A misunderstood stepmother doesn't have the same resonance or significance as an Evil Stepmother. This is the lesson Disney once had down pat. Lately, it seems, Evil Stepmother has been to counseling and discovered her inner child, but does she have to share it with us?
Complaints have been levied about Disney's formulaic and highly successful narrative of a beautiful, innocent princess abused by an evil stepmother. The accusation is unfair because of the hundreds of movies released by Disney since the 1940's very few are about a princess and an evil queen. However, the handful or so that did follow this pattern featured an evil woman so beyond redemption that it scared the pants off us and made us hate her...and we loved it.
Take Maleficent. I haven't seen the Disney update, but any one who can transform themselves into a fire-breathing dragon probably isn't nice. And we like fire-breathing dragons Disney. Have you seen the fan response to Smaug? From what I've heard about the "new" Maleficent, she was once a kind fairy...huh?
Then there was Frozen (see my review "Frozen: Gave Me Hypothermia"). The most interesting creature in the movie was the Abominable Snowman. For some reason, Disney chose to make the true queen a misunderstood princess who just wants to be herself. But if she could create an evil monster, doesn't it stand to reason that she herself is evil?
We loved Snow White and the Huntsman because it showed the truly depraved nature of the Evil Queen (Charlize Theron) and the authentic goodness of Snow White. If the antagonist is not truly evil, then what's the point of the protagonist trying to destroy them?
Even The Grimm Brothers movie (Matt Damon) got it right. The queen was beautiful, vain, and evil. Made sense that her just reward would be that she age, disintegrate, and shatter into a million pieces like her magic mirror.
This is not formulaic. It is good character arc. All of those "evil" women grew more and more jealous or evil over time (despite having chances to change). This is what makes us hate them all the more and then compare them to our least favorite relatives.
I've heard that the Broadway hit, "Wicked" is about the evil witch from Wizard of Oz, who actually isn't evil? Sorry I can't wrap my mind around that one after years of gleefully watching her melt into a pile of green slop in the original classic.
Ursula, in the Little Mermaid, was classic. Smooth, seductive, and evil. The perfect prototype for a villain. This is not anti-woman. It's common sense. If you must give us a multi-layered villain with a backstory and personality make it consistently and progressively wicked. (Was Ursula really once a good fish who got on the wrong side of King Trident, puh-lease!)
The Incredibles movie made a great villain out of Buddy, the annoying child, who eventually grew into a self-made super-villain, Syndrome. No one was sorry to see him get sucked into that turbine, lol!
I'm cherry-picking my personal favorites of course. But the point is that all movies need someone you love and someone you love to hate. We know the characters are not real (hopefully). But we need something real to experience. And if the plan is to dissect the personality of a villain to find some good in them, then there really is no villain. Snow White and the Queen are actually equals which isn't very interesting. There's just a Droopy-type fringe character, shuffling around the screen, crying out for help and attention instead of creating havoc and obstacles for the protagonist.
If you want to update a villain, follow the example of The Hobbit or How To Train Your Dragon or even Hercules (animated version). Make a villain so big, so bad, so larger than life that our eyes get big, our hands freeze just as we're about to take a bite of popcorn, and we go "Whoa!"
If you want someone different to happen at the end of your movies, let us walk away cheering for the good guy (or girl) and excitedly chattering about the demise of the bad guy (or girl), not trying to figure out what the difference is.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
I Miss Books
Kindle and I are over. There is no more fire in my Kindle Fire. I glance resentfully at it wondering why I thought it was such a wonderful gift. When my sister re-gifted it to me, I was sure that my life-long avid reading would go on hyper-drive. Now I would be able to download books at the speed of light (and I have) , but it's finishing and enjoying them that's the problem. Kindle doesn't excite my love of reading, it dampens it.
You see, a Kindle Tablet is not just an electronic house for books. It's a small tv that always seems to be on and full of commercials. Every time I turn on my Kindle with the intent of reading, an ad for a new gadget, a flash sale, a movie trailer or some other advertisement is there. Rarely, do they even show an advertisement for a book. When I go to download a book, I am bombasted by offers of the movie version, app, or online game.
When I read a book, there are no distractions or attractions. I am pulled into the world of written words and imagination whether it's a beach in Nantucket, 19th century Europe, or a modern romance. Reading has begun to resemble, in some ways, checking email. Sure, I like the convenience of being able to highlight interesting passages with my finger or quickly bookmark a page, but the glow of the "page" doesn't hold the same appeal as reading a book at night, illuminated by low light.
