog (Traditional Hand-drawn, Disney style), A Christmas Carol (CG, Motion Capture), The Fantastic Mr. Fox (Stop Motion, Old School style), Planet 51 (CG), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (CG), Monsters Vs. Aliens (CG), Ponyo (Traditional Hand-drawn, Anime/Studio Ghibli style), Astro Boy (CG), Rebuild of Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Anime)...
Holy Crap! The animation category at the Academy Awards is going to be packed, a fantastic year to say the least. Not to mention that this is the most eclectic variety of animation mediums that's been around in years. They've just about covered every available venue (if you count Waltz with Bashir, they even got Flash animation in there). Here's to a resurgence in the industry. Oh, and do we count Avatar as well considering that it's mostly CG anyway? I’m not saying all of these are good, but I do think that it’s nice that there has been such an increase in output. A few disappointments came into play though, Ponyo was only ok (gorgeous, but just an ok story) and “9” was a pretty big let down honestly (again….GORGEOUS, but a terrible story). My logic may seem contradictory here, but if a story is distractingly disjointed, not even a mastery of the art form can save it really.
Omar Najam:
1- 500 Days of Summer
2- UP
3- Coraline
4- Star Trek
5- District 9
Top 5 movies I forgot were even made
1- Bride Wars
2- Fired Up
3- Miss March
4- Battle for Terra
5- My Life in Ruins
Quite possibly the best "quality" film:
It's between Where the Wild Things Are and A Serious Man
Quite possibly the worst "quality" films:
It's between the Ugly Truth and Dance Movie
Quite possibly the worst movie ever:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
------------
What are your current top five films of 2009? and what do you feel was noteworthy if anything about 2009?
Check em' out and we shall see how they change in the coming week or two.
Jackson Bishop:
1. Moon
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
3. District 9
4. Adventureland
5. Star Trek
Honorable mention to 500 Days of Summer and Inglorious Basterds, and hopefully Avatar will take a place here too after the 18th.
As I've stated before, 2009 to me is the year of SciFi. The genre made a huge comeback with some quality films that fulfill...ed every function of the genre. They were though provoking, reflective of our culture, and damn entertaining. 2009 was also a year of chances taken, with films like Fantastic Mr. Fox, Paranormal Activity and even Watchmen, that were in one way or another pretty ballsy to release as they were. Here's hoping 2010 will be as memorable.
Michael Anthony Lopez:
1. District 9
2. Fantastic Mr. Fox
3. Paranormal Activity
4. 500 Days of Summer
5. Where the Wild Things Are
others I really enjoyed were Coraline, Up, and Inglourious Basterds
Films this year seemed to take existing subject matter and bring it to life in a new and unusual way. District 9 is in my opinion one of the best sci fi films of all time. Like Paranormal Activity, it took a subject matter that is questionably believable and made it feel real. It was also a good year for the family since Fantastic Mr. Fox, Where the Wild Things Are, Coraline, and Up were all quality films for everyone.
Arlin Golden:
1. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
2. Where the Wild Things Are
3. The Carter
4. Inglourious Basterds
5. Ponyo
2009 was a year of bipolarity, and rightfully so, as its films seem to be striding the line between what has worked the past decade and trying to find footing for the decade to come. The first half of the year seemed to produce such a dirth of quality films that I would go to the movies just to see something, but as the rush towards award season began I was left struggling to keep up. Suffice to say if I had gotten to every movie I was interested in this list would look much different; shout outs to Limits of Control, Moon, Antichrist, A Serious Man, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, movies I'm sure would've made this list more interesting
Evan Koehne:
I might be one of the worst people to ask to do an up-to-date "Best of 2009" list. In the words that Chris Farley's famous Bennet Brauer may well have said, I don't "Go out to the movies." But I do my best. Here's a list of movies I saw this year that I liked, and also a list of movies that I wish I could have gotten around to seeing.
1. Coraline
2. Up
3. District 9
4. The Hangover
5. Zombieland
I am all about fantasy, and I am all about the crazy adventure story, as you can tell. All of these movies do that very well, while also in small ways breaking down the conventions of their supposed "genres." I'm also a sucker for the animated film. The Hangover is on there because of Zach Galifinakis.
Yes, I saw Inglourious Basterds. No, it didn't make my list. So sue me.
Catie Moyer:
1. Drag Me to Hell: the return of Sam Raimi to his roots in horror.
2. It Might Get Loud: epic romp with three guitar legends of different generations; Jimmy Page alone make this one worthwhile.
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson plays with stop animation adaptation of Dahl's book which led to my discovery that Dahl used to be a secret agent.
4. Jennifer's Body: roll your eyes if you must, but as far as women's film goes, this one wins this year with Diablo Cody writing, Karyn Kusama directing, and two starlettes in extremely sympathetic performances; definitely not man-friendly.
5. Paranormal Activity: just read Stephen King's exclusive article "What's Scary" in Jan Fango. You'll understand.
OH MY GOD! DO I GET A SIXTH?!?!?!?
Zombieland. For sure. No justification necessary. Word.
A word on 2009: Sparse and a little blockbustery. I'm expect normal people's lists would include Star Trek and Avatar. Or maybe Harry Potter 5 and Transformers II. Of course, we're not normal people. Or is every year kind of like that? I don't know. I'm all wonky right now. Don't include this part. ^.^
Kelsey Brannan:
1. Where The Wild Things Are
2. Avatar
3. Inglourius Basterds
4. Up
5. District 9
Steven Ray Morris:
1. District 9
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Princess and the Frog
4. Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. Up
This definitely is a really great year for animation bar none in a really long time. The summer blockbusters were a mixed bag and did not live up to the heights of mainstream cinema in 08 (The Dark Knight, Wall-E), but one breakthrough is the success of a lot of smaller films. The “Indie” and B Movies have returned. Hopefully there will be more and more low budget films released again in the coming years.
Joshua Fu:
1) Fantastic Mr. Fox
2) A Serious Man
3) Up
4) Where the Wild Things Are
5) Antichrist
* this was in no way easy. runners up included: The Informant!, Observe and Report, The Hurt Locker and The Messenger.
Dax Schaffer:
1. Up
2. Princess and the Frog
3. Coraline
4. Star Trek
5. Fantastic Mr. Fox
Yeah so… I was a little heavy on animation here. I really don’t know if I should put Coraline above PATF (*editors note: Dax made me switch them), but it feels a little more right this way…I pretty much liked them equally though. Neither one has an AMAZING story, but each one showcases their own art forms beautifully. Honorable mention to Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince for being the only Harry Potter movie that I liked more than the book. Also, I would add Waltz with Bashir, but it was technically an ‘08 release. So anyway, about animation…
Coraline (Stop Motion), UP (CG), 9 (CG, with a hint of Stop Motion), Princess and the Frog (Traditional Hand-drawn, Disney style), A Christmas Carol (CG, Motion Capture), The Fantastic Mr. Fox (Stop Motion, Old School style), Planet 51 (CG), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (CG), Monsters Vs. Aliens (CG), Ponyo (Traditional Hand-drawn, Anime/Studio Ghibli style), Astro Boy (CG), Rebuild of Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Anime)...
Holy Crap! The animation category at the Academy Awards is going to be packed, a fantastic year to say the least. Not to mention that this is the most eclectic variety of animation mediums that's been around in years. They've just about covered every available venue (if you count Waltz with Bashir, they even got Flash animation in there). Here's to a resurgence in the industry. Oh, and do we count Avatar as well considering that it's mostly CG anyway? I’m not saying all of these are good, but I do think that it’s nice that there has been such an increase in output. A few disappointments came into play though, Ponyo was only ok (gorgeous, but just an ok story) and “9” was a pretty big let down honestly (again….GORGEOUS, but a terrible story). My logic may seem contradictory here, but if a story is distractingly disjointed, not even a mastery of the art form can save it really.
Omar Najam:
1- 500 Days of Summer
2- UP
3- Coraline
4- Star Trek
5- District 9
Top 5 movies I forgot were even made
1- Bride Wars
2- Fired Up
3- Miss March
4- Battle for Terra
5- My Life in Ruins
Quite possibly the best "quality" film:
It's between Where the Wild Things Are and A Serious Man
Quite possibly the worst "quality" films:
It's between the Ugly Truth and Dance Movie
Quite possibly the worst movie ever:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
------------
What are your current top five films of 2009? and what do you feel was noteworthy if anything about 2009?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Fern Gully/Avatar and Racial Mashups
Avatar (Camerson 2009) is yet another film that assimilates a white man into a native society to become the hero! I do not know about you, but avatar looked a lot like Fern Gully (Kroyer 1992) on steroids- steroids produced from the atmosphere of the war on terror and dystopian views of new media technology. A story about a man who gets to re-live his life in an alien form, a form where he witnesses the oppression of the Na'vi, but never truly experiences it because of his "whiteness."
Annelee Newitz in her article, "When will white people stop making movies like "Avatar"?" wrote:
Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege.
Jake Sully was oppressed by the Na'vi for his lack of Na'vi skill, but he earned their respect- especially the respect of Neytiri. As a result, he never truly escapes his "white" privilege.
In terms of race, I also find it interesting that every actor who did the voice of a Na'vi character was of a different race than white. Neytiri was played by Zoe Saldana, a black American. Neytiri's brother, Tsu'tey, was played by Laz Alonso and Eytuken was played by Wes Studi. This further underscores the subject/object power relationship between race in the film.
Could the aliens be like the Iraqi soldiers fighting for their homeland against the embodiment of terror? In the film, Stephan Lang who place Colonel Miles Quaritch says, "we must fight terror with terror." Avatar could very well be a metaphor for the War on Terror, and a hope for peace.
If you have not seen Avatar, try to look for more themes in the film that build on old story structures which assimilate a white man with nature- a utopia that no longer exists in reality.
Also, why does it always have to be a man that becomes the hero? Originally women have been described as being associated with nature- but every since the turn o the 20th century- women have been associated with the threat of machines. Due to this reversal, male protagonists in films have been driven to go back to nature to escape the "castrating" machine.
Also check out this Fern Gully/Avatar Mashup!
Also, read this article- more on race
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Casual Avatar Friday for Raptors (i.e. us)
que pasa, my raptor compadres! like all of you, i was at the matinee of Avatar in IMAX 3D on friday morning, silly sunglasses in hand and raging boner in pants (more specifically, raging ladyboner, since all of us here in Jurassic Park are females [also yeah that's right, raptors wear pants now]). obviously the film was the most amazing thing since the Ab Roller (i mean duh, like...obviously.) but what caught my eye, or should i say, my ears, was the all too familiar sounds of some of our favorite creatures (since we're all raptors, of course).
about 25 minutes into the film, Jake's avatar is out chillin in the jungle, touching plants erotically, and such forth, when he stumbles upon the Thanator, "the most fearsome of all Pandoran land predators" (yeah i used wikipedia, wanna fight?). the beast rears its ugly head, and belts out a mighty RAAAWWRRR that sent chills all the way down my dinorific spine, as well as my tail (since i'm a raptor). i knew that roar from somewhere....and then i remembered. THE FUCKING T REX! the Thanator had the same fucking voice box of the damn T Rex from our first filmic adventure (what was her name again? wasn't it Sheila? sweet kid)!
a little while afterward, Jake's begun his mating rituals in an effort to stick his blue hoo-hee into Neytiri's blue hee-hoo, and it comes time to learn how to ride the alien horsies and make her swoon or whatever. a bunch of 6 legged horses come rollin' up out of the jungle and shit and start grunting (does it count as grunting if your vocal cords are on your knees?). and i was like, WAIT A MINUTE! THAT'S US! yes my friends. Pandoran horsies sound just like us. these bizarre coincidences make one thing abundantly clear: evolution is real, and we dinosaurs and the Pandorans obviously had the same great great great great great great granddaddy somewhere down the line. join me in the fight against anti-science religious fundamentalism. kthxbai.
(if you have a problem with my using parentheticals after almost every sentence in this post, just leave me a comment and let me know [and i'll sniff you out of your burrow and spill your intestines with my 6 inch retractable razor claw, mmmk?])
about 25 minutes into the film, Jake's avatar is out chillin in the jungle, touching plants erotically, and such forth, when he stumbles upon the Thanator, "the most fearsome of all Pandoran land predators" (yeah i used wikipedia, wanna fight?). the beast rears its ugly head, and belts out a mighty RAAAWWRRR that sent chills all the way down my dinorific spine, as well as my tail (since i'm a raptor). i knew that roar from somewhere....and then i remembered. THE FUCKING T REX! the Thanator had the same fucking voice box of the damn T Rex from our first filmic adventure (what was her name again? wasn't it Sheila? sweet kid)!
a little while afterward, Jake's begun his mating rituals in an effort to stick his blue hoo-hee into Neytiri's blue hee-hoo, and it comes time to learn how to ride the alien horsies and make her swoon or whatever. a bunch of 6 legged horses come rollin' up out of the jungle and shit and start grunting (does it count as grunting if your vocal cords are on your knees?). and i was like, WAIT A MINUTE! THAT'S US! yes my friends. Pandoran horsies sound just like us. these bizarre coincidences make one thing abundantly clear: evolution is real, and we dinosaurs and the Pandorans obviously had the same great great great great great great granddaddy somewhere down the line. join me in the fight against anti-science religious fundamentalism. kthxbai.
(if you have a problem with my using parentheticals after almost every sentence in this post, just leave me a comment and let me know [and i'll sniff you out of your burrow and spill your intestines with my 6 inch retractable razor claw, mmmk?])
Friday, December 18, 2009
Princess and the Fr-argument (sorry...)
I was already planning on writing some sort of follow up to Princess and the Frog, since I made a short rant about its importance to animation not too long ago. But an incident happened on facebook that made me think that this would be a better idea for a post. As you may know, there have been some complaints and arguments of Disney not handling the whole race problem as "proper" as they should have. I disagree strongly with this sentiment, and it was earlier this week that on my friend Chris' comment, his sister left a rather strong statement against the film. Naturally, as an arrogant and self-justified, film-studies bastard, I commenced upon a lengthy rant/argument that turned a single facebook status update into a massive 30 comment debate.
