2014: Movies Year In Review

What, you think I stopped my most sacred and hallowed tradition?

For those of you who may have forgotten (by choice or otherwise), every year I keep track of the movies I watch, and general demographic statistics about them because it’s superfun (for a preemtive comparison on fun, check out 2013’s post here).

This year, however, was I believe the second least active since I started doing this in 2007. This is mostly because as I mentioned earlier, I watched the equivalent of 264 movies with my daughter, and I only count one viewing as a single entry. In addition to this, we had another baby, and that always puts a dent in personal hobbies. Wait did I say hobbies? I meant extremely important scientific studies.

Anyway, here’s the breakdown:

So in total, I only watched 72 unique titles in 2014. Yikes. Shameful. This includes a single watch of a full television series (not watched on live TV/DVR) as well, of which there were 10.

Almost literally half of everything I watched was a Kids/Family film, which doesn’t surprise me, but troubles me nonetheless.

Television breakdown (as is custom): 10 series, for 82.2 hours = equivalent of 55 hour-and-a-half films.

Now the fun part! Top 5 best first-watch movies:

5. Let the Fire Burn (2013, Jason Osder): B+
4. The World’s End (2013, Edgar Wright): B+
3. Blue Jasmine (2013, Woody Allen): B+
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014, Wes Anderson): A
1. Stagecoach (1939, John Ford): A

 

Top 5 worst first-watch movies:

5. Joseph King of Dreams (2000, Rob LaDuca): D+
4. Tarzan (1999, Chris Buck): D+
3. Pocahontas (1995, Mike Gabriel): D
2. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 (2013, Cody Cameron): D
1. Paranormal Activity The Marked Ones (2014, Christopher Landon): D

 

So yeah. Pretty underwhelming year overall (in so, so many ways). Let’s hope 2015 turns the ship around. One snake eats the other, as they say.

The Disney Dilemma Part 4: Absent Parents and Evil Mothers

While I’ve touched upon it in several recent entries into this series, I haven’t really listed fully the extent of the “no parents/no mothers/evil mothers” theme that runs consistently through a large portion of Disney’s animated vault.  Without belaboring the subject, I’ll simply list the theatrically released animated films Disney has put out that feature a no mother/evil mother arrangement, or a bad parents/dead parents arrangement that plays a role in the story. I’ll do it chronologically for your convenience:

 

 

No Mother/Evil Mother

01. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs:
Evil mother, the queen, who tries to kill her daughter.
02. Pinocchio
No mother. Mostly because he’s a wooden boy.
03. Bambi
Spoiler alert, Bambi’s mom is shot dead in this one.
04. Cinderella
Evil step-mother, maybe the most famous evil step-mother in Disney history.
05. The Little Mermaid
No mother, but also Ursula acts as an evil mother figure
06. Beauty and the Beast
No mother, just her bumbling father
07. Pocahontas
No mother figure
08. Tangled
Raised by an evil mother figure.

No/Dead Parents
01. Peter Pan
Neglectful parents
02. The Sword in the Stone
No parents (orphan)
03. The Jungle Book
No parents (orphan)
04. The Rescuers
Evil parental figures (orphan)
05. Fox and the Hound
No parents except an old lady that abandon the fox.
06. The Black Cauldron
No parents, they seem unnecessary
07. Aladdin
No parents, just a street rat.
08. Hunchback of Notre Dame
Evil father figure (orphan)
09. Tarzan
Dead parents
10. Dinosaur
No parents (orphan)
11. Lilo & Stitch
Dead parents
12. Brother Bear
No parents
13. Home on the Range
Stolen parents
14. Frozen
Bit of a spoiler, but dead parents

 

I’m actually not overly critical of this, but it is interesting to see how often this plot device is used throughout Disney’s history. Some of these are really good films, and on their own, out of this context, there’s no reason to question the choices made in regard to what’s going on with the parental figure characters (or lack thereof) in these movies. But, when almost half of your theatrical animated releases have this common thread, one has to wonder to what degree this is intentional, and for which films.

NOTE: It’s been a little while since I’ve seen some of these, so, there is a remote possibility there was a parental figure in some of these that I’m just totally forgetting, at which point I guess that would imply that they were too unimportant to even remember.

 

The Disney Dilemma Part 3: Frozen

Taking a skip forward a few decades, Disney is at the cusp of what to many seem to be calling a new golden age for the company (most refer to this as what would be the 3rd golden age, following its initial introduction to the market between the 30s and 50s, then again in the late 80s/early 90s). But is this at all justified? What qualifies a golden age? And to that end, what would be different about this one (should it exist)?
I’ll readily admit that after seeing Tangled–quite literally–dozens upon dozens of times, Wreck-it-Ralph about a half dozen times, and Frozen 15 times (to be exact), that it can be a bit difficult to remain as objective as I was after watching these movies only a few times, as the films have now been embedded into my conscience to the point where to their suggestion, sharp disdain wouldn’t entirely be an unexpected gut reaction. That said, I’ll also readily admit that even after all of those times seeing the movies, I still enjoy them quite a bit. In fact, I doubt I’d be able to say that about any other consecutive 3 Disney releases since the company’s inception.
To understand what makes Frozen what it is, we have to understand a bit about this new so-called golden age itself, which means we need a little back story on its eminent predecessor. While Frozen is to be taken and appreciated on its own, independent of other films, unfortunately its pivotal place in Disney’s animated feature release history weighs upon its value to one degree or another. As always, the way I understand movies is independently to the movie itself first, without allowing outside factors like hype or expectation factor in. It’s important to take those sorts of things into consideration in some facet, of course, but it shouldn’t ever allow your opinion of the work itself to be colored.