With summer reading season upon me, I remembered a great book I read last year and I missed the feeling of touching the cover, folding the book back, dog-earring the pages, and flipping back to re-read something that amused me. That's what books do. They give you a world you can touch and that touches you. And who can resist the smell of book paper (aka pages)?
I'm not sure when I'll be turning my Kindle on again. I long to run to Barnes and Noble (last bookstore standing) and buy 2 or 3 heavy books knowing that it will take me a while to get through them. I might forget my place or spill coffee on a page. I'll have to keep a highlighter nearby if I want to mark a provocative paragraph, but that's what I want. To have a book, not a Nook.
You see, a Kindle Tablet is not just an electronic house for books. It's a small tv that always seems to be on and full of commercials. Every time I turn on my Kindle with the intent of reading, an ad for a new gadget, a flash sale, a movie trailer or some other advertisement is there. Rarely, do they even show an advertisement for a book. When I go to download a book, I am bombasted by offers of the movie version, app, or online game.
When I read a book, there are no distractions or attractions. I am pulled into the world of written words and imagination whether it's a beach in Nantucket, 19th century Europe, or a modern romance. Reading has begun to resemble, in some ways, checking email. Sure, I like the convenience of being able to highlight interesting passages with my finger or quickly bookmark a page, but the glow of the "page" doesn't hold the same appeal as reading a book at night, illuminated by low light.
With summer reading season upon me, I remembered a great book I read last year and I missed the feeling of touching the cover, folding the book back, dog-earring the pages, and flipping back to re-read something that amused me. That's what books do. They give you a world you can touch and that touches you. And who can resist the smell of book paper (aka pages)?
I'm not sure when I'll be turning my Kindle on again. I long to run to Barnes and Noble (last bookstore standing) and buy 2 or 3 heavy books knowing that it will take me a while to get through them. I might forget my place or spill coffee on a page. I'll have to keep a highlighter nearby if I want to mark a provocative paragraph, but that's what I want. To have a book, not a Nook.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Christian Movies Must Evoke Serious Discussion and Change-Not Feel Good Emotions
Now that the brouhaha over the accuracy of Noah has died down, I want to reflect on this movie which I did not see. I have no regrets either way. I don't feel a responsibility to see every so-called Christian movie and tv show that appears. I don't feel a need to call out every director for not ensuring that every word of dialogue comes verbatim from the Bible.
The controversy over Noah disturbed me because of the virulent attack on the movie by Christian "leaders". Leaders who believe the only way to make "real" Christian movies is to dress white people in long dirty robes and set it in a desert. Or make a movie with an obvious and rather unchallenging moral ending (e.g. Fireproof, "reconcile with your wife"). I enjoyed Fireproof, by the way.
A formulaic approach cheapens the movie-going experience, insults the dignity and intelligence of the movie-going audience, and spoon-feeds a "version" of God without challenging people to really discover how who God (the God of the Bible for the purposes of this discussion) is. For that matter, who is the Son of God?
When a movie too carefully defines or filters the "message", then there is no message. I've seen examples of atheistic or Buddhist written/directed movies strongly pushing their "message" as if the audience has no right or choice but to accept their way of thinking. Ultimately, such strongly themed movies turn audiences off and tune out the need of individual movie goers to find themselves within the character and story.
When I'm paying for a movie ticket, I expect to form my own thought, not have it "thought out" for me. I was never into the Harry Potter series, but a friend (and church sister) felt strongly that the movies showed that magic was the way to solve your problems ; in other words, a way of being self-reliant rather than God reliant. I countered with Narnia. Didn't those movies show magic too? She disagreed and felt that the Narnia movies were pointing to a God-centered life. I still haven't seen any Potter movies to amend my opinion and probably won't. However, the fact that there was enough of a contrast to start a discussion is exactly how a movie, especially when it's purported as a Christian movie, and not just in church groups.
Lord of the Rings is another series that, to me, clearly shows good triumphing over evil. Jesus triumphing over Satan. The fact that a Hobbit is the "savior" of the series is even more compelling since they are the lowliest creatures in Middle Earth. I'm not suggesting that there is one theme to take away from Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, but when millions of people around the world see a movie and resonate with it, they are clearly being touched in a deep and meaningful way.