Now, I'm not posting this to "show who won the argument," or anything like that. I'm posting it because it's two very opposing views that show very different ways at looking at the film. I'm a bit of a jerk when it comes to certain discussions, so please forgive the rashness of these comments, this is me in my purest form of pissed off/slightly educated rage. I would love to hear more comments about the movie, regarding anything really. And as a side note, the animation for it was absolutely gorgeous, but that's not the point here. If you can actually get through this whole rant, let me know.
*Probably a few minor spoilers here, so you might not want to read unless you've seen the film yourself*
Christopher
anyone want to see Princess and the Frog or Fantastic Mr. Fox?
Laura
fantastic mr fox!
*Anon*
Princess and the Frog is a little racist (and, as usual for disney, sexist). Funny how A. Disney's first african princess is a frog for the majority of the film; B. Disney's first african princess is not a princess afterall, but wears princess clothes that are meant for another character (a white character); C. all of the characters are african-american stereotypes (just look at the lightning bug)
They basically just made this character to add another face to the WIDE variety of "princess" merchandise sold to young girls (adding an african "princess" will widen the target audience.)
I won't even get into the subject of disney choosing a white european fairy tail and a setting of American deep south for their first "black" toon.
Cherie
i do i do
*Anon*
i want to see fantastic mr fox though- i love wes anderson- he's a weirdo.
Laura
Preach it Sister!
Hank
I'll see both again, they're that good
Dax
You know....I am getting really sick of people trying to act like they are "politically correct" in hating this movie (that lightning bug, for starters, was obviously meant to be more of a white hillbilly than anything else). The only way that I can interpret this as being sexist, is in how it says that Tiana needs to marry a man to be truly happy. As far as racism goes though, I'm sorry... but this movie was VERY careful in walking the fine line it was on. There were many black characters that were lovingly portrayed and carefully drawn not to seem like stereotypes. And yet everyone focuses on something like the villain being too overboard. People want to blame Disney for being racist, simply because the story involves black people and I actually find that quite sad. It even goes as far as to show that there is a class struggle going on, considering how Tiana has to work hard for everything when the few white characters in the movie seem very well off. That's not racist, it's showcasing a problem that actually exists. She turned into a frog... I really don't get why people are so upset about that. You know what other Princesses weren't Princesses for most of a Disney film? Belle, Mulan, Cinderella, Snow White...
And furthermore, loving Wes Anderson films doesn't make you an art buff. He makes quirky, off-kilter films that are pretty funny...that's it. They aren't the greatest things ever. Fantastic Mr. Fox was really good, but it wasn't amazing. I'm sorry if I'm venting at you, but this type of argument is really starting to piss me off.
Dax
And yes Chris, I would probably go see either with you again, depending on when you're going.
Erin
What?XD Princess and the Frog isn't racist.
Laura
Preach it brother!
Dax
Laura: lol
A Correction: I guess Snow White is technically still a princess because she starts out as one, but the way that she's ostracized from the castle tends to make me see her as a peasant for most of the film. Anyway, I could still supplant her with Alice (she counts....right?). Also, I will give you the sexism thing for the fact that Tiana wants to be a great cook. But it's still a dream... just a bit of a traditional one.
Erin
Dax don't forget pocahontas!
Hannah
I wanna see Fantastic Mr. Fox....
Laura
Fantastic Mr Fox it is! Chris, PR, Hannah, let's go!
*Anon*
whoa, dax- that was really meant a lot more light-hearted of a conversation than you took it, and I didn't say anything about hating the film- however, disney has a long history of creating racist/sexist cartoons (this topic I would gladly discuss with you on another forum). Yes, maybe it is redundant to point it out in every new film they produce, i was mostly making conversation.
Because this "princess" is the only african female heroin in disney's history, it seems that they could have given her more history than what can be given to africans in the deep south or through a european fairytale. (there are plenty of historical african myths/stories they could have used to honor the rich history that americans like to blot out.)
And about the frog- yes, I think it is a big deal that disney's first and only african heroin is an amphibian for the majority of the story (which is not even part of the original tale). There are NO white disney princesses who turn into animals, and much less an animal that is traditionally thought of as ugly. They are all beautiful, flawless princesses- even when they are dressed in rags.
Being a early-childhood education professional, I know how disney markets to children- especially girls. This "princess" WAS created to expand disney's market, and and messed up as it is, a large majority of young girls look to disney for their ideas about femininity from princesses. How would it be if the only one of these princesses that looked like you was more frog than princess? Sounds silly, but spend some time with 4-year-old girls, then get back to me.
I can seriously expand on the subject of disney and sexism specifically- but it's too braod a subject for a facebook post.
As far as liking wes anderson- i'm pretty sure I've never claimed to be anything, much less an "art buff". I just mentioned that I like wes anderson films (and animation), and so was looking forward to this particular film.
Dax
Sorry, I meant no textual attack aimed at you *Anon.* I just take on some comments in a very forward and overly passionate way sometimes. I suppose it seems like I'm being mean, but I just get very into discussions (/arguments) about art. And the Wes Anderson thing, that's just me being a jerk really. I've met too many people who think his work is “SO AMAZING” that it kind of is a personal vendetta of mine... (still liked that movie though, definitely go see it).
(Chris, you might not wanna read this until you see the movie *possible spoilers*)
You bring up a good point that they could have used a traditional African fairy tale, which probably would have resulted in something wonderful. Somehow though, I feel that even if Disney had done something like that, there would be a whole other faction of people that claimed Disney was being racist by associating black people with being tribal and not as advanced as modern civilization. In short, with something like this, it's very difficult to make everyone happy. They already were treading on thin ice by making a hand drawn film again when CG has become so standardized. I think they wanted to settle with a somewhat conventional story that they believed could still draw in enough of a crowd to support the film. World economy, unfortunately, does determine a lot of factors of mainstream and commercial art. Doesn't necessarily make it right, but what would you have them do instead? The alternative is making a truly great film that doesn't bring in box office numbers. This would not only deter Disney from making more hand drawn animated films, but also from making more about black characters (company executives only see the numbers).
I also am not arguing that Disney didn't create this princess to expand their market, I agree wholeheartedly. But isn't it worse for Disney to not have a black princess at all? If so many girls look to Disney the way that you describe, then I would think it even more damaging to young black girls that that particular skin tone be totally absent.
I'm well aware of Disney's track record on racism. Fantasia and Song of the South are just a few examples that come to mind and Walt was well known for supposedly being an anti-Semite. But Disney himself is dead...I like to think that those viewpoints have changed somewhat with people like John Lasseter gaining more and more control and influence over the company.
There's nothing wrong in pointing out a recurring problem like sexism. Just because it repeats itself, doesn't make it right...in fact, that's usually how those ideas are implanted and become normalized. Disney has made TONS of sexist films, you don’t need to discuss it with me. I know and I really do agree with you on those points. My concerns were more with the idea that Princess and the Frog came off as a racist film. The thing is, I've seen far worse racism in so many other forms of media nowadays. You know how often we still screw up portrayals of Asian Americans in our media? Russel from “Up” was one of the first genuine portrayals of an Asian America without any sense of stereotyping (funny…Pixar is owned by Disney). I’m sure that if you dig for it, you can find something racially uncouth about this film, but compared to everything else out there, I think it came out amazingly well.
Personally, I think frogs are cute and not at all disgusting, but again that’s probably just me. When I see Tiana’s character, I don’t see how you can even think of her as a frog considering the film’s outcome. You might notice that most marketing for merchandise based on the film shows Tiana in a fully human, well dressed state, sometimes along-side all of the other Disney princesses. I’ve even seen images where she is the center princess among them. In the movie she is drawn quite beautifully, even when she is in poor clothing and even as a frog (they never make her look ugly). “Spend time with 4 year old girls and then get back to you”? What right do you have to even be talking about black people by that token? Were you raised by a black family, have you gone through their class struggles and turmoil? I was a child, and I still remember what it was like being one. Don’t even get me started on how hard it is dealing with Aladdin being one of my favorite child hood movies, only to discover later on in life how white washed the main characters are and how it showcases our misunderstanding of the Middle East. Was there anywhere’s near as big a fuss about that back then? Yeah, some people spoke out, but for the most part no one cared. As crazy as it may seem, I genuinely don’t believe the creators of the film ever meant anything as malicious as suggesting that black people were like animals or not worthy of being drawn as beautiful characters for the entirety of a movie. In Beauty and the Beast, the prince (I know he’s not a girl, but still…) isn’t human for most of the film. Does that mean that we think French men are like disgusting beasts? Maybe a bad analogy, but the whole “transformation into animals” thing is kind of a scant subject in Disney folklore… I think that the movie’s prime concern was with issues of class (paralleled by racial status). Focusing so much on what people want to interpret as racist only distracts from the more important meanings of the story, which are finding love and working hard for what you want in life. Tiana (even if you choose to see frog in her) is a far better role-model character than princesses like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Jasmine. I would much rather have a little girl aspiring to be a hard worker than just someone who’s basically a pretty trophy. Plus if you think about it, Naveen falls in love with her more for her personality than her beauty since they spend most of their time together as frogs. I don’t believe that I can fully argue away the notion that Tiana may be seen as part frog, it just doesn’t seem as damaging or prominent to me as you make it out to be, and constantly bringing it up will only make that association stronger… but of course, I could be wrong.
For the record, I hate a lot of things that Disney does, but this was still a wonderful film in so many ways beyond these issues (I wonder how it feels to have a black princess in one of the most exquisitely well animated films ever made by Disney…). Why does this product have to receive more hate than genuine crap like G-Force or the Jonas Brothers, which are permanently dumb-ing down this generation of children? Normally, I would take good or bad comments about a movie lightheartedly, but if you’re going to play the race card on something, it isn’t just “light” conversation.
On a lighter note… how are things with you?
Hanna
Holy cow, this is a massive rant! Way to go, Chris, making people all angry...
Now, I haven't seen this movie yet, I'm waiting to see it with my family, but I agree with Dax. I think the only people who see this film as racist are the people who are looking for it, and I think that reading into these things just perpetuates racism, not just draws attention to it. I think it is just creating a problem where it doesn't exist by calling this out as racist instead of just looking at it like it is supposed to be; a clever interpretation of an old story.
And Dax, Mulan was NEVER a princess. Not even a little. The best she got was she hugged royalty.
And for the record, nobody called foul with Mulan being horribly stereotypical or racist with "Oh, HONOR!!!" and all. I think it's just because, for some sick reason, people still want to treat black people as a hot, spicy topic. It's not going to end until people knock this shit off.
*Anon*
I appreciate the thoughtful response- if i had more time this morning I would go over it point by point- but I wanted to say that the problems are not with this film specifically, or even with disney-- but there is a larger problem with our society that causes things like this to be implanted without protest.
I agree that this character could be considered a better role model than the other princesses (although she still has large breast/perfect skin/feminine ideals/etc etc)- but the fact that our society allows children to find role models in such places- and furthermore, that girls are encouraged to think of femininity in this way (not just through films- though media plays a huge role) is a serious problem.
I think the film is beautiful- the environments in particular are stunning (i like going to the website just to see the bayou drawing)- but all these little things should not go by unnoticed and unmentioned- talking about it doesn't create a stronger association with racism- it allows people to see how racism is so ingrained in our society that it occurs without the creators conscious thought (i agree that the animators/creators weren't purposefully being racist).
*Anon*
and i agree- talking about racism isn't exactly light conversation- however, I was just joking around with family- and we all tend to be a little more in depth with people we are close to.
"What right do you have to even be talking about black people by that token? Were you raised by a black family, have you gone through their class struggles and turmoil? "
And yes, actually- we were raised in a lower class family- so i am quite aware of class struggle. I have worked with many black families-- not that any of this has to do with understanding class struggle. If there is one thing that I do understand in this world-- it is the problems of class.
Laura
whew! an innocent talk about movies...hehe Good banter you two!
*Anon*
and hanna- i think many people brought up issues of racism with mulan. Pretty much every disney movie has some element of prejudice- you could write pages and pages analyzing disney's reflection of our society values.
*Anon*
*societal* values
(typing too fast...)
Hannah
Alright. Me Thinks this is just a tad ridiculous. We've got two very opinionated people butting heads. I love you all. But really... =/ It's an animated movie. -cue defensive verbal assault- ;)
Dax
"And yes, actually- we were raised in a lower class family- so i am quite aware of class struggle. I have worked with many black families-- not that any of this has to do with understanding class struggle."
If it has nothing to do with understanding class struggle, what does working with 4 year old children have to do with understanding the mentalities of children? I was saying what I said to point out that your comment didn't make sense, not to say that it was necessary to go through those class struggles to understand them, so I think you missed a bit of the point of my statement (or at least reaffirmed my original point). Nevertheless, it is nice that you come from an appropriate perspective, I wasn't trying to question you're class struggles.
"I agree that this character could be considered a better role model than the other princesses (although she still has large breast/perfect skin/feminine ideals/etc etc)"
....Weren't you just talking about how it was bad that she wasn't given the same treatment of being shown as beautifully as other white princesses? If they made her not look as pretty, people would ask why Disney had made all of the white girls beautiful and the one black princess lackluster in looks. You can't win this argument no matter what you do.
I suppose it's different when, as an adult, you're more capable of realizing that media isn't necessarily real or true to life and you can pick and choose what morals to take from the art you experience. I agree that it sucks that children look to things like this for interpretations of what to be like when they grow up, but holy crap... you could say that about EVERYTHING! You've broadened your statement to a point of generality about media that it's kind of hard to tell what you're necessarily saying anymore. You're tackling a way bigger monster than just one film's worth of socially accepted or overlooked problems. You can't change all of the world in one fell swoop, and this film was trying to be a little conservative for fear of pissing off too many people or for not doing well enough in theaters. But considering the barriers it was dealing with, I think that it handled itself in a way that doesn't merit quite the amount of criticism that nearly every other piece of media merits at this moment. In the end, the only real problems with this film are that it is somewhat sexist (albeit emotionally strong and hardworking female characters) and that some people will be angry that the main black character wasn't a beautiful human being for the entirety of the movie. If that's its only racial crime, it really isn't that big of one considering everything else the movie does to break down color barriers for black people in animated films. Now that the door is open, hopefully future hand drawn films (or cartoons with black characters) will be able to evolve story wise and start to embed the proper social values that they should. Similar to how many Pixar films have come to traverse those aspects of storytelling. Even then though, it is sad how there has still yet to be a Pixar film with a main female role (not strong female characters, which they've had plenty of, just a film where one IS the main character). I am probably repeating myself on some things here, but whatever, I thought it bared repeating or at least expanding upon.