 

TANGLED AND THE BIRTH OF THE MODERN DISNEY FILM

Released in 2010, Tangled was heavily marketed and hyped even directly following another princess film, and it’s not too hard to guess why. Even adjusted for inflation, Tangled is still the 4th most expensive movie ever made, and a huge investment for the post-Eisner company. Fresh off the heels of Bolt, A Christmas Carol, and Princess and the Frog, it can be argued that even with Eisner leaving in 2005, Disney Animation didn’t have a decent movie since Lilo & Stitch almost a decade earlier in 2002. And while Princess and the Frog masqueraded as a fairy tale for modern audiences, Tangled actually pulled it off. It really, very subtly, combined almost everything folks loved about the Disney films of the earlier golden ages while trying its best to exclude everything that made them unacceptable. It has a fun, 90s-Disney soundtrack courtesy Alan Menken (Aladdin, Beauty & The Beast, Little Mermaid), a lush and vibrant art style, a strong female lead, a solid re-imagining of a classic fairytale for its story, and the “lantern scene”, which I still say is likely the prettiest scene in any Disney film yet released.

Where I argue Tangled always fell short, was in the depth department. While the story itself was very good and well-paced, much like the characters themselves, the story lacked substance beyond what was already being presented. There was no room for interpretation because what you saw is what you got. And to that end, what you got was a rather safe princess story. When the only real lesson you’re presenting is “follow your dreams”, you’re pretty safe from damage. So is it bad that it’s safe? No, not really, and at the end of the day that’s what Disney is really doing with this movie: playing it safe. The story structure itself, and the tale of our protagonist longing to explore the world is something Disney literally can’t screw up at this point. They did it with Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, and probably Home on the Range (though it’s impossible to know that one for sure). It’s in their blood. Tangled follows that grand tradition delicately, and even throws in an “evil stepmother” figure to boot.
Again, this isn’t bad, but it’s safe; it’s what we remember from the former golden age.
What it also does, though, is it sets up Disney for its assumed rebirth, laying the financial ground to start churning out some really important movies should it choose to.

 

THE ANTI-DISNEY STANCE

Almost immediately, Frozen makes itself pretty clear on what it’s doing with its thematic takeaways. A lot of what it’s trying to teach its audience is told directly, either explicitly in song or spelled out in dialogue. And what it’s teaching is tragically stuff that hasn’t been addressed in other Disney works, or at least not enough. What Frozen quite successfully does, is sets up the stage for all the old, antiquated lessons to march on out, then executes them as they stumble across the stage. In a lot of ways it’s pretty cathartic, seeing actual progress being made. Whereas in the past you’d have The Little Mermaid because Disney stated they were trying to make up for the staunchly misogynist films of the 30s-50s, end up being an intensely misogynist film in the 90s, you now have a movie that hits you over the head saying no really this time, we’re not doing the misogyny thing. And to that effect maybe it turned some people off. For really the first time in Disney’s history, you have a movie that celebrates sisterhood and women who don’t end up saved by men, and goes out of its way to condemn prior Disney films that did, and oddly a swath of viewers suddenly can’t relate. It has almost a reverse effect which is a tad unsettling to say the least. When things don’t line up in their classic Disney princess schematic, some people suddenly have a hard time buying into the story. Fascinating? Yes. Tragic? Also yes.

ONE SMALL STEP

Of course, you can’t leave it all behind. It’s still a Disney movie and they still have to market it as one, so unfortunately some of the old tropes are destined to remain. I wouldn’t say I’m an Olaf apologist, but as far as Disney requirements go, he definitely could’ve been a lot worse. Some of his lines/situations are genuinely funny, which automatically makes him better comedic relief than Mushu in Mulan. But when the dust settles, he’s there to make the film more marketable, and as a film, Frozen would’ve been a lot better off with 80% less Olaf. It’s weird, too. Watching the movie there are multiple scenes in which Olaf just kind of does something, then it suddenly fades into the next scene. Yes it’s poor editing, but it also gives the impression that even the directors didn’t really know what to do with him to keep him from cramping everyone else’s style.

The trolls are also an odd comedic necessity. While their roll is ultimately serious, there are more than a few scenes that end up feeling awkward and out of place with everything else.

Comedy mishandling aside, the only unfortunate trope carryover comes with the Duke of Weselton character rather unmistakably portraying the classic Jewish scrooge. I guess the only fortunate thing here is that his screen time is limited and he’s not the primary antagonist.

BOLD LESSONS

As I mentioned earlier, the big thing with Frozen is the risks it takes alienating its own audience by attempting to finally tear down decades of established Disney morals and replacing them with actual humanity. What’s nice, too, is unlike Tangled, there is more than a handful of morals on display, so I’ll try my best to mention all of them:

1. True love doesn’t mean falling in love with a complete stranger in a day.
One of my favorite scenes in the movie is the wolf chase sequence (I know, evil wolves, I know), during which Christoph chastises Anna for getting engaged to Hans the same day that she meets him. This is literally calling out the following films as being totally wrong: Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Princess and the Frog, and Tangled. All of these movies feature the leading man and woman falling in love almost instantly (or within a few days) and end up married. In this movie, not only is this called out as being completely idiotic, but when Anna does this it almost costs her hers and her sister’s lives.
2. Love doesn’t change people.
Taken from the otherwise silly trolls’ song, “We’re not saying you can change him, because people don’t really change.” Again, almost a direct call out to films like Beauty & The Beast which attempt to say otherwise.
3. Relationships are complex and layered
Anna’s relationship with Elsa is defined by who they are as people, and the film illustrates that family relationships—relationships where true love is at play—can be tumultuous and anything but simple. It was bold to try and show multiple layers of the sisters’ relationship and risky to try and do correctly, but in pulling it off it adds a depth to the characters and to the film that’s otherwise lacking in other Disney films.
4. You should be yourself, but it will have consequences
The song Let it Go is catchy enough, and it would be just another throwaway “don’t be afraid to be yourself” sort of thing until we realize that truly being herself while excluding everyone else was incredibly damaging to everyone around her. The lesson ends up morphing into “be yourself, but be prepared for how that affects those around you”.
5. Don’t shut people out of your life, regardless of your reasons
This is probably the most obvious lesson in the movie, and it’s completely valid within its context. Often times the people you are trying to protect by keeping them from getting close to you are the ones that can help you the most.

This is actually quite a lot for any film, let alone a Disney film, and when laid out like that it’s all the more impressive that they were able to pack all that into an hour forty-five. It’s almost like the writers saw their opening and just went for it, not knowing if they’d get another chance.