The latest slew of Christian movies hasn't affected me much since I already know that they will follow the formula of portraying Christ as essentially a white, philosophical type man in long robes, disrespecting the racial and cultural demographic of today and ignoring the historical evidence of the time as well as glaring Biblical proof that describes Christ as a complex human being with a socially complex and conflicted life; mixed emotions, anger, questionable friends and acquaintances, a sacrificial nature, and a forgiving spirit.
Every movie with a "church scene" is not a Christian movie. In fact, most of them probably aren't. It numbs and degrades Jesus lovers when a director uses a "sudden conversion" church scene as the inception of the Christian life or the usual route to Christianity. Where are the stories of the drunk who gets saved in a seedy hotel room? Or the addict who has to o.d. in order to come to Christ? Those stories are real and lack the lulling effect of seeing Abraham and Lot for the umpteenth time. The Old Testament accounts are very compelling, however the lack of fresh perspective and apparent research of how desert nomads (Bedouins) actually live and thrive in the desert is not.
As Hollywood seems to make a little room for different religious perspectives, they must accept that at times the perspectives will be harsh and offend all kinds of people. They are often not politically correct and non-inclusive. Isn't that what good movies do? Quite a few non-Christian directors are adulated and practically deified for their brash, violent "tell it like it is" style, yet they are heralded as movie making mavericks and pioneers of post-modern storytelling.
For Christian movie makers, the new and more difficult challenge is to transform the safe Bible stories into the palpable and gritty realities that are chronicled therein, not make it more palatable for families only or into a Scripture filled Sunday sermon that can't be understood by non church goers.
The controversy over Noah disturbed me because of the virulent attack on the movie by Christian "leaders". Leaders who believe the only way to make "real" Christian movies is to dress white people in long dirty robes and set it in a desert. Or make a movie with an obvious and rather unchallenging moral ending (e.g. Fireproof, "reconcile with your wife"). I enjoyed Fireproof, by the way.
A formulaic approach cheapens the movie-going experience, insults the dignity and intelligence of the movie-going audience, and spoon-feeds a "version" of God without challenging people to really discover how who God (the God of the Bible for the purposes of this discussion) is. For that matter, who is the Son of God?
When a movie too carefully defines or filters the "message", then there is no message. I've seen examples of atheistic or Buddhist written/directed movies strongly pushing their "message" as if the audience has no right or choice but to accept their way of thinking. Ultimately, such strongly themed movies turn audiences off and tune out the need of individual movie goers to find themselves within the character and story.
When I'm paying for a movie ticket, I expect to form my own thought, not have it "thought out" for me. I was never into the Harry Potter series, but a friend (and church sister) felt strongly that the movies showed that magic was the way to solve your problems ; in other words, a way of being self-reliant rather than God reliant. I countered with Narnia. Didn't those movies show magic too? She disagreed and felt that the Narnia movies were pointing to a God-centered life. I still haven't seen any Potter movies to amend my opinion and probably won't. However, the fact that there was enough of a contrast to start a discussion is exactly how a movie, especially when it's purported as a Christian movie, and not just in church groups.
Lord of the Rings is another series that, to me, clearly shows good triumphing over evil. Jesus triumphing over Satan. The fact that a Hobbit is the "savior" of the series is even more compelling since they are the lowliest creatures in Middle Earth. I'm not suggesting that there is one theme to take away from Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, but when millions of people around the world see a movie and resonate with it, they are clearly being touched in a deep and meaningful way.
The latest slew of Christian movies hasn't affected me much since I already know that they will follow the formula of portraying Christ as essentially a white, philosophical type man in long robes, disrespecting the racial and cultural demographic of today and ignoring the historical evidence of the time as well as glaring Biblical proof that describes Christ as a complex human being with a socially complex and conflicted life; mixed emotions, anger, questionable friends and acquaintances, a sacrificial nature, and a forgiving spirit.
Every movie with a "church scene" is not a Christian movie. In fact, most of them probably aren't. It numbs and degrades Jesus lovers when a director uses a "sudden conversion" church scene as the inception of the Christian life or the usual route to Christianity. Where are the stories of the drunk who gets saved in a seedy hotel room? Or the addict who has to o.d. in order to come to Christ? Those stories are real and lack the lulling effect of seeing Abraham and Lot for the umpteenth time. The Old Testament accounts are very compelling, however the lack of fresh perspective and apparent research of how desert nomads (Bedouins) actually live and thrive in the desert is not.