It's nice that you don't think the main problem lies with Disney or the film itself, but it honestly seems like you are backing out of several of your original arguments. And if you don't think Disney is the problem, I certainly do. That company is responsible for more mixed feelings about movies than probably every other film company out there. Given Disney's track record, all I'm saying is that Princess and the Frog stands out as exceptional when compared to the past and pretty much EVERYTHING that Disney has been doing recently (again, an exception provided for Pixar).
Oh and Hanna, Disney Princess is sort of a blanket term at this point. It just really ends up referring to the main female roles in Disney movies, or at least Disney seems to think so, seeing as how they have Mulan in their "Disney Princess" merchandising. And I still wouldn't be wrong anyway really, I said that she wasn't a princess for most of a Disney movie...and she wasn't. She just never became one either.
*Anon*, in all honestly I really enjoy discussions like these. I can't stand commenting on forums because everyone is an idiot most of the time, so it is nice to have a forceful and intelligent "opponent" to look at things from the other side. But I mean no hostility aimed at you in my points of view, just so you know. I am sorry if I brought you into a lengthy discussion that you didn't want to be a part of. Thank you for the conversation thus far.
*Anon*
"If it has nothing to do with understanding class struggle, what does working with 4 year old children have to do with understanding the mentalities of children?"
I'm not sure i understand what you're trying to say.
Working with children doesn't necessarily mean you understand the development of a child's mind- but when you study human behaviour and child development- combined with experience working with children, I'd say you would know an awful lot about the mentalities of children, and how the media affects them.
The same with understanding class struggle- there are a lot of people who are lower class that do not understand the problems of class, and certainly there are a lot of people who work with low class families and have no idea. I shouldn't have said "has nothing to do with", because I suppose that's incorrect- but studying class division is something that takes up my free time, so i believe i have a pretty decent understanding.
"Weren't you just talking about how it was bad that she wasn't given the same treatment of being shown as beautifully as other white princesses? "
Yes, i understand that this is somewhat of a contradiction- but social issues are often riddled with negative feedback cycles--like the chicken and the egg question- which came first, the inappropriate media, or the inappropriate social values. Both are caused in part by the other.
Yes- Disney is at fault because they choose not to provide a model of respect towards various cultures (or women), but they are reacting to the traditional value placed on non-whites and women in our society, so cannot be thought of as the source of the problem. However, social values are VERY MUCH influenced by popular media, and media aimed towards children are especially dangerous because of a young child's inability to separate fantasy from reality.
For this reason, I think children's programming should be held up to a higher standard- which involves OPEN criticism (from people like you and me). You're right- this is a huge topic that cannot be fully contained in an argument about a film- however, that doesn't mean that it should go by ignored. Racism and sexism aren't eradicated by ignoring the problem. We should ALWAYS be questioning our values and popular culture.
Yes, I do find a problem with treating an african princess differently from the other princesses- whether or not I agree with the feminine stereotype they produce-- Because disney places such obvious importance on traditional/stereotypical feminine beauty, it seems especially out of place to disregard that importance for their first african heroine (in the form of making her a frog). If disney had a history of creating realistic heroines with non-traditional roles to play, this wouldn't really have stood out to anyone.
Hannah- don't worry- no one is assaulting anyone- just having a conversation.
Dax
"just having a conversation." Riiiiight..... *loads shotgun *
...ah, just kidding. Ooh, this is fun.
What I meant to say with the "has nothing to do with it" thing, was that the comment seemed a bit contradictory, that's all. I just believe that if your going to back up an argument, you should do it with a logical explanation and not a statement of what experience you have. It's like saying, "I know more because I've done this, so you're just wrong." I could totally bring up being a film major, saying that I've studied how to analyze media better than you or some crap like that, but it doesn't really seem productive and doesn't really add any content or meaning to what I am trying to say. Professionals can easily be wrong about anything that they try to study. Your prowess should be apparent in the way that you convey a message, not in what you say that you have done.
Hannah, I know that you expected a verbal assault for your comment...so here it is. *Anon* is right, it is very important to pay attention to all kinds of media. Media, in large part forms the ways that people think about many things in life and children are especially impressionable, so the concern isn't without merit. Something being "just a" cartoon doesn't matter, because no piece of media is "just a" anything if it's seen by millions of people world wide. Besides, that just perpetuates ideas that animation is less of an art form or societal influence than live action film, which is a GROSS misunderstanding at this point.
(I just realized that there were two Hanna(h)s in this conversation, lol)
You're also right *Anon,* whatever problem there is that exists with this film was created by the tumultuous history that the Disney company has created for itself. I've been trying to look at the film for what it is and what it tried to be, but if we keep looking back and yelling at Disney for what it's done in the past, it seems a bit unfair really. They can't just CHANGE their history (although they have tried). A clever idea is getting mislabeled as offensive because some people can't help but bring this into comparison with every other Disney movie. As its own film however, I think that the whole "racist" thing kind of loses it's credence. It was an oversight that should be noted and brought up, but also, in my opinion, forgiven. If a significant amount of black people are offended by this film, then I really think that it's nothing more than an unfortunate misunderstanding between the audience and the film's creators.
I believe that we have come to somewhat of an equilibrium on this (albeit a few points), so I see little point in furthering the conversation really...unless of course, you still have more rebuttal :)
I actually do have a question for you though. Some friends and I have a film blog on which we write about various movies and what not. Not really huge or anything, but we do it mostly for fun. Would you mind terribly if I posted this conversation on our blog? (I promise not to edit or change anything, just so you know) I would like to hear other people's opinions on this movie and I think this was a very fun and in depth conversation on the topic.
*Anon*
i think we're veering a little off topic, but to say that experience and study do not contribute to credibility is false. Not to say you shouldn't question experts (especially self-proclaimed experts), but education and experience are ALWAYS cited in any article or essay about anything--that's how we can tell what is worth reading and what is not.
rather than taking 3 pages to explain why children are influenced by popular media (i don't think i used my professional history as an "end-argument" as you suggest), I figured you would have agreed with most of what i would say about the media's influence on children (which you seem to), and so bypassed that explanation by mentioning my understanding and experience in the matter.
I could just say: Children are influenced by the media- but that wouldn't really get my point across.
I could spend 3 pages telling you how exactly the media affects children and many specific examples, but that seems overbearing for a facebook public post, and, like I said, it was a small part of this particular argument. Instead, I mentioned how much time and energy I spend on understanding and being with children, enough to have a varied view on the influence of pop media on young children. Claiming that I have knowledge about a particular subject that I am well experienced in is what all professionals do- otherwise they wouldn't be professionals.
I think mentioning what you learned in your film major would add credibility to your argument, and i would like to hear more arguments based out of this experience.
I would like to add one last point-- just because disney, or anyone, is less racist/sexist than they were 50 years ago, doesn't mean they should be applauded or exonerated from current faults. "Song of the South" was not nearly as bad as earlier films' depiction of african americans (like "blackface" (*shudder*)- but that doesn't make S.O.T.S. an acceptable portrayal of african americans. Just because frog and the princess is not nearly as bad as S.O.T.S, or the lead character is slightly stronger willed than the traditional disney princess, doesn't mean we should pass on reasonable criticism and discussion .
Dax
Fair enough, citing one's profession does work in an essay or academic format...but in a facebook post, it really just makes you seem pompous, regardless of how justified you are. That's kind of where I was coming from on that comment.
"I was a film major"...there, all that did was let people know that I studied film. I've already expressed my point of view. I'm not sure what I would cite in particular from film studies to emphasize a personal opinion that the first black princess being turned into a frog was not that bad or harmful...
If you wanna talk Jacques Lacan's theory of the Mirror stage of childhood development or something like that, then I suppose I could go off on something. But I already agree with you on the impressionable childhood thing...I was never arguing against it in the first place. And you're right, this is off topic…
Of your original A, B, C reasons for the film's racism, only "A" still has any decent merit to it. Your argument rests almost entirely on the "only princess to be associated with an animal, therefore racist to black people" approach, and honestly that's really up to a personal opinion in regards to being offensive, so I don't see any point of debating the topic beyond this.
This isn't about comparisons to the next more racist thing. I suppose I shouldn't have even mentioned how it was a better film when not compared to older Disney movies or how it was good that the princess was a slightly better role model than past princesses, since that kind of threw the topic into the whole "sexist" direction. I never disagreed with the film being sexist and I never said that children weren't impressionable, you kind of brought those things up. I just still fail to see the film as genuinely harmful towards people's impressions of black people.
You think what you think and I think what I think. No amount of debate is going to change this (especially not after 10 lengthy back and forth comments between two very stubborn and opinionated people).
Btw, you still didn't answer my last question. :)
*Anon*
sure- post it anywhere. I doubt you'll receive much resistance to your opinion, as it seems to be the popular one.
cheers for a good debate.
x
Dax Schaffer
Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct, always fight strongly for what you believe is the truth.
cheers.
x
Now, I'm not posting this to "show who won the argument," or anything like that. I'm posting it because it's two very opposing views that show very different ways at looking at the film. I'm a bit of a jerk when it comes to certain discussions, so please forgive the rashness of these comments, this is me in my purest form of pissed off/slightly educated rage. I would love to hear more comments about the movie, regarding anything really. And as a side note, the animation for it was absolutely gorgeous, but that's not the point here. If you can actually get through this whole rant, let me know.
*Probably a few minor spoilers here, so you might not want to read unless you've seen the film yourself*
Christopher
anyone want to see Princess and the Frog or Fantastic Mr. Fox?
Laura
fantastic mr fox!
*Anon*
Princess and the Frog is a little racist (and, as usual for disney, sexist). Funny how A. Disney's first african princess is a frog for the majority of the film; B. Disney's first african princess is not a princess afterall, but wears princess clothes that are meant for another character (a white character); C. all of the characters are african-american stereotypes (just look at the lightning bug)
They basically just made this character to add another face to the WIDE variety of "princess" merchandise sold to young girls (adding an african "princess" will widen the target audience.)
I won't even get into the subject of disney choosing a white european fairy tail and a setting of American deep south for their first "black" toon.
Cherie
i do i do
*Anon*
i want to see fantastic mr fox though- i love wes anderson- he's a weirdo.
Laura
Preach it Sister!
Hank
I'll see both again, they're that good
Dax
You know....I am getting really sick of people trying to act like they are "politically correct" in hating this movie (that lightning bug, for starters, was obviously meant to be more of a white hillbilly than anything else). The only way that I can interpret this as being sexist, is in how it says that Tiana needs to marry a man to be truly happy. As far as racism goes though, I'm sorry... but this movie was VERY careful in walking the fine line it was on. There were many black characters that were lovingly portrayed and carefully drawn not to seem like stereotypes. And yet everyone focuses on something like the villain being too overboard. People want to blame Disney for being racist, simply because the story involves black people and I actually find that quite sad. It even goes as far as to show that there is a class struggle going on, considering how Tiana has to work hard for everything when the few white characters in the movie seem very well off. That's not racist, it's showcasing a problem that actually exists. She turned into a frog... I really don't get why people are so upset about that. You know what other Princesses weren't Princesses for most of a Disney film? Belle, Mulan, Cinderella, Snow White...
And furthermore, loving Wes Anderson films doesn't make you an art buff. He makes quirky, off-kilter films that are pretty funny...that's it. They aren't the greatest things ever. Fantastic Mr. Fox was really good, but it wasn't amazing. I'm sorry if I'm venting at you, but this type of argument is really starting to piss me off.
Dax
And yes Chris, I would probably go see either with you again, depending on when you're going.
Erin
What?XD Princess and the Frog isn't racist.
Laura
Preach it brother!
Dax
Laura: lol
A Correction: I guess Snow White is technically still a princess because she starts out as one, but the way that she's ostracized from the castle tends to make me see her as a peasant for most of the film. Anyway, I could still supplant her with Alice (she counts....right?). Also, I will give you the sexism thing for the fact that Tiana wants to be a great cook. But it's still a dream... just a bit of a traditional one.
Erin
Dax don't forget pocahontas!
Hannah
I wanna see Fantastic Mr. Fox....
Laura
Fantastic Mr Fox it is! Chris, PR, Hannah, let's go!
*Anon*
whoa, dax- that was really meant a lot more light-hearted of a conversation than you took it, and I didn't say anything about hating the film- however, disney has a long history of creating racist/sexist cartoons (this topic I would gladly discuss with you on another forum). Yes, maybe it is redundant to point it out in every new film they produce, i was mostly making conversation.
Because this "princess" is the only african female heroin in disney's history, it seems that they could have given her more history than what can be given to africans in the deep south or through a european fairytale. (there are plenty of historical african myths/stories they could have used to honor the rich history that americans like to blot out.)
And about the frog- yes, I think it is a big deal that disney's first and only african heroin is an amphibian for the majority of the story (which is not even part of the original tale). There are NO white disney princesses who turn into animals, and much less an animal that is traditionally thought of as ugly. They are all beautiful, flawless princesses- even when they are dressed in rags.
Being a early-childhood education professional, I know how disney markets to children- especially girls. This "princess" WAS created to expand disney's market, and and messed up as it is, a large majority of young girls look to disney for their ideas about femininity from princesses. How would it be if the only one of these princesses that looked like you was more frog than princess? Sounds silly, but spend some time with 4-year-old girls, then get back to me.
I can seriously expand on the subject of disney and sexism specifically- but it's too braod a subject for a facebook post.