Unfortunately, the downside to having an ensemble character piece that tries to do all this in under 2 hours is that the pacing seems rushed. There’s a lot of story in there to tell, too, and the entire second half of the movie races rather quickly through a bunch of plot that really should’ve had more time devoted to each of the points. Naturally you can’t risk having an animated Disney film go over the 2 hour mark, but one wonders what that extra time could’ve added to establishing the characters and the world in which they live.

ODDS AND ENDS

While most of my praise does indeed come from the morals it successfully conveyed, there’s more that went into making it a success. The soundtrack—originally commissioned to Alan Menken again—works as a Broadway-style opus in its own right. Breaking even further away from Disney tradition, they decided to go with a Broadway composer instead of the safe-bet Menken and it paid off huge. Not only did its centerpiece Let it Go become instantly popular everywhere, but the entirety of the musical playbill is thoroughly enjoyable and fits the movie like a glove. After watching it, you’re left sort of saying “wow, I’m glad Menken didn’t do the music for this one,” not because he’s not talented, but because his style wouldn’t fit the film at all.

And, as I may have already mentioned, the film is absolutely gorgeous. The snow effects alone are pretty mind-blowing in their realism, and the fantastic way in which they portray the geography of Norway is surprisingly beautiful as well. What’s nice about Disney in this supposed new golden age is that it seems to have developed a unique style of its own (much in the same way different periods of Disney films have in the past), that’s definitively different even amongst other 3D animated studios including Pixar and Dreamworks. Frozen stands up at the top of any of these studios’ best works easily.

Overall, the film isn’t perfect. Pacing issues and limitations that come with the territory (ghosts of Disney past) ultimately keep it from being truly great. However, it does go a long way in cementing our current generation of Disney family movies as one far better than probably any in memory. Between Tangled, Wreck-it-Ralph, and Frozen, we already have a stronger line-up for this age than anything the 90s could’ve thrown at us, which is a bit of a relief to say the least. And, while it’s possible that Tangled might’ve been an overall more enjoyable movie at face value, Frozen’s sum of its parts put it in a bit of a different class.

Now all they have to do is undo decades of racism, classism, and everything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2013 Film Year in Review

2013 was the 7th year now that I’ve kept extensive track of what movies (and sometimes television series) I’ve watched for ultra-fun stat tracking purposes. It’s become a time-honored tradition (some say going back as far as the advent of celebrating the new year itself) to post the highlights of these findings on whatever blog I’m using at the time.

I do this for a couple reasons.

One, it makes it seem like all my meticulous and diligent work has paid off, and everyone can bask in the intrigue and sheer wonder of my lists.

And two, it–more than any singular review of a movie I can write–gives an honest look into what I actually think about what I watch. A lot of folks, from a glance, can get the impression I don’t like much, or am ultra-critical. This list serves as some hard proof that lo, I do like things, and it turns out (as it always has) that I like quite a bit more than I don’t.

So, what’s up 2013? You can check out my full list by clicking here to access the public file.

Top 10 First-Watch Movies of 2013

1. The Long Goodbye (1973, Altman): A
2. The Passion of Anna (1969, Bergman): A
3. Django Unchained (2012, Tarantino): A
4. Election (1999, Payne): A
5. Midnight Cowboy (1969, Schlesinger): A-
6. The Master (2012, Anderson): A-
7. Wings of Desire (1987, Wenders): A-
8. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1980, Bennett): A-
9. Frances Ha (2012, Baumbach): A-
10. Blue Valentine (2012, Cianfrance): B+

Wow. Lots of good stuff there. It’s really hard to order those when 9 of those are so damn good. Brief liner note, is that Hamlet there was indeed a stage production, but it was shot as a movie, and it had its own director and everything, so I’m counting it as a movie. What’s even more interesting, is that beyond the top 9 A/A-, there were 12 movies this year I gave a B+. Was Blue Valentine the “best B+”? I dunno, I guess. But other notables here include: Amour, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Roman Holiday, Life of Pi, Burma VJ, Enemies of the People, The Imposter, Ponyo, Upstream Color, and My Left Foot. A large portion of these, too, are ripped directly from the movie club I was in all year. So, if there’s one takeaway, being in that club really forced me to watch some great things (and some really, really terrible things).

Top 10 Worst First-Watch Movies of 2013

1. Paranormal Activity 4 (2012, Joost): D-
2. C.H.U.D. (1984, Cheek): D-
3. Silent Hill Revelation 3D (2012, Bassett): D
4. V/H/S (2012, Miska): D
5. Bellflower (2011, Glodell): D+
6. The Experiment (2010, Scheuring): C-
7. Brother Bear (2003, Blaise): C-
8. Mama (2012, Muschietti): C-
9. Hara-Kiri Death of a Samurai (2011, Miike): C
10. Hamlet (1996, Branagh): C

As always, there’s not a lot to say here. These movies sucked hard, and none of it was all that surprising. I feel like I’m being a little generous for some of these, too. Is Paranormal probably an F? Probably.

2013 Films Themselves

1. Evil Dead: B
2. Man of Steel: C+
3. Pacific Rim: B
4. Star Trek Into Darkness: B
5. Upstream Color: B+

Yeah, I only watched 5 movies released in 2013, and their average was a B. As is pretty apparent, I’m usually about a year behind in terms of theatrical releases, so my post next year should better illustrate what actually happened this year.

Hard Data

All in all, I watched 119 separate titles this year. As always, I include an entire television series watched either on video or streaming as 1 entry in the list (this has been my rule for better or worse for many, many years). Believe it or not, this is somehow actually down from last year’s 126. I really thought I watched more this year, honest! As is also a fun tradition, I kept track of the episode totals and run-times of the television series I watched, and all in all I watched 7295min of television series, which breaks down to 121.58hrs. If you consider the average movie length is 2hrs, then this works out to the equivalent of about 61 movies. And, now graphs!

Worth noting is that I stopped categorizing things as either “Foreign” or “Classic”, as I felt this lessened their importance by attaching those labels specifically. So, I instead categorized them by what they actually were, like Drama or Comedy etc. Obviously I watched a lot of “Family” movies this year, and I think this is really the heart of the problem: I only watched movies Juliet wanted to watch. So, instead of seeing a bunch of new movies, I watched Hercules 350 times. I really should’ve kept track of how many times I had to watch through her favorite family films, I bet my actual total would be closer to 55,000.