As Hollywood seems to make a little room for different religious perspectives, they must accept that at times the perspectives will be harsh and offend all kinds of people. They are often not politically correct and non-inclusive. Isn't that what good movies do? Quite a few non-Christian directors are adulated and practically deified for their brash, violent "tell it like it is" style, yet they are heralded as movie making mavericks and pioneers of post-modern storytelling.
For Christian movie makers, the new and more difficult challenge is to transform the safe Bible stories into the palpable and gritty realities that are chronicled therein, not make it more palatable for families only or into a Scripture filled Sunday sermon that can't be understood by non church goers.
"FROZEN" : Gave me Hypothermia
This review comes more than 2 months after Frozen was released to suspiciously overeffusive critical acclaim and box office records.
Usually when a movie garners too much extreme attention, I let things simmer down so that I can have the most objective and positive experience as possible. Such was the case with Frozen.
Supposedly, the story was all about "girl-power". I suppose it's pointless to ask why a demographic of 5-10 year olds need a feminist heroine, but I digress. Speaking of gender imbalance, Disney has portrayed surprisingly few male heroes with their own titles-exceptions being "Hercules". But again, I digress.
The story seemed simple enough from the trailers.
Once upon a time a beautiful ice princess lived in a beautiful castle. One day a handsome prince arrived and...happily ever after. Unfortunately, Disney chose a discombobulated, circuitous route of getting to the "happily ever after" that's not actually that happy. The ice princess never actually experiences romantic love. She's sort of a spinster. She actually kills two men. And she's not that good looking either and doesn't have a particularly catching trademark Disney song. But her sister (yea, there's a sister and she's not evil or very interesting) gets the guy, who's not a prince. Well, her first engagement was to a prince, but it didn't work out (he was evil) but her second relationship did! I kid you not, this is the real story. It reads more like an animated version of "When Harry Met Sally" than a movie appropriate for families.
The girl was not supposed to use her powers (not sure why). She was the only one in the royal family with powers. After making a cool ice and snow playground for herself and her sister she accidentally pierced her sister's mind with snow. The king and queen (later conveniently killed off at sea) took her to the stone/troll people where a troll witchdoctor helped out. It was an accident for crying out loud!
The story was broken from the first scene and continued splintering for the rest of the movie. How a critic could ignore the most basic element of a movie or even praise a movie despite a confusing and poorly written story does a tremendous disservice to the movie going public and encourages studios that sociopathic feminist driven dramas are acceptable. They are not, especially for $12/ticket.
There are a string of open-ended storylines as if the writers wanted to empower the audience to make up our own stories, which is what the major theme of the movie was. It's actually not that empowering or fun to pay to see an animated movie and then leave it feeling unresolved.
As a girl, I loved Cinderella and Snow White. I thought it would be cool to be able to use magic to make my own clothes. I never believed the prince hindered or domesticized the dreams of the heroine. Cinderella's relatives ended up poor and the Wicked Queen in Snow White got killed-what could be more just than that?
I had thought the movie was going to be about an ice princess saving the world, not about her feeling awkward and being sort of indifferent and cruel. She didn't really use her ice power for anything really cool (like Frozo in The Incredibles) except to build herself an isolating ice fortress and transform her elegant queen's gown into a slutty evening gown with a thigh high split. Oh yeah, and she killed those two guys with ice and sent a raging Abominable Snowman after her own sister.
I won't say anymore because that weird feeling- the one that comes when you gulp a scoop of ice cream too fast and your entire tongue, trachea, and esophagus feel stunned- is starting to settle in again.
If Frozen's point was to make me feel stronger as a woman it failed. It only made me feel....cold.
Usually when a movie garners too much extreme attention, I let things simmer down so that I can have the most objective and positive experience as possible. Such was the case with Frozen.
Supposedly, the story was all about "girl-power". I suppose it's pointless to ask why a demographic of 5-10 year olds need a feminist heroine, but I digress. Speaking of gender imbalance, Disney has portrayed surprisingly few male heroes with their own titles-exceptions being "Hercules". But again, I digress.
The story seemed simple enough from the trailers.
Once upon a time a beautiful ice princess lived in a beautiful castle. One day a handsome prince arrived and...happily ever after. Unfortunately, Disney chose a discombobulated, circuitous route of getting to the "happily ever after" that's not actually that happy. The ice princess never actually experiences romantic love. She's sort of a spinster. She actually kills two men. And she's not that good looking either and doesn't have a particularly catching trademark Disney song. But her sister (yea, there's a sister and she's not evil or very interesting) gets the guy, who's not a prince. Well, her first engagement was to a prince, but it didn't work out (he was evil) but her second relationship did! I kid you not, this is the real story. It reads more like an animated version of "When Harry Met Sally" than a movie appropriate for families.