As far as liking wes anderson- i'm pretty sure I've never claimed to be anything, much less an "art buff". I just mentioned that I like wes anderson films (and animation), and so was looking forward to this particular film.
Dax
Sorry, I meant no textual attack aimed at you *Anon.* I just take on some comments in a very forward and overly passionate way sometimes. I suppose it seems like I'm being mean, but I just get very into discussions (/arguments) about art. And the Wes Anderson thing, that's just me being a jerk really. I've met too many people who think his work is “SO AMAZING” that it kind of is a personal vendetta of mine... (still liked that movie though, definitely go see it).
(Chris, you might not wanna read this until you see the movie *possible spoilers*)
You bring up a good point that they could have used a traditional African fairy tale, which probably would have resulted in something wonderful. Somehow though, I feel that even if Disney had done something like that, there would be a whole other faction of people that claimed Disney was being racist by associating black people with being tribal and not as advanced as modern civilization. In short, with something like this, it's very difficult to make everyone happy. They already were treading on thin ice by making a hand drawn film again when CG has become so standardized. I think they wanted to settle with a somewhat conventional story that they believed could still draw in enough of a crowd to support the film. World economy, unfortunately, does determine a lot of factors of mainstream and commercial art. Doesn't necessarily make it right, but what would you have them do instead? The alternative is making a truly great film that doesn't bring in box office numbers. This would not only deter Disney from making more hand drawn animated films, but also from making more about black characters (company executives only see the numbers).
I also am not arguing that Disney didn't create this princess to expand their market, I agree wholeheartedly. But isn't it worse for Disney to not have a black princess at all? If so many girls look to Disney the way that you describe, then I would think it even more damaging to young black girls that that particular skin tone be totally absent.
I'm well aware of Disney's track record on racism. Fantasia and Song of the South are just a few examples that come to mind and Walt was well known for supposedly being an anti-Semite. But Disney himself is dead...I like to think that those viewpoints have changed somewhat with people like John Lasseter gaining more and more control and influence over the company.
There's nothing wrong in pointing out a recurring problem like sexism. Just because it repeats itself, doesn't make it right...in fact, that's usually how those ideas are implanted and become normalized. Disney has made TONS of sexist films, you don’t need to discuss it with me. I know and I really do agree with you on those points. My concerns were more with the idea that Princess and the Frog came off as a racist film. The thing is, I've seen far worse racism in so many other forms of media nowadays. You know how often we still screw up portrayals of Asian Americans in our media? Russel from “Up” was one of the first genuine portrayals of an Asian America without any sense of stereotyping (funny…Pixar is owned by Disney). I’m sure that if you dig for it, you can find something racially uncouth about this film, but compared to everything else out there, I think it came out amazingly well.
Personally, I think frogs are cute and not at all disgusting, but again that’s probably just me. When I see Tiana’s character, I don’t see how you can even think of her as a frog considering the film’s outcome. You might notice that most marketing for merchandise based on the film shows Tiana in a fully human, well dressed state, sometimes along-side all of the other Disney princesses. I’ve even seen images where she is the center princess among them. In the movie she is drawn quite beautifully, even when she is in poor clothing and even as a frog (they never make her look ugly). “Spend time with 4 year old girls and then get back to you”? What right do you have to even be talking about black people by that token? Were you raised by a black family, have you gone through their class struggles and turmoil? I was a child, and I still remember what it was like being one. Don’t even get me started on how hard it is dealing with Aladdin being one of my favorite child hood movies, only to discover later on in life how white washed the main characters are and how it showcases our misunderstanding of the Middle East. Was there anywhere’s near as big a fuss about that back then? Yeah, some people spoke out, but for the most part no one cared. As crazy as it may seem, I genuinely don’t believe the creators of the film ever meant anything as malicious as suggesting that black people were like animals or not worthy of being drawn as beautiful characters for the entirety of a movie. In Beauty and the Beast, the prince (I know he’s not a girl, but still…) isn’t human for most of the film. Does that mean that we think French men are like disgusting beasts? Maybe a bad analogy, but the whole “transformation into animals” thing is kind of a scant subject in Disney folklore… I think that the movie’s prime concern was with issues of class (paralleled by racial status). Focusing so much on what people want to interpret as racist only distracts from the more important meanings of the story, which are finding love and working hard for what you want in life. Tiana (even if you choose to see frog in her) is a far better role-model character than princesses like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Jasmine. I would much rather have a little girl aspiring to be a hard worker than just someone who’s basically a pretty trophy. Plus if you think about it, Naveen falls in love with her more for her personality than her beauty since they spend most of their time together as frogs. I don’t believe that I can fully argue away the notion that Tiana may be seen as part frog, it just doesn’t seem as damaging or prominent to me as you make it out to be, and constantly bringing it up will only make that association stronger… but of course, I could be wrong.
For the record, I hate a lot of things that Disney does, but this was still a wonderful film in so many ways beyond these issues (I wonder how it feels to have a black princess in one of the most exquisitely well animated films ever made by Disney…). Why does this product have to receive more hate than genuine crap like G-Force or the Jonas Brothers, which are permanently dumb-ing down this generation of children? Normally, I would take good or bad comments about a movie lightheartedly, but if you’re going to play the race card on something, it isn’t just “light” conversation.
On a lighter note… how are things with you?
Hanna
Holy cow, this is a massive rant! Way to go, Chris, making people all angry...
Now, I haven't seen this movie yet, I'm waiting to see it with my family, but I agree with Dax. I think the only people who see this film as racist are the people who are looking for it, and I think that reading into these things just perpetuates racism, not just draws attention to it. I think it is just creating a problem where it doesn't exist by calling this out as racist instead of just looking at it like it is supposed to be; a clever interpretation of an old story.
And Dax, Mulan was NEVER a princess. Not even a little. The best she got was she hugged royalty.
And for the record, nobody called foul with Mulan being horribly stereotypical or racist with "Oh, HONOR!!!" and all. I think it's just because, for some sick reason, people still want to treat black people as a hot, spicy topic. It's not going to end until people knock this shit off.
*Anon*
I appreciate the thoughtful response- if i had more time this morning I would go over it point by point- but I wanted to say that the problems are not with this film specifically, or even with disney-- but there is a larger problem with our society that causes things like this to be implanted without protest.
I agree that this character could be considered a better role model than the other princesses (although she still has large breast/perfect skin/feminine ideals/etc etc)- but the fact that our society allows children to find role models in such places- and furthermore, that girls are encouraged to think of femininity in this way (not just through films- though media plays a huge role) is a serious problem.
I think the film is beautiful- the environments in particular are stunning (i like going to the website just to see the bayou drawing)- but all these little things should not go by unnoticed and unmentioned- talking about it doesn't create a stronger association with racism- it allows people to see how racism is so ingrained in our society that it occurs without the creators conscious thought (i agree that the animators/creators weren't purposefully being racist).
*Anon*
and i agree- talking about racism isn't exactly light conversation- however, I was just joking around with family- and we all tend to be a little more in depth with people we are close to.
"What right do you have to even be talking about black people by that token? Were you raised by a black family, have you gone through their class struggles and turmoil? "
And yes, actually- we were raised in a lower class family- so i am quite aware of class struggle. I have worked with many black families-- not that any of this has to do with understanding class struggle. If there is one thing that I do understand in this world-- it is the problems of class.
Laura
whew! an innocent talk about movies...hehe Good banter you two!
*Anon*
and hanna- i think many people brought up issues of racism with mulan. Pretty much every disney movie has some element of prejudice- you could write pages and pages analyzing disney's reflection of our society values.
*Anon*
*societal* values
(typing too fast...)
Hannah
Alright. Me Thinks this is just a tad ridiculous. We've got two very opinionated people butting heads. I love you all. But really... =/ It's an animated movie. -cue defensive verbal assault- ;)
Dax
"And yes, actually- we were raised in a lower class family- so i am quite aware of class struggle. I have worked with many black families-- not that any of this has to do with understanding class struggle."
If it has nothing to do with understanding class struggle, what does working with 4 year old children have to do with understanding the mentalities of children? I was saying what I said to point out that your comment didn't make sense, not to say that it was necessary to go through those class struggles to understand them, so I think you missed a bit of the point of my statement (or at least reaffirmed my original point). Nevertheless, it is nice that you come from an appropriate perspective, I wasn't trying to question you're class struggles.
"I agree that this character could be considered a better role model than the other princesses (although she still has large breast/perfect skin/feminine ideals/etc etc)"
....Weren't you just talking about how it was bad that she wasn't given the same treatment of being shown as beautifully as other white princesses? If they made her not look as pretty, people would ask why Disney had made all of the white girls beautiful and the one black princess lackluster in looks. You can't win this argument no matter what you do.
I suppose it's different when, as an adult, you're more capable of realizing that media isn't necessarily real or true to life and you can pick and choose what morals to take from the art you experience. I agree that it sucks that children look to things like this for interpretations of what to be like when they grow up, but holy crap... you could say that about EVERYTHING! You've broadened your statement to a point of generality about media that it's kind of hard to tell what you're necessarily saying anymore. You're tackling a way bigger monster than just one film's worth of socially accepted or overlooked problems. You can't change all of the world in one fell swoop, and this film was trying to be a little conservative for fear of pissing off too many people or for not doing well enough in theaters. But considering the barriers it was dealing with, I think that it handled itself in a way that doesn't merit quite the amount of criticism that nearly every other piece of media merits at this moment. In the end, the only real problems with this film are that it is somewhat sexist (albeit emotionally strong and hardworking female characters) and that some people will be angry that the main black character wasn't a beautiful human being for the entirety of the movie. If that's its only racial crime, it really isn't that big of one considering everything else the movie does to break down color barriers for black people in animated films. Now that the door is open, hopefully future hand drawn films (or cartoons with black characters) will be able to evolve story wise and start to embed the proper social values that they should. Similar to how many Pixar films have come to traverse those aspects of storytelling. Even then though, it is sad how there has still yet to be a Pixar film with a main female role (not strong female characters, which they've had plenty of, just a film where one IS the main character). I am probably repeating myself on some things here, but whatever, I thought it bared repeating or at least expanding upon.
It's nice that you don't think the main problem lies with Disney or the film itself, but it honestly seems like you are backing out of several of your original arguments. And if you don't think Disney is the problem, I certainly do. That company is responsible for more mixed feelings about movies than probably every other film company out there. Given Disney's track record, all I'm saying is that Princess and the Frog stands out as exceptional when compared to the past and pretty much EVERYTHING that Disney has been doing recently (again, an exception provided for Pixar).
Oh and Hanna, Disney Princess is sort of a blanket term at this point. It just really ends up referring to the main female roles in Disney movies, or at least Disney seems to think so, seeing as how they have Mulan in their "Disney Princess" merchandising. And I still wouldn't be wrong anyway really, I said that she wasn't a princess for most of a Disney movie...and she wasn't. She just never became one either.
*Anon*, in all honestly I really enjoy discussions like these. I can't stand commenting on forums because everyone is an idiot most of the time, so it is nice to have a forceful and intelligent "opponent" to look at things from the other side. But I mean no hostility aimed at you in my points of view, just so you know. I am sorry if I brought you into a lengthy discussion that you didn't want to be a part of. Thank you for the conversation thus far.
*Anon*
"If it has nothing to do with understanding class struggle, what does working with 4 year old children have to do with understanding the mentalities of children?"
I'm not sure i understand what you're trying to say.
Working with children doesn't necessarily mean you understand the development of a child's mind- but when you study human behaviour and child development- combined with experience working with children, I'd say you would know an awful lot about the mentalities of children, and how the media affects them.
The same with understanding class struggle- there are a lot of people who are lower class that do not understand the problems of class, and certainly there are a lot of people who work with low class families and have no idea. I shouldn't have said "has nothing to do with", because I suppose that's incorrect- but studying class division is something that takes up my free time, so i believe i have a pretty decent understanding.
"Weren't you just talking about how it was bad that she wasn't given the same treatment of being shown as beautifully as other white princesses? "
Yes, i understand that this is somewhat of a contradiction- but social issues are often riddled with negative feedback cycles--like the chicken and the egg question- which came first, the inappropriate media, or the inappropriate social values. Both are caused in part by the other.
Yes- Disney is at fault because they choose not to provide a model of respect towards various cultures (or women), but they are reacting to the traditional value placed on non-whites and women in our society, so cannot be thought of as the source of the problem. However, social values are VERY MUCH influenced by popular media, and media aimed towards children are especially dangerous because of a young child's inability to separate fantasy from reality.
For this reason, I think children's programming should be held up to a higher standard- which involves OPEN criticism (from people like you and me). You're right- this is a huge topic that cannot be fully contained in an argument about a film- however, that doesn't mean that it should go by ignored. Racism and sexism aren't eradicated by ignoring the problem. We should ALWAYS be questioning our values and popular culture.
Yes, I do find a problem with treating an african princess differently from the other princesses- whether or not I agree with the feminine stereotype they produce-- Because disney places such obvious importance on traditional/stereotypical feminine beauty, it seems especially out of place to disregard that importance for their first african heroine (in the form of making her a frog). If disney had a history of creating realistic heroines with non-traditional roles to play, this wouldn't really have stood out to anyone.
Hannah- don't worry- no one is assaulting anyone- just having a conversation.
Dax
"just having a conversation." Riiiiight..... *loads shotgun *
...ah, just kidding. Ooh, this is fun.
What I meant to say with the "has nothing to do with it" thing, was that the comment seemed a bit contradictory, that's all. I just believe that if your going to back up an argument, you should do it with a logical explanation and not a statement of what experience you have. It's like saying, "I know more because I've done this, so you're just wrong." I could totally bring up being a film major, saying that I've studied how to analyze media better than you or some crap like that, but it doesn't really seem productive and doesn't really add any content or meaning to what I am trying to say. Professionals can easily be wrong about anything that they try to study. Your prowess should be apparent in the way that you convey a message, not in what you say that you have done.