Good luck, 2014.

The Disney Dilemma Part 2: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Disney’s first foray into large-scale theatrical animated films, and its immediate success not only paved the way for Disney to continue their momentum, but also paved the way for animation to be a viable art form in terms of film. Developed at the height of the Great Depression, the movie was Disney’s gambit after experiencing some success on its long run of animated shorts. When it was finally released in 1938, it became the biggest hit of the year, more than quadrupling the box office profit than its closest rival.

Taking a cue from their earlier animated shorts, Snow White employs a healthy amount of memorable music and comical antics. Really, the movie was supposed to originally be entirely comedic, relying almost wholly on the wacky hijinks that the dwarfs would get into, until they decided to dial it back to about 50%, making the other half the bit loosely based on the Grimm fairytale. Actually, subtracting almost everything with the seven dwarfs, the movie actually gets pretty close to the source material. In the original, we get a bit more of the witch trying to kill Snow White, which you can either take or leave. Also, Disney opts not to include the ending where Snow White has her revenge by forcing the witch to dance in red-hot iron shoes until the witch dies (for more or less understandable reasons).

One thing that really is truly great about the movie is its ambitious and excellent art direction. The art is really incredible to watch on film, and the directing borrows a lot of elements from European directors of the same era. It’s hard to not be impressed by this when watching the film as a whole.

GRAND MISOGYNY: A PRODUCT OF ITS TIME ARGUMENT

Starting with Snow White, Disney’s core development team is known widely as the “nine old men,” as there were nine key animators and directors, all white males over the age of 30, who developed all the major Disney successes. Knowing this, it’s not too much a mystery as to why a great majority of these films have similar attitudes towards women, marriage, and family.

In the original story, Snow White’s father is still alive and in the picture. This is important, because this film starts a long-running trend of having a film in which there is either no mother, or an evil mother figure. This was true for Beauty and the Beast in part one, as well. Disney taking the father out of the picture is a curious choice, and reinforces their idea that Snow White is defenseless against this one evil mother (who is also a magical witch and a queen). And, on that note, it’s worth mentioning that the only two female characters in the movie don’t do any favors to Disney’s image of being completely misogynist all the time. One woman is an adolescent, naïve, helpless daydreamer whose only real desire in life is to have a handsome and rich man come save her. The other, of course, is an evil, vain, murderous witch (literally).

I’ve heard a great many arguments (not only limited to “Golden Age” Disney) that the portrayal of women and the ideals these movies impart are indeed wrong, but forgivable because they are a product of their time. While it’s true that Snow White was conceived and released in the ‘30s, and American family values were quite a bit different, it’s hard to argue that they were somehow better, and/or defensible. What I mean, is, it’s hard to argue that a woman’s place should be only at home, serving the men in her family; that a woman’s only goal in life should be to win a rich husband, or, for that matter, to fall in love. The “happily ever after” trope should be most easily recognizable as both a classic Disney standby, and as something that’s completely archaic and if anything, ridiculed.

Is it wrong to want to live happily ever after? Certainly not. Is it wrong to preach to little girls that the only way this is possible is to find a rich and handsome prince who will fall in love with you instantly and save you from your otherwise miserable life? Obviously.

And for that matter, this movie also starts a long tradition of setting up unreasonable roles and expectations for males. The prince’s role in this movie is pretty minimal, serving only as a tool to fall in love with and save the female lead. He does so with tremendous ease, maybe more so than any other Disney feature. So, there’s that: you will know immediately who you should fall in love with and marry simply by hearing them sing to a well (also, it’s okay to kiss dead women), but more than that, the implication is that to win the girl of your dreams, you should be both entirely handsome and wealthy. This sets up the now obvious paradigm that young girls are encouraged to be unreasonably beautiful and talented, and young boys need to unreasonably handsome and wealthy. Otherwise you’ll never find true love (which should be your only goal in life).

Now, as I mentioned, this was par for the course back in ‘30s America, and if the movie were only isolated to that decade it would still be a bad lesson, but it’s not confined to that decade. Snow White is still one of Disney’s popular princesses, and kids are still watching the movie and picking up on the now 75 year old lessons. I’d like to think that someday, kids will understand that this movie is from another point in time, where things were very different and to a large degree irresponsible, but as it is, Snow White is very much alive in the line-up with every other current Disney product.

AN ODD BALANCE

It’s really hard to pin down what’s actually going on in Snow White. Really, there’s a lot of bizarre pseudo-comedy mixed in even parts with dark drama, death, and romance. If it seems like a lot of it doesn’t make sense and fit together, it’s because it doesn’t. As I mentioned earlier, the movie was originally planned to be entirely a comedy focusing on the antics of the dwarfs. When that didn’t pan out, they decided to go 100% in the opposite direction and incorporate the evil witch from the fairytale bent on killing Snow White.

What you end up, is odd musical numbers of the dwarfs mining for gems for no reason (other than that’s what dwarfs do), alongside scenes involving Snow White being murdered and the dwarfs attending a make-shift funeral for her that they and the forest animals arrange. It really becomes pretty surreal, and I think a lot of its elements can come off as too dark for young children, while also having elements that come off as too silly for adults. It’s difficult, in this sense, to really enjoy the movie as a movie, even if it’s difficult to enjoy it as anything else.

SNOW WHITE

Snow White, as a character herself, is also a bit of a pill to swallow. It’s hard to watch her in this film and imagine she’s anything older than 12 years old. Everything from her voice, to her overwhelming childish naïvety showcases that she’s essentially a child. This is all well and good contextually with her friendship with the dwarfs (except for that the dwarfs are really 7 old men), but it becomes a bit more odd when she marries the prince at the end. It totally makes sense when she meets the prince in the beginning of the movie for her to run away when he starts serenading her out of nowhere, and it even makes sense for her to fall in love with him. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for the prince to be so predatorily engaged in winning her heart. I don’t think it’s too off-base to describe this entire aspect as creepy.