The girl was not supposed to use her powers (not sure why). She was the only one in the royal family with powers. After making a cool ice and snow playground for herself and her sister she accidentally pierced her sister's mind with snow. The king and queen (later conveniently killed off at sea) took her to the stone/troll people where a troll witchdoctor helped out. It was an accident for crying out loud!
The story was broken from the first scene and continued splintering for the rest of the movie. How a critic could ignore the most basic element of a movie or even praise a movie despite a confusing and poorly written story does a tremendous disservice to the movie going public and encourages studios that sociopathic feminist driven dramas are acceptable. They are not, especially for $12/ticket.
There are a string of open-ended storylines as if the writers wanted to empower the audience to make up our own stories, which is what the major theme of the movie was. It's actually not that empowering or fun to pay to see an animated movie and then leave it feeling unresolved.
As a girl, I loved Cinderella and Snow White. I thought it would be cool to be able to use magic to make my own clothes. I never believed the prince hindered or domesticized the dreams of the heroine. Cinderella's relatives ended up poor and the Wicked Queen in Snow White got killed-what could be more just than that?
I had thought the movie was going to be about an ice princess saving the world, not about her feeling awkward and being sort of indifferent and cruel. She didn't really use her ice power for anything really cool (like Frozo in The Incredibles) except to build herself an isolating ice fortress and transform her elegant queen's gown into a slutty evening gown with a thigh high split. Oh yeah, and she killed those two guys with ice and sent a raging Abominable Snowman after her own sister.
I won't say anymore because that weird feeling- the one that comes when you gulp a scoop of ice cream too fast and your entire tongue, trachea, and esophagus feel stunned- is starting to settle in again.
If Frozen's point was to make me feel stronger as a woman it failed. It only made me feel....cold.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
"Belle": Beautifully Tells the Ugly Story of European Slavery (No spoilers)
The only difficulty with Belle is where
to start. Pivotal social issues of race, rigid social structure,
women's rights, and slavery are delicately and artfully balanced
within a textured coming of age and love story. The movie begins
with the obvious contrast. Belle's father, an English aristocrat,
claims her from the slums of London. Moments later, we are immersed
in a country estate rivaling Downton Abbey. Dido (her given name) is
quickly accepted into the family and grows up fully enjoying the
trappings of the good life.
Dido, portrayed by the stunning English
actress, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is layered and interesting. She is
completely believable as an 18th century English
aristocrat and also reveals a complex and emotional performance as
the child of a slave. Her gradual awakening to the miseries of the
slave trade and the vagaries of her own social
position as a person of color
are portrayed authentically and consistently.
Tom Wilkinson offers a heavy
weight performance as Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice of England and Dido's uncle, his love and protection of Dido paralleled with his duty to execute
judgment in the case of the Zong, a slave ship insurance fraud case.
The performances of all the actors
don't merely provide support but stand on their own as individual
accomplishments bringing pointed and fresh dialogue to the social
issues at hand and infusing the major plotlines with unexpected
perspective.
This movie while being extremely well
written, directed, and acted in its own right offers a creative
counter weight to “12 Years A Slave.” We finally get to see the
extent of European complicity in the slave trade and the impact of
England's legal directives on African slavery. Also, the appearance
of Blacks in the English courtrooms provides a glimpse into the
active role that former slaves and freeman played in abolishing
slavery and impacting global slave laws (including America's Fugitive
Slave Law). Some may believe that Dido's mixed-race parentage was an
isolated incident, but to do so only denies history and perpetuates
the tragedy that more of these movies haven't been made before now.
I can't overemphasize the importance and quality of
this movie. The story is monumental. It compels and immediately
demands further research, discussion, and retrospection. It doesn't
“tell” a story as much as it immerses you in their lives and
thoughts and hearts. I would do this movie a severe injustice if I
revealed more of the plot.
This movie is unequivocally 5 stars.
Every emotional note is plucked without resorting to convention.
Every character utters complex and interesting dialogue, worthy of
2nd and 3rd viewings. The costuming is as
detailed and beautiful as Coppolla's Marie Antoinette. Most
importantly, the historical accuracy and meaning of this movie as a
pivotal shift in the narrative of slave movies cannot be overstated.
Please insist on seeing it for yourself.
Also contact Fox Searchlight Pictures if this movie is not playing in your area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)