Hannah, I know that you expected a verbal assault for your comment...so here it is. *Anon* is right, it is very important to pay attention to all kinds of media. Media, in large part forms the ways that people think about many things in life and children are especially impressionable, so the concern isn't without merit. Something being "just a" cartoon doesn't matter, because no piece of media is "just a" anything if it's seen by millions of people world wide. Besides, that just perpetuates ideas that animation is less of an art form or societal influence than live action film, which is a GROSS misunderstanding at this point.
(I just realized that there were two Hanna(h)s in this conversation, lol)
You're also right *Anon,* whatever problem there is that exists with this film was created by the tumultuous history that the Disney company has created for itself. I've been trying to look at the film for what it is and what it tried to be, but if we keep looking back and yelling at Disney for what it's done in the past, it seems a bit unfair really. They can't just CHANGE their history (although they have tried). A clever idea is getting mislabeled as offensive because some people can't help but bring this into comparison with every other Disney movie. As its own film however, I think that the whole "racist" thing kind of loses it's credence. It was an oversight that should be noted and brought up, but also, in my opinion, forgiven. If a significant amount of black people are offended by this film, then I really think that it's nothing more than an unfortunate misunderstanding between the audience and the film's creators.
I believe that we have come to somewhat of an equilibrium on this (albeit a few points), so I see little point in furthering the conversation really...unless of course, you still have more rebuttal :)
I actually do have a question for you though. Some friends and I have a film blog on which we write about various movies and what not. Not really huge or anything, but we do it mostly for fun. Would you mind terribly if I posted this conversation on our blog? (I promise not to edit or change anything, just so you know) I would like to hear other people's opinions on this movie and I think this was a very fun and in depth conversation on the topic.
*Anon*
i think we're veering a little off topic, but to say that experience and study do not contribute to credibility is false. Not to say you shouldn't question experts (especially self-proclaimed experts), but education and experience are ALWAYS cited in any article or essay about anything--that's how we can tell what is worth reading and what is not.
rather than taking 3 pages to explain why children are influenced by popular media (i don't think i used my professional history as an "end-argument" as you suggest), I figured you would have agreed with most of what i would say about the media's influence on children (which you seem to), and so bypassed that explanation by mentioning my understanding and experience in the matter.
I could just say: Children are influenced by the media- but that wouldn't really get my point across.
I could spend 3 pages telling you how exactly the media affects children and many specific examples, but that seems overbearing for a facebook public post, and, like I said, it was a small part of this particular argument. Instead, I mentioned how much time and energy I spend on understanding and being with children, enough to have a varied view on the influence of pop media on young children. Claiming that I have knowledge about a particular subject that I am well experienced in is what all professionals do- otherwise they wouldn't be professionals.
I think mentioning what you learned in your film major would add credibility to your argument, and i would like to hear more arguments based out of this experience.
I would like to add one last point-- just because disney, or anyone, is less racist/sexist than they were 50 years ago, doesn't mean they should be applauded or exonerated from current faults. "Song of the South" was not nearly as bad as earlier films' depiction of african americans (like "blackface" (*shudder*)- but that doesn't make S.O.T.S. an acceptable portrayal of african americans. Just because frog and the princess is not nearly as bad as S.O.T.S, or the lead character is slightly stronger willed than the traditional disney princess, doesn't mean we should pass on reasonable criticism and discussion .
Dax
Fair enough, citing one's profession does work in an essay or academic format...but in a facebook post, it really just makes you seem pompous, regardless of how justified you are. That's kind of where I was coming from on that comment.
"I was a film major"...there, all that did was let people know that I studied film. I've already expressed my point of view. I'm not sure what I would cite in particular from film studies to emphasize a personal opinion that the first black princess being turned into a frog was not that bad or harmful...
If you wanna talk Jacques Lacan's theory of the Mirror stage of childhood development or something like that, then I suppose I could go off on something. But I already agree with you on the impressionable childhood thing...I was never arguing against it in the first place. And you're right, this is off topic…
Of your original A, B, C reasons for the film's racism, only "A" still has any decent merit to it. Your argument rests almost entirely on the "only princess to be associated with an animal, therefore racist to black people" approach, and honestly that's really up to a personal opinion in regards to being offensive, so I don't see any point of debating the topic beyond this.
This isn't about comparisons to the next more racist thing. I suppose I shouldn't have even mentioned how it was a better film when not compared to older Disney movies or how it was good that the princess was a slightly better role model than past princesses, since that kind of threw the topic into the whole "sexist" direction. I never disagreed with the film being sexist and I never said that children weren't impressionable, you kind of brought those things up. I just still fail to see the film as genuinely harmful towards people's impressions of black people.
You think what you think and I think what I think. No amount of debate is going to change this (especially not after 10 lengthy back and forth comments between two very stubborn and opinionated people).
Btw, you still didn't answer my last question. :)
*Anon*
sure- post it anywhere. I doubt you'll receive much resistance to your opinion, as it seems to be the popular one.
cheers for a good debate.
x
Dax Schaffer
Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct, always fight strongly for what you believe is the truth.
cheers.
x
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Short Word From the Crypt
Recently, I had the unique experience of watching three episodes of a television series I had long forgotten. Back in 1989, HBO began a show which ran for seven strong seasons, featuring a slew of talent in directors, cinematographers, actors, and composers that very nearly started the comic adaptation craze of the late 90s into the new Millennium. Tales from the Crypt based itself in a comic series of the same name from EC comics - a collaboration between publisher William Gaines and editor Al Feldstein from 1950 to 1955. Every week, HBO ran a 25 minute episode based on a story from the comics, featuring John Kassir as the Cryptkeeper himself.
The three episodes I had the pleasure of re-watching (at a new, more mature age) were from season 2: Korman's Kalamity, Television Terror, and The Secret. The campy, over-zealous acting style was apparent in all three episodes, independent of differing directors. The comic-book method has an host of problems regarding the traditional idea of "acting" (reference Toby McGuire and Kirstin Dunst in Spiderman). Every actor is playing a character, and there is no conviction that they are, in fact, this character. The pantomime is charming, perhaps comedic, while the stories play out as grizzly tales of murder, monsters, and mayhem. Suddenly, watching horror is confidently laughable.
However, what I found intriguing about all three tales (and a number of others which were described to me by the possessor of the collection) was that behind each episode's real monsters, there is a twist presented that reveals a human being's capacity for evil. In that, the real monster is not the one in the monster make-up, but the person who allows the monster to take over.
In Korman's Kalamity, a horror-comic artist (in the episode, the comic is entitled Tales from the Crypt. Yay, self-reference!) takes experimental infertility medication which, instead of making his sperm work, makes his imagination fold into reality. The monsters he draws come to life and terrorize the city. His overbearing wife, thinking he's a two-timing bastard and not entirely wrong, spurns the work. When he draws a monster version of her that comes to life, it attacks the wife, thus freeing Korman of his marriage to pursue the extremely loose romance with a police officer investigating the attacks.
In Television Terror, a hot-headed correspondent reporting live on tabloid news enters a haunted house which turns out to be filled with undead/poltergeist activity. With the camera rolling, the horror unfolds and the network continues its feed as ratings skyrocket. A young, ambitious on-site producer, ignoring his screams for help, makes the call to continue rolling all the way to the anchor's dramatic demise.
Finally, in The Secret, an orphan boy is sent by a wicked, old orphanage owner to a home, away from his friends and surrogate mother/orphanage caretaker. At the old mansion, he is fed nothing but sweets and is always locked in his room all day and night. The adoptive couple turn out to be vampires with a sweet tooth who chase him from the house into the full moon light. This, however, backfires when the boy's own secret comes to light that he is, in fact, a werewolf with an appetite for vampires. He returns to the orphanage, to his friends, and utters a veiled threat to the orphanage owner, solidifying his place there for good.
The episodes, albeit contrived and campy, reveal a darker side to the human psyche that allows for evil to reign. Just like the question of which is worse: attacking someone, or watching someone get attacked and doing nothing, the truth is that both are manifested in the same domain of evil. As the Cryptkeeper makes his terrible puns to loosen our grip on the terror of the stories, there is left an unsettling lump in my stomach. The wife, the TV personality, the orphanage owner, all portrayed as smug, haughty, and ultimately antagonizing characters to our protagonists (the comic-artist, the young producer, the naive boy) are enabled by the narrative to suffer the consequences of their self-serving lives. However, their crimes are crimes of annoyance and ridicule, and we, the audience, allow their gruesome fates because of this fact. The punishment hardly fits the crime, if you reason it out, and the punishments could have been halted at any time by the protagonist, who has now become a kind of anti-hero by means of inaction: a passive human evil.
For horror-comic adaptation, I was surprised at the level of depth that had been reached in this regard. Though many of the character relationships were loose and hardly believable, and much of the acting was caricature, at best, this glimmer of real threat loomed in the subtext, which is what I love about what people call "bad horror movies." Despite all the "bad," there is an undeniable basis for horror, oft repressed by the viewer in leu of laughter.
Tales From the Crypt on Wikipedia
The three episodes I had the pleasure of re-watching (at a new, more mature age) were from season 2: Korman's Kalamity, Television Terror, and The Secret. The campy, over-zealous acting style was apparent in all three episodes, independent of differing directors. The comic-book method has an host of problems regarding the traditional idea of "acting" (reference Toby McGuire and Kirstin Dunst in Spiderman). Every actor is playing a character, and there is no conviction that they are, in fact, this character. The pantomime is charming, perhaps comedic, while the stories play out as grizzly tales of murder, monsters, and mayhem. Suddenly, watching horror is confidently laughable.
However, what I found intriguing about all three tales (and a number of others which were described to me by the possessor of the collection) was that behind each episode's real monsters, there is a twist presented that reveals a human being's capacity for evil. In that, the real monster is not the one in the monster make-up, but the person who allows the monster to take over.
In Korman's Kalamity, a horror-comic artist (in the episode, the comic is entitled Tales from the Crypt. Yay, self-reference!) takes experimental infertility medication which, instead of making his sperm work, makes his imagination fold into reality. The monsters he draws come to life and terrorize the city. His overbearing wife, thinking he's a two-timing bastard and not entirely wrong, spurns the work. When he draws a monster version of her that comes to life, it attacks the wife, thus freeing Korman of his marriage to pursue the extremely loose romance with a police officer investigating the attacks.
In Television Terror, a hot-headed correspondent reporting live on tabloid news enters a haunted house which turns out to be filled with undead/poltergeist activity. With the camera rolling, the horror unfolds and the network continues its feed as ratings skyrocket. A young, ambitious on-site producer, ignoring his screams for help, makes the call to continue rolling all the way to the anchor's dramatic demise.
Finally, in The Secret, an orphan boy is sent by a wicked, old orphanage owner to a home, away from his friends and surrogate mother/orphanage caretaker. At the old mansion, he is fed nothing but sweets and is always locked in his room all day and night. The adoptive couple turn out to be vampires with a sweet tooth who chase him from the house into the full moon light. This, however, backfires when the boy's own secret comes to light that he is, in fact, a werewolf with an appetite for vampires. He returns to the orphanage, to his friends, and utters a veiled threat to the orphanage owner, solidifying his place there for good.
The episodes, albeit contrived and campy, reveal a darker side to the human psyche that allows for evil to reign. Just like the question of which is worse: attacking someone, or watching someone get attacked and doing nothing, the truth is that both are manifested in the same domain of evil. As the Cryptkeeper makes his terrible puns to loosen our grip on the terror of the stories, there is left an unsettling lump in my stomach. The wife, the TV personality, the orphanage owner, all portrayed as smug, haughty, and ultimately antagonizing characters to our protagonists (the comic-artist, the young producer, the naive boy) are enabled by the narrative to suffer the consequences of their self-serving lives. However, their crimes are crimes of annoyance and ridicule, and we, the audience, allow their gruesome fates because of this fact. The punishment hardly fits the crime, if you reason it out, and the punishments could have been halted at any time by the protagonist, who has now become a kind of anti-hero by means of inaction: a passive human evil.
For horror-comic adaptation, I was surprised at the level of depth that had been reached in this regard. Though many of the character relationships were loose and hardly believable, and much of the acting was caricature, at best, this glimmer of real threat loomed in the subtext, which is what I love about what people call "bad horror movies." Despite all the "bad," there is an undeniable basis for horror, oft repressed by the viewer in leu of laughter.
Tales From the Crypt on Wikipedia
Monday, December 7, 2009
Special Features: The Audio Commentary
Now I hardly contain my love of special features and this segment will be the first in series of articles on the miraculous stuff behind the camera.
Audio commentaries can range from personal anecdotes and descriptions from the production to elegant film scholars talking about auteur-ist arks and historical significance.
Really good commentaries can make me giddy, and sometimes I will watch them more than the film itself. Yeah, I’ve got an addiction.
The ten commentaries below (in no particular order) cover the entire range from serious to studious to just plain silly.
1. Resident Evil (2002)
-This videogame hit (that surprisingly holds up) features auteur (?) Paul W.S. Anderson, producer Jeremey Bolt, Mexican hottie Michelle Rodriguez and geek goddess Milla Jovovich in this veritable battle of the sexes commentary. The guys and the gals go head-to-head divulging technical and production information versus what everyone really wants to see: Milla Jovovich naked.
2. Throne of Blood (1957)
-Michael Jeck is a master Japanese film scholar and his commentary (courtesy of Criterion no less) is simply hypnotic. This man knows more of the making of Kurosawa’s masterpiece than perhaps Kurosawa knows himself. Do not doubt the power of a scholarly commentary.
3. Border Radio (1987)
-Independent filmmakers Allison Anders and Kurt Voss are old friends, and in this Criterion commentary recorded years after finishing their UCLA punk masterpiece the exuberant reminiscing is insightful and hilarious.
4. Day After Tomorrow (2002)
-My favorite bad movie and possibly the most ridiculous disaster movie ever, German catastrophe maestro Roland Emmerich and his drunk producer Mark Gordon differ greatly onto the quality of this “epic.” Roland Emmerich philosophizes quite innocently while Mark Gordan is clearly taking a shit on the film (With Emmerich in the room who seems not to notice!). Confusing, but very very funny.