All of her songs are quaintly innocent, if not unintentionally sad. Take for example:

As you sweep the room, imagine that the broom is someone that you love.

And isn’t that just the perfect line to showcase how Disney feels about women?

THE DWARFS

As I keep mentioning, the dwarf aspect is really just inherently weird. In the Grimm version, they’re highlighted as almost mythical creatures who tolerate Snow White’s presence. They let her stay with them as long as she leaves them alone and cleans up after them. In this way, Snow White is still as much the scullery maid she was when living with the queen. In the Disney version, they’re comedic relief, and more than a little perplexing. From “Heigh-ho”:

We dig up diamonds by the score, a thousand rubies, sometimes more, but we don’t know what we dig ‘em for. We dig dig dig-a dig dig.

Okay. I don’t know if it’s supposed to be funny, or just so weird that it becomes spectacle, but there are more than enough scenes like this in the movie, where the greater viewing audience just has to sit there and watch and wait until it’s all over.

CONCLUSION

All in all, it’d be a little ridiculous to say that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs doesn’t deserve the classic-film status it’s earned. The art and direction alone for any film of that era is impressive, let alone an animated one. The music is memorable, if not entirely weird most of the time, and it actually went a long way in promoting film soundtracks in general.

But it’s an odd and impossible mix of grim horror mixed with childish humor that’s difficult to track the entire watch through.

Snow White, as a character, sets the machine in operation that will long assist Disney in cementing itself as a producer of some of the most misogynist, archaic morals in any form of media. It strikes up the stereotype that all good women need is a handsome/wealthy man to save them, and all other women are probably witches. When you get nine old white guys in a room in the ‘30s and tell them to make a story about a young woman, maybe you shouldn’t be surprised when you get what you get. But, again, as with so many other Disney movies, maybe you shouldn’t put these films alongside the modern stock and expect that children will magically figure out what’s “a product of its time” and what isn’t.

The Disney Dilemma Part 1: Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast was released in 1991, and sits at the epicenter of the late ’80s early ’90s Disney animation rebirth, following the hugely successful The Little Mermaid and The Rescuers Down Under. It was actually originally pitched alongside Snow White back when Disney was all about adapting pre-industrial revolution fairy tales.

As was the standard for this era in Disney film making, the goal was to create a family-friendly feature that spoke to a modern audience, in part trying to make up for past injustices and gender stereotypes so prevalent in their early catalogue.

What we end up getting, as is the case with nearly all the movies in this grand rebirth of Disney animation, is a beautifully animated feature with easily understandable morals, an emphasis on love (or more accurately true love), and some classic musical numbers. Unfortunately what you also get beneath that surface, are some pretty destructive lessons accompanied with basic stereotypes which, lest we forget aren’t great for impressionable children to take in.

As with most Disney movies, it’s a mixed bag (a trailmix, if you will), and if you are just eating handful after handful until the bag is empty, at the end of the day you’ll be full and satisfied. But in sticking with the metaphor, when you indiscriminately are just eating handfuls of whatever’s in the bag, you might fail to realize the high sugar content and potential for developing diabetes later in life (okay, so the metaphor kind of worked).

POSITIVES

The main theme in Beauty and the Beast is the same now as it was back in the 18th century when it was written: don’t judge a book by its cover. Belle’s able to fall in love with the Beast even though he’s not human, and the Beast is able to fall in love with Belle even though… I don’t know, even though she reads (more on that later). What’s especially nice is that Disney chose to include a new element in the story that they borrow from an earlier French film adaptation of the fairy tale, with the chauvinistic suitor being a villain. Their aim was to promote suffrage, women’s independence, and teach that being a tall-dark-and-handsome type is not necessarily desirable. It also de-emphasizes the importance of physical beauty, at least, as far as men are concerned. While there are underlying problems with this sub-story, the idea is still important, and is definitely counter to classic Disney.

The music’s also very good. There are only a handful of songs (one of which is repeated at 3 different points in the movie with different lyrics), but they are all really pretty good. It really cemented Alan Menken as the go-to for musical-izing Disney features, fortunately.

I also really like the prologue and the way it’s presented with the stained glass storyboard. In the original version of the tale, you don’t learn about the spell until after the spell is broken, as a sort of twist. I do think, however, the movie pulls off switching it to the intro effectively and adds important tension later in the film.

It should also be noted that both the original fairy tale and this film try to avoid any sort of “class struggle” in its narrative. Of course it doesn’t succeed in this, but the effort is kind of there. In the original, Belle is of the merchant class and the Beast–though living in the castle–is not really royalty and doesn’t have any subjects. In the film, Belle is merely the daughter of an inventor, neither rich nor poor, and the Beast–while rich and owning slaves servants–is not a model of aristocracy.

Really it’s apparent that Disney has gone out of their way to make Belle an example of the modern woman, pro-feminism in Victorian France, which isn’t exactly anti-historical. In any case, it’s a positive thing to attempt to portray.

The last thing this movie pulls off with some success is a minor respect your elders message with Belle’s father playing the kindly eccentric who turns out to be right even though no one takes him seriously. “Maybe we should’ve listened to the old guy!” some character might’ve thought.

BELLE

I guess I’ll start where the movie starts, then, with the reason that Belle has a problem living there in the first place. Belle makes it rather clear that she has disdain for living in the town amongst the common folk.

Every morning just the same, since the morning that we came, to this poor provincial town.

OK so maybe it is a little bit about social class after all, but I think the writer would argue that it’s more about her just wanting a little adventure, and less about her disdain for poor people. Still, the message from this musical number is that she’s supposedly ostracized and doesn’t belong there. Even though this isn’t really the case. We should be careful not to get the impression that Belle is actually unpopular or alienated, as we know all the men in town want to be with her, she’s apparently insanely beautiful by any standard, and the townsfolk only real concern seems to be that she’s more interested in a fantasy world than living in a functioning society:

Never part of any crowd, because her head’s up in some cloud, no denying she’s a funny girl that Belle.

So, really, Belle is just bored with living in a small town and that’s it. When reduced to this, Belle seems much less a victim and only semi-relatable at best (again not really relatable because of her ridiculous good looks). But then we have Gaston, who as I’ve said before, provides a pretty decent moral lesson in that being a brutish chauvinist will not always win you the girl. Unfortunately, though, there aren’t a lot of guys in this film, and the ones that are reinforce an old stereotype that men are emotionless, brutish, and generally stupid. Beast is the same way, of course, until Belle changes him. So while Gaston is definitely a villain, it’d be nice to have a male character who’s independently good to balance it out.

TRUE LOVE & THE RELATIONSHIP-MARRIAGE CONUNDRUM

And this actually brings up a major problem with the film, if not the major problem. The only character that learns a lesson and changes is the Beast, and he only does this because Belle works to change him. The Beast is not just ugly on the outside, he’s a terrible person at the start of the film. Over the course of the film, Belle works to transform him on the inside. Which is all well and good, but, what does this teach? Stripping away any unnecessary romanticism, whether you like it or not, it’s in part teaching that you can change someone if you really love them. There’s a reason why people stay in unhealthy relationships; someone in the relationship is being abusive but every once in a while the other person sees something inside them, so that means they must really be good in their heart and they just need the right person to come along and help them see it, right? Beauty and the Beast unfortunately succumbs to this romantic ideology, which I shouldn’t need to point out is a bad thing. If you are in an abusive relationship, you are not going to change your partner with magical love. You are going to be abused, over and over again (of course I mean either physically or mentally/emotionally), until the lesson you learned as a child is undone.

True love as a concept is not inherently bad, but it’s inherently complicated. Even adults struggle with wrangling with what love really means (as evidenced by America’s 50% divorce rate), so boiling it down to “true love solves all problems” for children is not just wrong, it’s detrimental to their understanding of how relationships and people really work. Let’s not forget that neither the Beast nor Belle start out liking each other to any sliver of a degree. But, they do begin a relationship immediately out of necessity: Belle is looking for an adventure, and the Beast is looking to break a curse. Over time (in the fairy tale much longer than in the movie) they grow to enjoy each others company and eventually fall in love, which is great, but again, problematic.

Disney also has a habit of expediting love. The movie seemingly takes place over the course of a couple days, which is apparently enough time for true love to work its magic and ensure you will be happy ever after. It should be noted that this in itself is a bizarre message to try and impart: that if you meet someone and fall in love, then congrats! You’re going to be happy for the rest of your life and you should get married (as soon as possible). It stresses, against the earlier moral, that love does equal marriage. There’s already enough pressure in society to be in “meaningful” relationships and to get married, and the films in Disney’s ’90s renaissance do nothing to mellow this pressure.

To summarize, A) true love exists, B) true love solves all problems, C) you can meet someone and know within a few days whether or not they’re perfect for you for the rest of your life, and D) you can change someone to make them into someone you’ll love.

So, those are the real, heavy problems with its theme, but of course that’s not all.

STEREOTYPING FOR THE SAKE OF COMEDY

Keeping in Disney’s long tradition of falling back on stereotypes for comedic relief, Disney takes this opportunity to make the only 2 French characters in the film (which I always thought odd for a movie that takes place in France) exaggerated French stereotypes. Lumiere is, of course, both overtly sexual and a chef. He also has an obnoxiously thick French accent (much like his chambermaid counterpart who’s of course apparently the only other French stereotype they could think of: a sexy French maid) which is curious since the character isn’t voiced by a French actor. And, while these aren’t negative stereotypes in the traditional sense, it’s unfair to take the only apparently French characters in the movie and debase them down to only the broadest of stereotypes. From Lumiere’s section in “Human Again”:

I’ll be cooking again, be good-looking again, with a mademoiselle on each arm

Not to mention the rest of the servants being exceptionally British, to the point where it’s a little awkward. Also this is kind of a weird thing to say:

Life is so unnerving for a servant who’s not serving, he’s not whole without a soul to wait upon

Right?

So, is all this as bad as the Chinese cat in The Aristocats or the crows in Dumbo? No, but it’s in line with all the old, bad traditions and follows that same ideology that created those racist characters in the first place.

CLASS COMMENTARY

It also takes an oddly specific stance against small towns and small-town people. As we’ve already established, Belle’s true desire is to break free from her “provincial life”. This is probably because the provincial life portrayed in this movies is full of small-minded, angry-mob forming, conservative thinking bumpkins. They all think the old man is crazy, they all think Belle shouldn’t be reading, they all adore Gaston, they all pick up pitchforks and torches as the drop of a hat, and they all represent what Disney thinks of “provincial” people. For a movie that’s based on something that tries so hard to not say anything about social class (remember, they’re going out of their way to change Belle’s father from a merchant to an inventor), this movie really says a lot about social class. Belle is effectively delivered from her poor yokel-dwelling town to a rich prince’s castle.

And much like all of the other themes, this too trips over itself with what it’s trying to say. To cut to the chase on this one, yes it’s a good lesson that angry-mobs are bad. No, it’s not good that you unveil this lesson by having poor small-town people be the ones to so irrationally form the mob.

CONCLUSION

I want to really stress that the important thing to do when watching anything that someone’s put work into making and presenting to you, is to take it as a whole. As a finished product, Beauty and the Beast is a beautifully animated, lovely musical soap opera that teaches you good morals sometimes, and reinforces bad ones at others. It’s crucial not to be dismissive of the latter, especially when your target audience is incredibly impressionable. As an adult, you should be responsible enough to cope with both the good and the bad, and understand to what extent each exists. As a child, you’re not expected to, and that’s really the danger there.

In general, I think what’s so disappointing, is that the film squanders so many opportunities. At the end of the day, you still come out with Belle falling in love with a prince she’s sculpted to suit her liking, and there’s nothing really all that appropriate about that.

Who among us though can say that Disney hasn’t done worse? While they definitely get points for trying, all too often this movie is glorified and deified to an extent that can only be described as unreasonable. Why? Because it’s romantic and has some good music? If those are the only qualifiers, then I suppose Disney might not’ve even needed to try that hard at all.