5. I’m Not There (2007)
-Todd Haynes’s semiotics degree from Brown comes in handy during this director’s commentary about the many guises of the “folk” magician Bob Dylan. Insightful and classy, Haynes is very earnest and it’s heartbreaking to hear him talk about Heath Ledger when this commentary was recorded around the time of his death.
6. Grand Illusion (1937)
-Jean Renoir’s great anti-war epic gets the thorough and insightful treatment via film historian Peter Cowie. The scholar covers everything from intricate character details and poetic realist techniques to controversies and the history behind the exhibition of the film and subtitle translations. You will learn everything you need to know about the film and Renoir from Cowie.
7. Wall-E (2008)
Andrew Stanton is a brilliant mind and what makes this Pixar commentary really beautiful is Stanton’s willingness to take us through every painful step and every cathartic triumph during the making of my favorite Pixar film. I could listen to the man speak for hours.
8. An Autumn Afternoon (1962)
-David Bordwell is the modern film theorist (responsible for most of our film books) and is a total pimp when it comes to his knowledge of Ozu. Bordwell is completely on fire during his commentary on Ozu’s last film and at times his knowledge is overwhelming but never dull. A must listen for all film students.
9. Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
- Mainly buoyed by the four hobbits (Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan) and Andy Serkis, this actors' commentary is actually the best actor commentary I think I’ve heard. It’s as equally insightful as any director or scholar commentary but twice as funny because of Billy and Dom’s sidesplitting banter.
10. Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)
-Simply put hearing Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens wax about the entire epic trilogy is a joy to hear and is exciting and thrilling all at the same time. The three commentaries for the entire trilogy are magical and I have nothing but oodles of respect for those three sweating over every intricate detail. Nothing is left uncovered and untouched. Everything is addressed. Quite wonderful.
--
So that wraps up this first segment of the new column on special features. A word of warning, not all commentaries are good (ie. Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s incomprehensible Eternal Sunshine banter or Mel Brook’s obsessively grateful eulogizing in Spaceballs), but when you find an individual (or individuals) with passion about a film it can only be infectious and marvelous.
Troy Duffy has done it again...a little too well.
"A sequel to a film...franchise is so important that nothing must be risked that might endanger its success." - David Mamet
Perhaps Troy Duffy and his producers at Stage 6 Studios took note of this particular gamut, but misinterpreted the meaning. The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day is a blow-by-blow reenactment of its former, utilizing all necessary gimmicks and ploys from the first underground hit to create a sequel 9 years in the making.
It may be hard to remember when The Boondock Saints originally hit theatres. You may wonder to yourself, "Yea, I saw it, but when was it released? Was it before I cared to go and see movies in theatres? Was I too young to notice?" Don't sell yourself short. On January 21, 2000, the film was served a limited release and was mostly overlooked due to the widely publicized 2000 election. However, The Boondock Saints gained a hidden following upon its DVD release, circulating through groups of friends and like-minded individuals around the globe.
Stage 6 Studios, taking a page out of Franchise Pictures original release, gave All Saints Day limited release on October 30, 2009, coinciding with the holiday of its same name. By the 13th of November, the film extended its release nationwide. And yet, you probably didn't know about that. With so little advertising, other than a few scattered commercials circulating around Hallowe'en, it seemed as though its release had been postponed, pending whatever changes stall an already advertised film. The point being, All Saints Day was given the same disservice of its predecessor on a seemingly knowing level: conceding that it cannot compete with the George Clooney manifest (Men Who Stare at Goats and Fantastic Mr. Fox) and big-screen Lifetime movie tear-jerkers (The Blind Side and Precious) mainlining national theatres since mid-November.
I return, now, to Mr. Mamet and his remarks regarding franchise sequels. Let's expand:
"And they [the producers] collude and scheme and test and confab to make sure that each moment of the film is recognizable as that moment that should take place at that time, in a sequel to a film whose franchise is so important that nothing must be risked that might endanger its success."
It is essentially cinematic rule that you should not make a sequel unless you can do it as well as or better than the original. With All Saints Day, Troy Duffy ignites a wave of recognizable scenarios, characters, and institutions that happen, beat by beat, as a mirror image of the original work. The franchised idea of the Saints is propelled, responsibly, by the return of actors Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as the MacManus brothers, and Billy Connolly as their father, Il Duce. The slightest details are ensured by this character integrity, going so far as to retain David Ferry, Brian Mahoney, and Bob Marley (no relation) as the three inept and stooge-like Boston detectives, Gerard Parkes as the lovable, Tourettes-inflicted bartender Doc, and even David Della Rocco makes a cameo as namesake side-kick Rocco.*
So, the formula worked the first time: two silly irishmen walk into a bar and end up vigilantes who, based in religious justification, work to take out organized crime in Boston, one low-life at a time. The situation ends up bigger than they can handle when the hired gun, Il Duce, is released from prison to take the boys out. Things turn upside down (vigilante police and gender-swapping included), and the Saints live to serve another day. A trademark sequence in the film happens with the credits, as a film crew gathers mixed opinions of the Saints' actions that we just witnessed throughout the course of the story.
It's time to quit being so bland.
As I've recommended to many-a-Saints fan, if you can make it through the first twenty minutes of this film, then you will not be disappointed. Err, not wholly disappointed. In these twenty minutes or so, the gimmicky, neurotic arguments of the hoodlum detectives trying to impress as well as distract the new FBI on the case, Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz), reaches points of uninterrupted excess as the idea of the Saints' return looms over a new investigation. The mob bosses are full of the same shtick, taking cues from such greats as The Untouchables and The Godfather to run their campaigns without much regard for the revered allusions, and often supplant slapstick comedy for hard-nosed, intimidating antagonism. Not one mafioso is without contrivance. Slowly, between overindulgent flashbacks and references to the first film, the Saints come marching in, and the film be thankful, because I was ready to walk out.
Rather than investing in new, non-guaranteed characters, Duffy and friends have colluded to bring back the standards, but to avoid making the same film twice, tweaks have been devised. Finding that the story unfolds much like the first, utilizing many of the same characters and scenarios, its easy to pick out the swaps.
Character-swap #1: Eunice Bloom for Agent Smecker: Bloom's character takes the professional role of Smecker, FBI agent, as well as the absurdity of his characterization; her eccentricity is both antithetical and equal to him (plugging her ears rather than assaulting them with opera, insisting on wearing 4" heels to a crime scene, and being extremely verbose in her insults on the other detective's work ethic). At one point, during a fantasy replay of a hotel room shootout (harking back to the movie-like mishap of the first film, down to arguing over rope), Bloom dons a full cowgirl ensemble during the recounting in the investigation flashback sequence though not there during the actual shootout. She transcends the time barrier, and is given the same cinematic privileges as Smecker had in the first film.
Character-swap #2: Romeo for Rocco: This is my favorite for two reasons: (1) The replacement is so obvious that Duffy concedes to name the side-kick Romeo, kindred to the name Rocco starting with "R" and no last name. (2) Clifton Collins Jr...Now, if you do not know who Clifton Collins Jr. is by name, let me help:
"I need you like I need a fucking asshole on my elbow. Right here. An asshole. That's how much I need you."
Yes, the outlandish coke dealer from The Rules of Attraction. Or perhaps for the more pretentious fans, the convict Perry Smith in Capote. Collins plays every role with immense intensity and fervor, and its almost transparent how much he knows what he's replacing. Some of the conversations between Romeo and the Saints are nearly identical to those of Rocco, with the same insecurities, as well as the same underground ties, as his former. Collins makes almost no effort to disenfranchise the side-kick, understanding his role is to replace and mimic, not to defamiliarize and thus risk the franchise proper.
Character-swap #3: Napoleon/The Roman for Il Duce: Being that Billy Connolly's Il Duce has moved to the side of vigilante taking his role as overseer of his sons, the savage, soft-spoken mercenary known as Napoleon (Daniel DeSanto, credited as Crew Cut) takes the stage as real, impending threat. He is given a bit of sympathy by his height-complex, but strategically serves as the possible downfall of the Saints, just as Il Duce proved in the first film. He is tactful, obviously answering to a higher authority, and there is a great deal of mystery surrounding him. Not quite legendary, as Il Duce was, he is given the task of muscle - serving as half of Il Duce's replacement in badass-ness. It is The Roman who takes over the full mystery, sympathy, and history of Il Duce's other half, and at risk of inciting a spoiler, will end with simply: played by Peter Fonda.
Character-swap #4: Gorgeous George for Vincenzo Lipazzi: nearly unrecognizable by name, Vincenzo was the muscle about town mobster played by Ron Jeremy who is unglamorously slain beating off in a nudey booth in the first film. Subject to the same humiliating pratfalls, Gorgeous George (Bob Rubin) is interrogated once naked and secondly in a tight, pink speedo. He soils himself, which is served its own embarrassingly unnecessary close-up, and he is tied to a rolling table for the display of his subordinates. His indictments of absurdity are one of the few instances in which All Saints Day attempts to outdo its former, heightening the level of stunt as the risk of contrivance. And the almost insulting use of the name "Gorgeous George," just adds insult to injury. It becomes obvious why Vincenzo's role was so minor: to avoid reaching the level of screwball comedy in a primarily action film.
Rarely does All Saints Day stray from its stylized former, manipulating the flashbacks to make them more enticing and pairing with them with a lively, motivated musical score. The techniques are markers of The Boondock Saints franchise. Thrice, the film relents to something new, something bigger, to alleviate the predictability of its own style.
Preparing their first caper after their sabbatical, Conner, Murphy, and Romeo devise a plan which is enacted on screen. Taking a page from Rodriguez and Tarantino, the enacting plan is given grindhouse aesthetics: fully equipped with damaged film, overacting, and lots of excess carnage. The sequence, albeit brief, instills the film with some authenticity away from the original.
Second is the part which I affectionately call the "Wings of Desire sequence". Rocco, given one last shot at redemption through dream sequence, frees his monologue of all subtext and interpretation. He openly calls upon the superficial nature of humanity and chastises it, carrying a preacher's tone with the trite-ness of an angry Italian. The fantasy imagery does not make much sense, rooftops and hockey rings holding no obvious underlying significance (but I did manage to obtain a "let men be men" motif, thus may be ill-equipped to interpret the spaces as I am, dare I say, female). The ambitious choice is brow-beating, but it further imprints the film with its own moral standing and entertainment value independent of its predecessor.
Thirdly, throughout the film we are privy to flashbacks of Il Duce's history and how he became the monster he was that thus got him imprisioned. The flashbacks are tepid and cold, as though reaching into some deep, repressed memory (which, of course, we are). The distributed presentation paired with pronounced aesthetic feel departs from the typical flashbacks and marks them as something older than "what happened last night." The expanded story, giving the narrative a larger scope of casaulity, risks disassociation from the Saints task at hand. At times, the expansion pulls away from what's going on in the narrative, causing a viewer to question the necessity of the Saint's current combat. But the heightened scope of knowledge regarding past and present events allows Duffy to mill about in something bigger than the Saints themselves, and even opens the door for The Boondock Saints III.
So, as I said before, I will say again, if you enjoyed The Boondock Saints, and can stand to watch the Three Stooges with repetitive plot points for twenty minutes prior watching what you really came to see, then take a chance on All Saints Day. Though Mamet's claim accuses producers of "playing it safe," it is the familiarity of All Saints Day that lulls us into the entertainment. The replays, enactments, reenactments, swaps, reused gimmicks, and repeated quirks offer enough entertainment to rent with your friends on some movie night and applaud the new inception of the original film. If anything, you're likely to get some laughs out of it; why your laughing has yet to be determined.
*I've been asked time and time again if Willem Dafoe makes an appearance in this film as the enigmatic Agent Paul Smecker. My response is and always will be: You'll have to see the film. Though, make note of how many gay-jokes consistently happen between characters familiar with Smecker: it's alarming how quickly they have lost their sensitivity towards the subject of homosexuality. I mean, you teamed up with a tranny, for christ's sake!
Perhaps Troy Duffy and his producers at Stage 6 Studios took note of this particular gamut, but misinterpreted the meaning. The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day is a blow-by-blow reenactment of its former, utilizing all necessary gimmicks and ploys from the first underground hit to create a sequel 9 years in the making.
It may be hard to remember when The Boondock Saints originally hit theatres. You may wonder to yourself, "Yea, I saw it, but when was it released? Was it before I cared to go and see movies in theatres? Was I too young to notice?" Don't sell yourself short. On January 21, 2000, the film was served a limited release and was mostly overlooked due to the widely publicized 2000 election. However, The Boondock Saints gained a hidden following upon its DVD release, circulating through groups of friends and like-minded individuals around the globe.
Stage 6 Studios, taking a page out of Franchise Pictures original release, gave All Saints Day limited release on October 30, 2009, coinciding with the holiday of its same name. By the 13th of November, the film extended its release nationwide. And yet, you probably didn't know about that. With so little advertising, other than a few scattered commercials circulating around Hallowe'en, it seemed as though its release had been postponed, pending whatever changes stall an already advertised film. The point being, All Saints Day was given the same disservice of its predecessor on a seemingly knowing level: conceding that it cannot compete with the George Clooney manifest (Men Who Stare at Goats and Fantastic Mr. Fox) and big-screen Lifetime movie tear-jerkers (The Blind Side and Precious) mainlining national theatres since mid-November.
I return, now, to Mr. Mamet and his remarks regarding franchise sequels. Let's expand:
"And they [the producers] collude and scheme and test and confab to make sure that each moment of the film is recognizable as that moment that should take place at that time, in a sequel to a film whose franchise is so important that nothing must be risked that might endanger its success."
It is essentially cinematic rule that you should not make a sequel unless you can do it as well as or better than the original. With All Saints Day, Troy Duffy ignites a wave of recognizable scenarios, characters, and institutions that happen, beat by beat, as a mirror image of the original work. The franchised idea of the Saints is propelled, responsibly, by the return of actors Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as the MacManus brothers, and Billy Connolly as their father, Il Duce. The slightest details are ensured by this character integrity, going so far as to retain David Ferry, Brian Mahoney, and Bob Marley (no relation) as the three inept and stooge-like Boston detectives, Gerard Parkes as the lovable, Tourettes-inflicted bartender Doc, and even David Della Rocco makes a cameo as namesake side-kick Rocco.*
So, the formula worked the first time: two silly irishmen walk into a bar and end up vigilantes who, based in religious justification, work to take out organized crime in Boston, one low-life at a time. The situation ends up bigger than they can handle when the hired gun, Il Duce, is released from prison to take the boys out. Things turn upside down (vigilante police and gender-swapping included), and the Saints live to serve another day. A trademark sequence in the film happens with the credits, as a film crew gathers mixed opinions of the Saints' actions that we just witnessed throughout the course of the story.
It's time to quit being so bland.
As I've recommended to many-a-Saints fan, if you can make it through the first twenty minutes of this film, then you will not be disappointed. Err, not wholly disappointed. In these twenty minutes or so, the gimmicky, neurotic arguments of the hoodlum detectives trying to impress as well as distract the new FBI on the case, Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz), reaches points of uninterrupted excess as the idea of the Saints' return looms over a new investigation. The mob bosses are full of the same shtick, taking cues from such greats as The Untouchables and The Godfather to run their campaigns without much regard for the revered allusions, and often supplant slapstick comedy for hard-nosed, intimidating antagonism. Not one mafioso is without contrivance. Slowly, between overindulgent flashbacks and references to the first film, the Saints come marching in, and the film be thankful, because I was ready to walk out.
Rather than investing in new, non-guaranteed characters, Duffy and friends have colluded to bring back the standards, but to avoid making the same film twice, tweaks have been devised. Finding that the story unfolds much like the first, utilizing many of the same characters and scenarios, its easy to pick out the swaps.
Character-swap #1: Eunice Bloom for Agent Smecker: Bloom's character takes the professional role of Smecker, FBI agent, as well as the absurdity of his characterization; her eccentricity is both antithetical and equal to him (plugging her ears rather than assaulting them with opera, insisting on wearing 4" heels to a crime scene, and being extremely verbose in her insults on the other detective's work ethic). At one point, during a fantasy replay of a hotel room shootout (harking back to the movie-like mishap of the first film, down to arguing over rope), Bloom dons a full cowgirl ensemble during the recounting in the investigation flashback sequence though not there during the actual shootout. She transcends the time barrier, and is given the same cinematic privileges as Smecker had in the first film.
Character-swap #2: Romeo for Rocco: This is my favorite for two reasons: (1) The replacement is so obvious that Duffy concedes to name the side-kick Romeo, kindred to the name Rocco starting with "R" and no last name. (2) Clifton Collins Jr...Now, if you do not know who Clifton Collins Jr. is by name, let me help:
"I need you like I need a fucking asshole on my elbow. Right here. An asshole. That's how much I need you."
Yes, the outlandish coke dealer from The Rules of Attraction. Or perhaps for the more pretentious fans, the convict Perry Smith in Capote. Collins plays every role with immense intensity and fervor, and its almost transparent how much he knows what he's replacing. Some of the conversations between Romeo and the Saints are nearly identical to those of Rocco, with the same insecurities, as well as the same underground ties, as his former. Collins makes almost no effort to disenfranchise the side-kick, understanding his role is to replace and mimic, not to defamiliarize and thus risk the franchise proper.
Character-swap #3: Napoleon/The Roman for Il Duce: Being that Billy Connolly's Il Duce has moved to the side of vigilante taking his role as overseer of his sons, the savage, soft-spoken mercenary known as Napoleon (Daniel DeSanto, credited as Crew Cut) takes the stage as real, impending threat. He is given a bit of sympathy by his height-complex, but strategically serves as the possible downfall of the Saints, just as Il Duce proved in the first film. He is tactful, obviously answering to a higher authority, and there is a great deal of mystery surrounding him. Not quite legendary, as Il Duce was, he is given the task of muscle - serving as half of Il Duce's replacement in badass-ness. It is The Roman who takes over the full mystery, sympathy, and history of Il Duce's other half, and at risk of inciting a spoiler, will end with simply: played by Peter Fonda.
Character-swap #4: Gorgeous George for Vincenzo Lipazzi: nearly unrecognizable by name, Vincenzo was the muscle about town mobster played by Ron Jeremy who is unglamorously slain beating off in a nudey booth in the first film. Subject to the same humiliating pratfalls, Gorgeous George (Bob Rubin) is interrogated once naked and secondly in a tight, pink speedo. He soils himself, which is served its own embarrassingly unnecessary close-up, and he is tied to a rolling table for the display of his subordinates. His indictments of absurdity are one of the few instances in which All Saints Day attempts to outdo its former, heightening the level of stunt as the risk of contrivance. And the almost insulting use of the name "Gorgeous George," just adds insult to injury. It becomes obvious why Vincenzo's role was so minor: to avoid reaching the level of screwball comedy in a primarily action film.
Rarely does All Saints Day stray from its stylized former, manipulating the flashbacks to make them more enticing and pairing with them with a lively, motivated musical score. The techniques are markers of The Boondock Saints franchise. Thrice, the film relents to something new, something bigger, to alleviate the predictability of its own style.
Preparing their first caper after their sabbatical, Conner, Murphy, and Romeo devise a plan which is enacted on screen. Taking a page from Rodriguez and Tarantino, the enacting plan is given grindhouse aesthetics: fully equipped with damaged film, overacting, and lots of excess carnage. The sequence, albeit brief, instills the film with some authenticity away from the original.
Second is the part which I affectionately call the "Wings of Desire sequence". Rocco, given one last shot at redemption through dream sequence, frees his monologue of all subtext and interpretation. He openly calls upon the superficial nature of humanity and chastises it, carrying a preacher's tone with the trite-ness of an angry Italian. The fantasy imagery does not make much sense, rooftops and hockey rings holding no obvious underlying significance (but I did manage to obtain a "let men be men" motif, thus may be ill-equipped to interpret the spaces as I am, dare I say, female). The ambitious choice is brow-beating, but it further imprints the film with its own moral standing and entertainment value independent of its predecessor.
Thirdly, throughout the film we are privy to flashbacks of Il Duce's history and how he became the monster he was that thus got him imprisioned. The flashbacks are tepid and cold, as though reaching into some deep, repressed memory (which, of course, we are). The distributed presentation paired with pronounced aesthetic feel departs from the typical flashbacks and marks them as something older than "what happened last night." The expanded story, giving the narrative a larger scope of casaulity, risks disassociation from the Saints task at hand. At times, the expansion pulls away from what's going on in the narrative, causing a viewer to question the necessity of the Saint's current combat. But the heightened scope of knowledge regarding past and present events allows Duffy to mill about in something bigger than the Saints themselves, and even opens the door for The Boondock Saints III.
So, as I said before, I will say again, if you enjoyed The Boondock Saints, and can stand to watch the Three Stooges with repetitive plot points for twenty minutes prior watching what you really came to see, then take a chance on All Saints Day. Though Mamet's claim accuses producers of "playing it safe," it is the familiarity of All Saints Day that lulls us into the entertainment. The replays, enactments, reenactments, swaps, reused gimmicks, and repeated quirks offer enough entertainment to rent with your friends on some movie night and applaud the new inception of the original film. If anything, you're likely to get some laughs out of it; why your laughing has yet to be determined.
*I've been asked time and time again if Willem Dafoe makes an appearance in this film as the enigmatic Agent Paul Smecker. My response is and always will be: You'll have to see the film. Though, make note of how many gay-jokes consistently happen between characters familiar with Smecker: it's alarming how quickly they have lost their sensitivity towards the subject of homosexuality. I mean, you teamed up with a tranny, for christ's sake!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Directors of the Decade: Guillermo del Toro
With end of the decade rolling up on us, I've been thinking of the filmmakers that have come into their own over the last ten years and really proven themselves to be the directors of the decade. Rather than do a list and try to rank these excellent filmmakers, I've decided to break this up into installments and give each director the full treatment they deserve.
First up, one of my personal favorite filmmakers of all time, Guillermo del Toro. After starting a buzz about his talent with his 1993 take on the vampire mythos, Cronos, and breaking into Hollywood (albeit with much studio interference) with 1997's Mimic, del Toro still spent most of the 1990's as an obscure Mexican director with potential. It was in 2001, with The Devil's Back Bone, the story of a young boy in a haunted orphanage during the Spanish Civil War, that his talents truly became apparent. The dark and atmospheric film gave only hints at the tremendous visuals that del Toro was capable of committing to film, and also only scratched the surface of his writing abilities and off-kilter sense of humor.
The next year, he would get another crack at a Hollywood blockbuster, this time with far greater success, with his contribution to the Blade franchise, 2002's Blade II. Beautifully Gothic with amazing use of color and texture, the film displays del Toro's uncanny sense of artistry with celluloid, while at the same time showing off his formidable story telling skills. Blade II stands as the best of its series, mainly due to del Toro's unique visual sense. The film also foreshadows his coming career as he directs Ron Pearlman (the man who would be Hellboy) in a meaty role. Also of note is del Toro's skill with character and romance juxtaposed through the horror medium, which would be further elaborated in the future Hellboy series. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you're rooting for monsters to fall in love, you're either watching a Guillermo del Toro movie, or a James Whale movie, and James Whale is dead.
In 2004, del Toro finally realized his near decade-long dream of bringing Mike Mignola's Hellboy to life on the big screen. Del Toro takes the universe of the comic and makes it his own, and in doing so displays a world of Lovecraftian monsters, demons with hearts of gold, evil monks, loveable fish men and clockwork Nazis. All this in a pallet of rich colors, stark settings, and masterful camera set-ups. To put it simply, how much more del Toro could it be? None, none more del Toro. Or so we thought.
Pan's Labyrinth (2006) Is the the clincher, if you will. It is the film that, if you like del Toro, makes you LOVE del Toro. Everything about the dark fairytale is simply and totally of the piece, and all of del Toro's talents are on full display. The world is rich, frightening and beautiful. The creatures breathe on screen, with del Toro's preferance for make-up and animatronic effects over CGI paying off in spades. Frequent del Toro collaborator and man-in-suit extraordinair, Doug Jones delivers incredible performances as both the film's titualr Faun and the eyeless "Pale Man". However, it is the human characters that elevate the film; Sergi Lopez's turn as Captain Vidal brought audiences one of the greatest cinematic villains in recent history, while Ivana Baquero transended the title of child actor and creates a nuanced, beautiful performance as main character, Ofelia. In all aspects, Pan's Labyrinth is a work of art that dispalys all of del Toro's skills as a filmmaker.
With 2008's Hellboy II del Toro manages to accomplish the nearly impossible by crafting a sequel that surpasses the original in almost every way. Del Toro's firm grasp on off-beat humor and his love of monsters are both paid off in two amazing sequences. The former when Hellboy and Abe Sapien get nice and boozed up and sing along to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You", a bizarre scene that is so very perfect it borders on euphoric. Del Toro's love of monsters and intense attention to detail are paid off in the unforgettable "troll market" sequence.
The past 10 years have seen Guillermo del Toro break out of relative obscurity and become a true auteur and a superstar in his own right, with his slate full enough to last into the next decade. First up will be his adaptation of The Hobbit for producer Peter Jackson, and a slew of other pictures that will hopefully count his adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness" among them. Here's hoping for many more years from one of the filmmakers of the decade, Guillermo del Toro.
First up, one of my personal favorite filmmakers of all time, Guillermo del Toro. After starting a buzz about his talent with his 1993 take on the vampire mythos, Cronos, and breaking into Hollywood (albeit with much studio interference) with 1997's Mimic, del Toro still spent most of the 1990's as an obscure Mexican director with potential. It was in 2001, with The Devil's Back Bone, the story of a young boy in a haunted orphanage during the Spanish Civil War, that his talents truly became apparent. The dark and atmospheric film gave only hints at the tremendous visuals that del Toro was capable of committing to film, and also only scratched the surface of his writing abilities and off-kilter sense of humor.
The next year, he would get another crack at a Hollywood blockbuster, this time with far greater success, with his contribution to the Blade franchise, 2002's Blade II. Beautifully Gothic with amazing use of color and texture, the film displays del Toro's uncanny sense of artistry with celluloid, while at the same time showing off his formidable story telling skills. Blade II stands as the best of its series, mainly due to del Toro's unique visual sense. The film also foreshadows his coming career as he directs Ron Pearlman (the man who would be Hellboy) in a meaty role. Also of note is del Toro's skill with character and romance juxtaposed through the horror medium, which would be further elaborated in the future Hellboy series. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you're rooting for monsters to fall in love, you're either watching a Guillermo del Toro movie, or a James Whale movie, and James Whale is dead.
In 2004, del Toro finally realized his near decade-long dream of bringing Mike Mignola's Hellboy to life on the big screen. Del Toro takes the universe of the comic and makes it his own, and in doing so displays a world of Lovecraftian monsters, demons with hearts of gold, evil monks, loveable fish men and clockwork Nazis. All this in a pallet of rich colors, stark settings, and masterful camera set-ups. To put it simply, how much more del Toro could it be? None, none more del Toro. Or so we thought.
Pan's Labyrinth (2006) Is the the clincher, if you will. It is the film that, if you like del Toro, makes you LOVE del Toro. Everything about the dark fairytale is simply and totally of the piece, and all of del Toro's talents are on full display. The world is rich, frightening and beautiful. The creatures breathe on screen, with del Toro's preferance for make-up and animatronic effects over CGI paying off in spades. Frequent del Toro collaborator and man-in-suit extraordinair, Doug Jones delivers incredible performances as both the film's titualr Faun and the eyeless "Pale Man". However, it is the human characters that elevate the film; Sergi Lopez's turn as Captain Vidal brought audiences one of the greatest cinematic villains in recent history, while Ivana Baquero transended the title of child actor and creates a nuanced, beautiful performance as main character, Ofelia. In all aspects, Pan's Labyrinth is a work of art that dispalys all of del Toro's skills as a filmmaker.