BONUS MATERIAL

Find yourself really agreeing with everything I said but think I could’ve gone further? How about these:

• Wolves are evil, godless creatures and you should be taught to fear them always. Thanks for teaching me this, movies
• Why does the Beast not know how to use a spoon? I can understand not being able to read, because he was a spoiled prince, but he’s only been in his current form for 10 years.
• Instead of dying, Gaston could’ve just fallen in love with Le Fou. Win-win.
• Lastly, anyone else think it’s weird that people drink out of Chip?

Quick Review: “Mary and Max”

This week is kind of interesting because for the first time, someone in the contest took advantage of a little-known rule, wherein you can substitute your turn of picking a new movie that no one’s seen, by picking one that only you’ve seen (thus forcing everyone to watch something you like). You can only do this once, and it’s a lot of fun (I’m still not sure what I’m gonna pick for mine).

For this go around, the movie picked was the 2009 Australian claymation piece Mary and Max, a quirky tale loosely based on a true story of a middle-aged New York man with Asperger Syndrome and a girl from Australia becoming pen pals. When it was released, it won a bunch of independent film awards and it generally gained an underground following of sorts, and it’s not too terribly difficult to see why. It takes a well known theme and plays it through a dark comedy noir that’s also a serious claymation drama. Ahem.

Is it effective at this? Well, yes and no. There are aspects of the film that really shine, and aspects that don’t. As I mentioned before, its more noir elements are really pulled off very well. Everything in Australia is sepia-toned with a tinge of color, and everything in New York is in black and white, and when the two intersect, these color palettes remain constant. It’s actually an effect that deserves more credit than I’d otherwise give it. The voice acting is also really surprisingly good, with Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing a 40yr old Jewish man with Asperger’s. Honestly I forgot that it was him until the end credits rolled, which is a sure sign that he did a good job.

In general, though, I think this film will really resonate with some folks, and not with others. The movie’s theme is really apparent right from the get go, and it never deviates from its sermon. Life isn’t easy for everyone, sometimes it’s hard to fit in, we get to choose our friends and friendship is the meaning of life. Were you ever teased as a kid? Do you have a hard time understanding people sometimes? Of course literally everyone can answer yes to this, but to what degree that still affects you will shade your interest in this film. Maybe it didn’t resonate with me because, to a point, I’ve seen this done thematically in a bunch in movies, and it’s the kind of universal moral we see in a lot of family flicks. Of course, I tend to like this moral when presented in genres and styles I tend to be more interested in. This movie in particular seems to be going for the style of 90’s Tim Burton, which I guess isn’t altogether a bad thing, but for the most part when you stop paying attention to the narrative, it all feels a little forced. Let’s see how quirky we can make this. It’s carried out in a way that I’d say is most comparable to youth literature. It’s kind of like reading Roald Dahl (kind of), which in this case intentionally conflicts with the dark humor (and dark otherwise) nature of the film. In short, it aims to be very cute while juxtaposing serious character drama. To this end, this is not a style that I altogether find compelling, but that’s kind of, you know, personal taste.

Still, it’s charming and endearing, and if you’re not sitting there thinking “ok, I know what this film is doing”, then you’ll more than likely enjoy it. Again, it’s a universal theme, and the characters are strong and the writing is capable of achieving this theme. The correspondence device used to tell the narrative is really great, if not drawn out (really it’s a device that I think works a lot better in short films/stories, but hey, there was a lot of material here I guess). Overall, you know, it was fine, just didn’t really resonate with me.

Final Grade: B-

Quick Review: “The Passion of Anna”

I decided to keep my hot streak going this week by picking another guaranteed lock: Ingmar Bergman’s The Passion of Anna (En passion.) So, obviously it’s really great, but, why?

The story focuses on four main characters, none of whom are especially relatable, following their interconnected relationships over the course of a season and delving into their personal histories. In classic late-sixties Bergman fashion, the main draw to the film is the showcase of intimate storytelling. There’s always been something hypnotic about the way Bergman features his main characters telling stories to the audience, and Passion is as good an example of this as anything else. Following the intricate lives of these four flawed individuals is highly engrossing and ultimately rewarding.

One bit that’s a tad divisive, is the tool he uses to break up the narrative. Inter-cut at different points in the film are interviews with the four lead actors describing how they interpret the characters they’re playing. Risky, right? I thought it worked surprisingly well–not only at breaking up the narrative–but giving some outside insight into the motivation behind the characters themselves. Bergman later admitted he did not think that this was done successfully, and even regretted using the technique. So, I guess it’s not for everyone, but personally I enjoyed it.

Naturally the directing achieves setting a quiet, understated tone to the film that colors everything in a light that’s both intimate and real, and it’s easy to feel involved in the characters’ world. The story itself is layered with personal introspection and universal truths about human nature, which I guess in this instance I think is more of a bonus than anything (even though it’s actually the backbone of the film). So, if you, you know, like Bergman, and you should, then you’ll like this.

Final grade: A

Quick Reviews: “Reincarnated” (2013), & “Upstream Color”

I want to try to get back into the habit about actually writing about the things I’ve watched for this ill-conceived film club, which is–beyond all natural reason–still going strong.  And I’ll be honest, a large reason for why I haven’t been too eager to keep up with it (aside from a lot of the movies being largely too uninteresting to even write about) is that I’ve been completely torn asunder by the ongoing debate on whether or not one should space twice after ending a sentence. Sure it’s not even a grammar issue, but I feel any debate that people have on the internet is too important to ignore and the best course of action is to completely shut down until everything blows over.

I think we all know which side who is on.

Apparently, though, these things tend to go on indefinitely (this debate in particular is nearing 7 decades), so I might as well bide my time by succumbing to guilt (one of my favorite pastimes) and continuing my regular reviews.

Reincarnated is a companion documentary to the 2013 Snoop Lion album of the same name. As unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) you’d be tasked to review just the movie and neither Snoop nor the album in the process, you’d be left saying “well, this isn’t really a documentary, though.” And you’d say this because it plays out much more like a bonus featurette on a DVD than a movie about anything solid enough to seem tangible. The way I put it in perspective after watching it, was that back in like, 2006, The Decemberists released a live concert DVD from one of their shows. On the DVD was an hour-long behind the scenes making of their most recent album at the time. And it was really interesting (if you’re a Decemberists fan). But I’d never, you know, call it a documentary film.

With Reincarnated, mostly it’s just a magazine editor along for a vacation in Jamaica while Snoop records his new album. Which is, you know, a lot of fun if you’re a Snoop fan, but it doesn’t extend much beyond that. There’s maybe 40% of it that’s independently interesting; personal interviews with Snoop about his past are compelling enough, but at the end of the day it just seems like a guy with a camera who’s happy to be along for the ride. In an effort to further convince the wider public that this is indeed a movie in the same way that The Thin Blue Line is, they released it theatrically in minimal release. So, you know, I’ll letter-grade it and all (but only because that’s my style).

Final grade: C.

Upstream Color on the other hand, is very much a movie (almost too much of one, some would argue). It’s the second film from upstart independent director Shane Carruth, most famous for his only other film, the 2004 concept sci-fi Primer. Much like Primer, it immediately gained an underground following and notoriety for its bold and careless style accompanied by a purposely hard to follow narrative. In Primer, the confusing structure is explained as intentional and meant to force the audience to feel as disoriented as the main characters who are traveling through time. It’s–for better or worse–effective at what it sets out to do. In Upstream, you get a lot of that same style, a bit more professionally pulled off, but also used as a device to force the audience to feel to some degree the same as the main characters. I guess it’s kind of his thing. And about 80% of the time it’s spot-on, which is nice. Upstream tends to work better, though, because it’s much more ethereal a concept, and overall more relatable than the engineering Rube Goldberg device that is Primer. It’s also much more human, and surprisingly deep.

Where Primer is a dialogue-driven exploration on the consequences of, well, essentially breaking the law, Upstream is more of an art piece. There’s much less an emphasis on dialogue, and is more of a visual experience; it becomes a study, really, on a specific event. It’s nothing if not original, even if it comes off as pretentious for a portion of it (how can it not?), and does the same job that Primer does of intentionally frustrating its audience.

Overall, though, it’s still refreshing and will generate much discussion and analysis. And while it probably deserves multiple watch-throughs, the idea on its own is praise worthy and also worthwhile to watch.

Final grade: B+

OK, well, I guess that’s all for now. The next pick for the club will be mine, and I’ve already chosen The Passion of Anna. So, good luck everybody else.

I dunno, I mean, some folks would call this gentleman a pretty capable director.

Catching Up

So, what happened, was:

– A couple months ago, we lost our internet, and I was riding the rails of rogue internetting, which is, by my estimation, the most dangerous game

– I didn’t stop watching movies, nor did I drop out of my poor man’s book club

– I moved. Then I got internet again

– I got a hand-written letter from who I’ll kindly describe as a “Glass City super fan” (and it wasn’t even a death threat!)

– I remembered I had a blog

So, welcome back me!

Unlike some folks, I *can* go home again.

God, how to begin? I’m not gonna like, review everything I’ve seen in the last 2 months. That’d be insane (even by normal metrics). But, I do feel obligated to keep up with keeping up, so, I’ll do this instead:

SHOTGUN REVIEWS (titles in red = film club):

Looper	B	2012	Rian Johnson	Not as good as Brother’s Bloom, still well done
Evil Dead	B	2013	Fede Alvarez	Way more fun than it should have been
My Left Foot	B+	1989	Jim Sheridan	Doesn’t hit you over the head that it’s Oscar bait
Wreck-It Ralph	B	2012	Rich Moore	About as good as “Tangled”
The Master	A-	2012	P.T. Anderson	Need to see it again, but definitely good times
Prometheus	B	2012	Ridley Scott	Better than I thought it’d be, not as great as I wanted it to be
Paranormal Activity 4	D	2012	Henry Joost	Hilariously awful. They’re not even trying anymore.
The Man with the Iron Fists	C	2012	RZA	Sadly not great
Frankenweenie	B-	2012	Tim Burton	Better than “Corpse Bride”? That’s about as nice as I can be.
Midnight Cowboy	A-	1969	John Schlesinger	Really great, obviously
ParaNorman	B+	2012	Chris Butler	Better than “Frankenweenie”
Argo	B	2012	Ben Affleck	Yeah it’s fine and stuff.
Dredd	C+	2012	Pete Travis	Solid action for the budget it had. Might be more lenient ’cause I watched it while folding laundry
The Host	C+	2006	Joon-ho Bong	Not sure why this is so highly rated. Seemed schizophrenic but had some decent aspects
Square Grouper	C+	2011	Billy Corben	Really should’ve been more engrossing given the subject matter
Naked	B	1993	Mike Leigh	Preachy and personal, but great performances and well structured
Ponyo	B+	2008	Hayao Miyazaki	Really charming. Ponyo > The Little Mermaid
The Amazing Spider-Man	C+	2012	Marc Webb	Everything that wasn’t him in high school was fine. Which was about 55% of the movie
The Long Goodbye	A	1973	Robert Altman	Brilliant subversion of 40’s noir, really a must-see
The Imposter	B+	2012	Bart Layton	Surprisingly very good, the only draw-back was the use of some re-enactments and style choices
Afro Samurai: Ressurection	C+	2009	Fuminori Kizaki	I’m sure the series was fine, and at least it was pretty to look at
Election	A	1999	Alexander Payne	Glad I finally saw it, very funny, layered film
All-Star Superman	C	2011	Sam Liu	About as average as average things get.

There, win-win. I guess.

But yeah, the important take-away here is that I moved, which for the time being, means I have way too much time on my hands. Being isolated away from my friends and extended family living here in northern Illinois, I’m pretty landlocked. What helps keep the cabin fever at bay, though, is my new assortment of movie choices. We have cable TV again, which means some movie channels, plus On Demand. Oh and we got Netflix back (we were missing it for a while). So, too many choices.

Oh in case you were wondering, my choices in the film club there were Midnight Cowboy and The Long Goodbye. I’d say I won this thing a long time ago, but this past stretch has really sealed the deal. Not that it’s a competition.

Sometimes, you get a winner even when there’s no competition, if you know what I mean.