With 2008's Hellboy II del Toro manages to accomplish the nearly impossible by crafting a sequel that surpasses the original in almost every way. Del Toro's firm grasp on off-beat humor and his love of monsters are both paid off in two amazing sequences. The former when Hellboy and Abe Sapien get nice and boozed up and sing along to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You", a bizarre scene that is so very perfect it borders on euphoric. Del Toro's love of monsters and intense attention to detail are paid off in the unforgettable "troll market" sequence.
The past 10 years have seen Guillermo del Toro break out of relative obscurity and become a true auteur and a superstar in his own right, with his slate full enough to last into the next decade. First up will be his adaptation of The Hobbit for producer Peter Jackson, and a slew of other pictures that will hopefully count his adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness" among them. Here's hoping for many more years from one of the filmmakers of the decade, Guillermo del Toro.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
IT"S A RAPTOR THANKSGIVING, CHARLIE BROWN!
We all have our little traditions on holidays. Me, I love to get naked and loaded up on spearmint scope every Arbor Day, but I digress. Anywho, we here at your favorite dinosaur themed film blog decided to get into the Thanksgiving spirit and talk about the movies we love to watch this time of year. So enjoy, and then get the hell off of our land! Don't you infringe on our Manifest Destiny or we will genocide you! Right in the face! Ahem...sorry...
Jackson Bishop
It's a little sappy and obvious, but my absolute favorite movie to watch over Thanksgiving is E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. The story of a young boy and a lost alien that form a strong bond is timeless and cemented for good Steven Spielberg's rep as a sentimental filmmaker as well as an awesome one. Everything about it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy as I sit there after over-eating like Wilson Fisk at a buffet. It used to be on tv every Thanksgiving, and I would watch it with my dad every year after coming back from dinner at my aunt's house, so I just identify it with the holiday now. Long story short, any movie in which a rubber puppet that looks alot like poop can make you cry by saying a boy's name, that's some good stuff.
Nicola Balkind
The Addam's Family Values. Okay, so I'm not an American. Or even Canadian. So perhaps I've vastly misjudged the wonder of Thanksgiving. I don't strictly celebrate it either; but being an unemployed graduate, enjoying the "holiday" is all the same, right?! Thanksgiving is even seeping into UK culture… unfortunately it's not all turkeys and stuffing, but more of a, "Maybe we, the whiningest country in the world, should give thanks for something once in awhile."So, America, I give thanks to you. Not for Thanksgiving, per se, but certainly for this belter of a movie. I am, of course, referring to the scene of the Camp Chippawa Thanksgiving play; wherein Pugsley sings and dances in a magnificent turkey outfit, and Wednesday's sardonic Pocahontas leads her tribe of loyal and wacky followers in a reverse-genocide. It's witty, it's hilarious, and it is stuffed with intentionally terrible and overindulgent sentiment.It also contains the infamous line, which I think sums up every Thanksgiving:"I am a turkey. Kill me!"
Happy turkey day, all!
Steven Ray Morris
Jurassic Park
Nothing makes me more thankful knowing that dinosaurs could and should exist. And of course for the classic line, "That doesn't very scary, it looks more like a six-foot turkey." Indeed.
Evan Koehne
1. "Thanksgiving" Trailer
2. "Smoke Signals"
3. "The New World"
4. "Sleepy Hollow"
5. "The Village"
Arlin Golden
Every year for thanksgiving my friends from high school and I eat an unhealthy amount of fried chicken and watch a basketball movie. Freshman year was Hoop Dreams (considered by most cinephiles to be the greatest film ever made) then came Space Jam, which held up far better than anyone expected, largely due to the supporting cast like Bill Murray, Charles Barkley and Mugsey Bogues. Last year we watched White Men Can't Jump and reveled in the Rosie Perez-ness of it all. This year, possibly being the last of this tradition as I know it, we plan to watch an Italian film called "The Minis" which is about a team of little people who recruit Dennis Rodman to be their center. Gotta say, I don't see how this can't be one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
Jackson Bishop
It's a little sappy and obvious, but my absolute favorite movie to watch over Thanksgiving is E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. The story of a young boy and a lost alien that form a strong bond is timeless and cemented for good Steven Spielberg's rep as a sentimental filmmaker as well as an awesome one. Everything about it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy as I sit there after over-eating like Wilson Fisk at a buffet. It used to be on tv every Thanksgiving, and I would watch it with my dad every year after coming back from dinner at my aunt's house, so I just identify it with the holiday now. Long story short, any movie in which a rubber puppet that looks alot like poop can make you cry by saying a boy's name, that's some good stuff.
Nicola Balkind
The Addam's Family Values. Okay, so I'm not an American. Or even Canadian. So perhaps I've vastly misjudged the wonder of Thanksgiving. I don't strictly celebrate it either; but being an unemployed graduate, enjoying the "holiday" is all the same, right?! Thanksgiving is even seeping into UK culture… unfortunately it's not all turkeys and stuffing, but more of a, "Maybe we, the whiningest country in the world, should give thanks for something once in awhile."So, America, I give thanks to you. Not for Thanksgiving, per se, but certainly for this belter of a movie. I am, of course, referring to the scene of the Camp Chippawa Thanksgiving play; wherein Pugsley sings and dances in a magnificent turkey outfit, and Wednesday's sardonic Pocahontas leads her tribe of loyal and wacky followers in a reverse-genocide. It's witty, it's hilarious, and it is stuffed with intentionally terrible and overindulgent sentiment.It also contains the infamous line, which I think sums up every Thanksgiving:"I am a turkey. Kill me!"
Happy turkey day, all!
Steven Ray Morris
Jurassic Park
Nothing makes me more thankful knowing that dinosaurs could and should exist. And of course for the classic line, "That doesn't very scary, it looks more like a six-foot turkey." Indeed.
Evan Koehne
1. "Thanksgiving" Trailer
2. "Smoke Signals"
3. "The New World"
4. "Sleepy Hollow"
5. "The Village"
Arlin Golden
Every year for thanksgiving my friends from high school and I eat an unhealthy amount of fried chicken and watch a basketball movie. Freshman year was Hoop Dreams (considered by most cinephiles to be the greatest film ever made) then came Space Jam, which held up far better than anyone expected, largely due to the supporting cast like Bill Murray, Charles Barkley and Mugsey Bogues. Last year we watched White Men Can't Jump and reveled in the Rosie Perez-ness of it all. This year, possibly being the last of this tradition as I know it, we plan to watch an Italian film called "The Minis" which is about a team of little people who recruit Dennis Rodman to be their center. Gotta say, I don't see how this can't be one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
We All Got A Little Zombie in Us...(Part 1)
When it comes to monsters, gore, mayhem, and general other horror exploration, my personal love of a certain reanimated cannibalistic horde is second to none. Whether they run fast, lurk slow, desire flesh or just brains; whether they feast on novelties of being midgets, clowns, sumo-wrestlers, or CEO's, Zombies equal life's playing field and demolish social order. The Zombie is, as George A. Romero affectionately states, the blue collar monster.
As a fact, it is perfectly okay to shoot zombies in the head, as we deem them abominations because they practice cannibalism. Loss of humanity aside, they are still of the human race, correct? Is it murder to kill a human who is now an undead flesh-eating mob member? You could assume that not much separates a zombie from a hungry jungle cat (or at least those man-eating tigers in Siberia).
However, the paradox of the zombie film resides in the stipend of, in a word, bloodlust. The audience, paying their share to go see a film promising zombie mayhem, desire the same blood, gore, and dismemberment that the zombies of the film kill to obtain. The motivations of the horde mirror the motivations of the audience to see the film. While we sit in our comfy theatre chairs, mildly understanding that the survivalists need to be identified with to move the story of the film, what we really want is exactly what the zombies want.
In the Dawn of the Dead (2004) remake, we all sat, begging for the douche bag with the boat (and the death wish) to get devoured. Who did not cheer when the father from Night of the Living Dead (1968) got bit by his own daughter? What self-respecting audience member goes into a zombie film saying "Gee, Tina, I hope this isn't too gory!"
Too bad Tina's friend is so squeamish.
So, for the 90 minute road trip into the worst kind of apocalypse, the zombie motivations are kindred to the audience members. Harking back to the 1984 classic Return of the Living Dead, we reminisce the Undead's declaration for "Brains!" echoing our own desire for more: more brains, more guts, more red corn syrup laden cow intestines.
Not to violate our aesthetic distance, we consent that there will be survivalists. It is by dramatic law to have sympathetic characters with whom we travel on a journey. Their surprise and instinct push through a populous of Zombies who threaten to wipe out the human race by insatiable hunger alone. They map a journey to safe-ground. They hide out. They run. Inevitably, they find some weapon to bludgeon, blast, or blow-up the amassed throng to reach some impossible goal of survival. And, again, it is by a dramatic code that the film appeals to this survival by endurance.
The other side, the reason the film's have a strong impact, is the empathetic nature of the Zombies themselves, though this disrupts the norms of an "empathetic character." Zombies have no apparent character arc. Their linear characterization separates them from any leading role potential. Retrospectively, however, a Zombie proper follows the most simplistic rule of dramatic structure. During a zombie apocalypse based out of a virus, chemical spill, or space junk falling to earth (premise), a man or woman finds him or her self undead and craving human flesh (complication). Based on the tenants of Classical Hollywood structure, the action continues because we want to see what happens next. However, zombies have traditionally taken a backseat role to the survivors despite the pessimistic outcome of many films: Day of the Dead (Romero), Zombi 2 (Fulci), Dead Snow (Wirkola), Astro-Zombies (Mikels), Undead (Spierig), etc.
Rather than indulging any characterization, most zombie films maintain the rabble as a singular character of mass destruction, thus creating a schemata which dissolves any possible leading man, or woman, potential in the solitary zombie. Introduce exhibit A: Colin.
Colin (Price 2008) carries a reputation of the aforementioned type: the character with whom we sympathize, whose motives unapologetically captivate the audience, is the zombie himself. From bitten to biting, the story humanizes the title character, evolving the very type of drama which draws viewer to film. The sympathetic zombie has been more prevalent, in films such as Fido (2006) and I, Zombie (1998) in which a Zombie is given more humanity than the horde.
In this evolution, we have the chameleon that is the Zombie schemata. With its origins in horror, its conventions rooted in a primalism and loss of humanity, the Zombie has transcended its genesis and carried into comedy, drama, road-movies, and even romance (Boy Eats Girl (2005)). And with that, the lust is the same: the audience and the zombies desire blood - and no matter the genre - that is what they are going to get.
As a fact, it is perfectly okay to shoot zombies in the head, as we deem them abominations because they practice cannibalism. Loss of humanity aside, they are still of the human race, correct? Is it murder to kill a human who is now an undead flesh-eating mob member? You could assume that not much separates a zombie from a hungry jungle cat (or at least those man-eating tigers in Siberia).
However, the paradox of the zombie film resides in the stipend of, in a word, bloodlust. The audience, paying their share to go see a film promising zombie mayhem, desire the same blood, gore, and dismemberment that the zombies of the film kill to obtain. The motivations of the horde mirror the motivations of the audience to see the film. While we sit in our comfy theatre chairs, mildly understanding that the survivalists need to be identified with to move the story of the film, what we really want is exactly what the zombies want.
In the Dawn of the Dead (2004) remake, we all sat, begging for the douche bag with the boat (and the death wish) to get devoured. Who did not cheer when the father from Night of the Living Dead (1968) got bit by his own daughter? What self-respecting audience member goes into a zombie film saying "Gee, Tina, I hope this isn't too gory!"
Too bad Tina's friend is so squeamish.
So, for the 90 minute road trip into the worst kind of apocalypse, the zombie motivations are kindred to the audience members. Harking back to the 1984 classic Return of the Living Dead, we reminisce the Undead's declaration for "Brains!" echoing our own desire for more: more brains, more guts, more red corn syrup laden cow intestines.
Not to violate our aesthetic distance, we consent that there will be survivalists. It is by dramatic law to have sympathetic characters with whom we travel on a journey. Their surprise and instinct push through a populous of Zombies who threaten to wipe out the human race by insatiable hunger alone. They map a journey to safe-ground. They hide out. They run. Inevitably, they find some weapon to bludgeon, blast, or blow-up the amassed throng to reach some impossible goal of survival. And, again, it is by a dramatic code that the film appeals to this survival by endurance.
The other side, the reason the film's have a strong impact, is the empathetic nature of the Zombies themselves, though this disrupts the norms of an "empathetic character." Zombies have no apparent character arc. Their linear characterization separates them from any leading role potential. Retrospectively, however, a Zombie proper follows the most simplistic rule of dramatic structure. During a zombie apocalypse based out of a virus, chemical spill, or space junk falling to earth (premise), a man or woman finds him or her self undead and craving human flesh (complication). Based on the tenants of Classical Hollywood structure, the action continues because we want to see what happens next. However, zombies have traditionally taken a backseat role to the survivors despite the pessimistic outcome of many films: Day of the Dead (Romero), Zombi 2 (Fulci), Dead Snow (Wirkola), Astro-Zombies (Mikels), Undead (Spierig), etc.
Rather than indulging any characterization, most zombie films maintain the rabble as a singular character of mass destruction, thus creating a schemata which dissolves any possible leading man, or woman, potential in the solitary zombie. Introduce exhibit A: Colin.
Colin (Price 2008) carries a reputation of the aforementioned type: the character with whom we sympathize, whose motives unapologetically captivate the audience, is the zombie himself. From bitten to biting, the story humanizes the title character, evolving the very type of drama which draws viewer to film. The sympathetic zombie has been more prevalent, in films such as Fido (2006) and I, Zombie (1998) in which a Zombie is given more humanity than the horde.In this evolution, we have the chameleon that is the Zombie schemata. With its origins in horror, its conventions rooted in a primalism and loss of humanity, the Zombie has transcended its genesis and carried into comedy, drama, road-movies, and even romance (Boy Eats Girl (2005)). And with that, the lust is the same: the audience and the zombies desire blood - and no matter the genre - that is what they are going to get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)